HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 18-18DICKERING
Report to
Planning & Development Committee
Report Number: PLN 18-18
Date: June 18, 2018
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: Drinking Water Source Protection — Proposed Amendments to the CTC Source
Protection Plan and Toronto & Region Assessment Report
File: D-8100-006
Recommendation:
1. Thatthe proposed amendments, as provided in Appendix], to policies and mapping within
the CTC Source Protection Plan and the Toronto & Region Assessment Report, prepared
by the CTC Source Protection Committee be endorsed;
2. That the City Clerk forward a copy of Report PLN 18-18 and the Council Resolution
endorsing the proposed amendments to the CTC Source Protection Plan and the
Toronto & Region Assessment Report to the CTC Source Protection Committee, Region of
Durham and Region of York.
Executive Summary: The Credit Valley, Toronto and Region, and Central Lake Ontario Source
Protection Plan (CTC SPP) came into effect on December 31, 2015. The CTC SPP consists of
policies that protect municipal groundwater supplies (drinking water wells) and municipal surface
water supplies (water supply plants) from activities that have been identified as threats to water
quality and quantity.
The CTC Source Protection Committee, which is responsible for the development of assessment
reports and source protection plans, has proposed amendments to the policies and mapping in
the CTC SPP and the Toronto & Region Assessment Report. The Clean Water Act, 2006 allows
amendments to be made to a source protection plan provided that a municipal Council
Resolution is obtained from each municipality affected by the amendments, On May 17, 2018,
the City received a notice from the CTC Source Protection Committee requesting Council
endorsement of the proposed amendments (see Appendix I). The CTC Source Protection
Committee is undertaking pre -consultation with affected municipalities and have requested
Council endorsement by June 29, 2018.
The CTC Source Protection Committee expects to conduct broader consultation on the proposed
amendments with the public in July and August 2018. If, through public consultation, there are
Significant changes to the proposed amendments that would impact the City, the CTC Source
Protection Committee will notify the City to determine whether further consultation or Council
endorsement is required.
City Development staff are in support of the proposed amendments to the CTC SPP and the
Toronto & Region Assessment Report, and recommend that Council endorse the amendments
proposed by the CTC Source Protection Committee.
Report PLN 18-18 June 18, 2018
Subject: Drinking Water Source Protection — Proposed Amendments to the CTC Page 2
Source Protection Plan and Toronto & Region Assessment Report
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
recommendations of this report.
1. Background:
The Drinking Water Source Protection process began in 2007 under the authority of the
Clean Water Act, 2006 (CWA). The CWA enabled the establishment of Source Protection
Regions and Areas throughout the province to address threats to municipal groundwater
supplies (drinking water wells) and municipal surface water supplies (water supply plants).
The City of Pickering is within the CTC Source Protection Region, which gets its name
from the first letter of each of its three Source Protection Areas: Credit Valley, Toronto and
Region, and Central Lake Ontario.
Nineteen Source Protection Committees were created under the CWA, each representing
either individual source protection areas or regions. These Committees comprise
stakeholders from source protection authorities, municipalities, businesses and the
general public. Each Source Protection Committee is responsible for the development of:
Assessment Reports that, based on technical studies, identify and assess threats to
municipal drinking water systems; and Source Protection Plans that have detailed policies
on how to address those threats. A threat to drinking water is any activity identified in a
source protection plan that adversely affects or has the potential to adversely affect the
quality or quantity of any water used as a source of drinking water.
The City of Pickering was engaged in the preparation of the CTC Source Protection Plan
(CTC SPP) throughout its development between 2011-2014. The CTC SPP came into
effect on December 31, 2015 and is now in its third year of implementation.
Implementation of CTC SPP policies is primarily shared by the Province, Risk
Management Officials at the Regional level, planning approval authorities, and
municipalities.
2. Proposed Amendments:
On May 17, 2018, the City received notice under Section 34(2) of the CWA and
Section 48(2) of Ontario Regulation 287/07, requesting Council endorsement of proposed
amendments to the CTC SPP and the Toronto & Region Assessment Report (see
Appendix I). The CWA and Ontario Regulation 287/07 allow for amendments to be made
to a source protection plan provided that a municipal Council Resolution is obtained from
each municipality affected by the amendments. The CTC Source Protection Committee is
currently undertaking pre -consultation with affected municipalities and requests Council
endorsement of the proposed amendments by June 29, 2018.
The CTC Source Protection Committee expects to conduct broader consultation on the
proposed amendments with the public in July and August 2018, If, through public
consultation, there are significant changes to the proposed amendments that would impact
the City, the CTC Source Protection Committee will notify the City to determine whether
further consultation or Council endorsement is required.
Report PLN 18-18
Subject: Drinking Water Source Protection — Proposed Amendments to the CTC
Source Protection Plan and Toronto & Region Assessment Report
June 18, 2018
Page 3
The following proposed amendments to the CTC SPP and the Toronto & Region
Assessment Report, that directly affect the City of Pickering, will assist with the
implementation of the Plan and improve the delineation of vulnerable areas.
CTC Source Protection Plan /
Toronto & Region Assessment
Report Reference
Description of Amendment
Transition Provision
The proposed amendments provide the municipality
with greater discretion in determining when a Water
Balance Assessment may be needed.
T-8 (Timeline for Official Plan and
Zoning By-law Conformity with the
CTC Source Protection Plan)
The proposed amendment removes the 5 -year
timeline for conformity and requires conformity
during the next municipal comprehensive review.
GEN -1 (Restricted Land Use Policy)
The proposed amendment clarifies that Risk
Management Officials have the autonomy to
determine the site specific land uses that are, and
are not, subject to review under the CWA.
REC-1 (Land Use Planning for
Protection of Groundwater Recharge)
and Downgradient Line within the
York -Durham WHPA-Q
Proposed amendments to the REC-1 policy clarify
that, within the York -Durham Wellhead Protection
Area for water quantity (York -Durham WHPA-Q), a
Water Balance Assessment is required for major
development north of the proposed downgradient
line and may be required for development on land
south of the downgradient line, subject to the
planning approval authority's discretion.
SAL -10, SAL -12 (Moderate and Low
Threat Policies, Application of Road
Salt)
The proposed amendments ensure that the SAL -10
and SAL -12 policies are applicable in all relevant
vulnerable areas.
Significant Groundwater Recharge
Areas (Toronto & Region Assessment
Report)
Ten maps have been revised to reflect the best
available technical information used to delineate
these areas consistent with the direction provided
by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate
Change.
3. Conclusion and Recommendation:
City Development staff completed a detailed review of the proposed amendments and
provided comments on the proposed amendments' implications for the City (see
Attachment #1). City Development staff are in support of the proposed policy and mapping
amendments to the CTC SPP and the Toronto & Region Assessment Report and
recommend that Council endorse the amendments proposed by the CTC Source
Protection Committee.
Report PLN 18-18 June 18, 2018
Subject: Drinking Water Source Protection — Proposed Amendments to the CTC Page 4
Source Protection Plan and Toronto & Region Assessment Report
Appendix:
Appendix 1
May 17, 2018 Letter from CTC Source Protection Committee on the Proposed
Amendments to the CTC Source Protection Plan and Toronto & Region
Assessment Report
Attachment:
1. Detailed Review of the Proposed Amendments to the CTC Source Protection Plan
Prepared By:
Stev Andis, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner, Policy
rt"rf
Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Policy & Geomatics
SA:Id
Approved/Endorsed By:
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Chief Planner
Kyle Bentley, P.Eng.
Director, City Development & CBD
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix I to
Report No. PLN 18-18
May 17, 2018 Letter from CTC Source Protection Committee on the
Proposed Amendments to the CTC Source Protection Plan and
Toronto & Region Assessment Report
Debbie Shields
Clerk
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON
L1V 61(7
May 17, 2018
Dear Ms. Shields:
NOTICE OF AMENDMENTS
I DRINKING WATER
SOURCE PROTECTION
ACT FOR CLEAN WATERjnxw.rNswp.a`
5 Shoreham Drive. Downsview. ON M3N 154
T. 416-661-6600 I info@[rca.on.ca
CTC Source Protection Region
Re: Proposed Amendments Under Section 34 of the Clean Water Act, 2006 to the Toronto & Region
Assessment Report and the CTC Source Protection Plan
On behalf of the Toronto and Region and Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Authorities, this Notice
serves as an obligation under Section 34(2) of the Clean Water Act, 2006 and Section 48(2) of Ontario
Regulation 287/07.
Background
The Credit Valley —Toronto & Region — Central Lake Ontario (CTC) Source Protection Plan was approved by
the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change in July 2015 and became effective on December 31,
2015. Municipalities, source protection authorities, and various provincial ministries have been
implementing policies within the plan since it became effective.
The Clean Water Act, 2006 and Ontario Regulation 287/07 allow for amendments to be made to a source
protection plan provided that a municipal council resolution is obtained from each municipality affected by
the amendments. A municipality may be considered affected, if it is located within a geographic area
related to the amendments, and/or the municipality is responsible for taking actions or otherwise
implementing source protection policies related to the amendments.
Proposed policy amendments to the CTC Source Protection Plan are largely a result of implementation
challenges. Proposed technical amendments to the Toronto and Region Assessment Report either assist
with the implementation of a policy in the CTC Source Protection Plan or improve the accuracy of original
vulnerable area delineations.
Summary of Amendments Impacting the City of Pickering
CTC Source Protection
Plan / Toronto & Region
Assessment Report Reference
Description of Amendment
Transition Provision
The proposed amendments provide the municipality with
greater discretion in determining when a Water Balance
Assessment may be needed.
T-8 (Timelne for Official Plan and
Zoning By -Law Conformity with the
CTC Source Protection Pian)
The proposed amendment removes the 5 -year timeline for
conformity.
GEN -1 Restricted Land Use Policy}
The proposed amendment clarifies that Risk Management
Officials have the autonomy to determine the site specific
land uses that both are, and are not, subject review under
the CWA,
REC-1 (Land Ilse Planning for
Protection of Groundwater
Recharge); Downgradient Line
Proposed amendments to the REC-1 policy clarify that,
within the York -Durham WHPA-Q, a Water Balance
Assessment is required for major development north of the
proposed downgradient line and may be required for
development on land south of the downgradient line,
subject to the planning approval authority's discretion.
SAL -10, SAL -12 (Moderate and Low
Threat Policies, Application of Road
Salt)
The proposed amendments ensure that the SAL -10 and
SAL -12 policies are applicable in all relevant vulnerable
areas by adding WHPA-A and WHPA-B (VSs 10) to the list of
areas where these policies apply.
Significant Groundwater Recharge
Areas Toronto and Region
Assessment Report)
Ten maps have been revised to reflect the best available
technical information used to delineate these areas
consistent with the direction provided by the Ministry of
the Environment and Climate Change.
Following receipt of Council Resolutions from all municipalities impacted by the amendments to
the Toronto and Region Assessment Report and the CTC Source Protection Plan, consultation
with the General Public will take place. Public consultation will be a minimum period of thirty-
five (35) days and is tentatively scheduled for July and August 2018. Submission of the
proposed amendments to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change is anticipated in
Fall 2018.
Endorsement of the proposed amendments outlined above, through one or more Council
Resolutions, is requested by Friday, June 29, 2018. Durham Region and Toronto & Region
Conservation Authority staff have been working with Policy Planning Staff at the City of
Pickering to secure the requisite resolution(s) within this timeline. Correspondence confirming
endorsement of the proposed amendments should be directed to the undersigned via
electronic main (jstephens@trca.on.ca) or in hard copy.
2
Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions pertaining to the amendments, their
impact on the City of Pickering, or the contents of this correspondence.
Best regards,
Jar Stephw
Jennifer Stephens
Manager, Source Protection
CTC Source Protection Region
Copy: Stev Andis, Principal Planner Policy
Attachments (3):
1. Proposed Policy Amendments
2, Mapping—Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas
3. Mapping — Location of Downgradient Line
3
CTC Source Protection Plan Policies for Section 34 Amendment —Consultation with the City of Pickering — May 17, 2018
TEXT HIGHLIGHTED IN GREY INDICATES A REMOVAL (STRIKETHROUGI4) OR ADDITION (BOLD) FROM APPROVED CTC SOURCE PROTECTION
PLAN (JULY 2015)
TRAN5IT!ON PROVISION
Under the Clean Water Act 2446, there is consideration for source protection plans (SPPs) to have a Transition Provision that outlines the circumstances
under which a "future" drinking water threat activity, that would otherwise be prohibited, may be considered as "existing", even if the activity has not
yet commenced. The intent is to allow applications in transition to proceed while drinking water threats are managed under the "existing threat"
policies.
The CTC Source Protection Committee included a Transition Provision to recognize situations where an approval -in -principle to proceed with a
development application had already been obtained, or where a complete application was made prior to the date the SPP came into effect, but requires
further planning approvals to implement the application in progress.
The CTC SPP was approved by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change on July 28, 2015 and became effective on December 31, 2015.
Applications submitted after the effective date of the CTC SPP may only be transitioned if they are helping to implement an application in process prior
to the date the CTC SPP took effect.
"Existing Threat" policies apply to prescribed drinking water threat activities under the following circumstances;
1) A drinking water threat activity that is part of a development proposal where a Complete Application (as determined by the municipality or Niagara
Escarpment Commission) was made under the Planning Act, Condominium Act or Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (NEPDA) prior to
the day the Source Protection Plan comes into effect. The policy for "existing" drinking water threats also applies to any further applications required
under the Planning Act, Condominium Act, Prescribed Instruments, or a development permit under the NEPDA, to implement the development
proposal.
2) A drinking water threat activity that is part of an application accepted for a Building Permit, which has been submitted in compliance with Division C
1.3.1.13 (5) of the Ontario Building Cade under the Building Code Act, 1992 as amended, prior to the day the Source Protection Plan comes into effect.
3) A drinking water threat activity that is part of an application accepted for the issuance or amendment of a Prescribed Instrument prior to the day the
Source Protection Plan comes into effect.
Page 1 of 11
CTC Source Protection Plan Policies for Section 34 Amendment— Consultation with the City of Pickering— May 17, 2018
Explanatory Document Text
The Transition Provision outlines the circumstances under which a future significant drinking water threat activity may be considered an existing significant
drinking water threat activity
The Clean Water Act, 2006 requires source protection plans to contain policies to address both existing and future threat activities. The Clean Water Act,
2006 further specifies that all policies will come into effect upon the plan approval date or an effective date specified by the Minister of the Environment
and Climate Change. Transition provisions have been developed to recognize those situations where an applicant has either obtained an approval -in -
principle to proceed with a development application, or where a complete application has already been made to a planning approval authority that are In
process" on the date the Source Protection Plan comes into effect. They are not designed to allow proponents to ignore or circumvent the provision
contained in this Plan. They will allow the applications to proceed subject to existing significant drinking water threat policies.
The CTC Source Protection Committee concluded a transition provision should be included in the Source Protection Plan to be fair to those with
applications in progress or that have received an approval -in -principle to proceed with works. The policy will allow those with complete applications made
under the Planning Act or Condominium Act, building permits submitted in compliance with Division 0.1.3.1.13 (5) of the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 as
amended, development permits under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Develapment Act, or an application for the issuance or amendment of a
Prescribed Instrument prior to the day the Source Protection Plan comes into effect to be treated as existing threat activities.
Tronsition Provision and Policy REC-1
Policy REC-1 is intended to apply to "future threats" in a WHPA-Q2 with a significant or moderate risk level. However, if an application subject to REC-1
Parts 2a) and 2b) is submitted after the date the source protection plan came into effect (December 31, 2015), but is required to implement a
development proposal in progress (as per the Transition Provision), the threat (reducing aquifer recharge) is to be managed as "existing".
Through the plan review process, the Planning Approval Authority will decide what is required to ensure the "existing" threat does not become
significant. This is generally to be determined through water balance assessments, or their equivalent (e.g. addendums or amendments to previous
stormwater management reports undertaken on site). The Nanning Approval Authority may, however, determine that an application submitted after
the Transition Provision deadline to implement an application in progress would not increase impervious cover and a water balance assessment (or
equivalent) is not required.
The CTC Source Protection Committee intended to allow the Planning Approval Authority the flexibility to require the appropriate level of detail in a
specific water balance assessment (or equivalent) that is commensurate with the scale and location of the proposed development. Some areas of the
WHPA-Q2 are particularly important for recharge (i.e. Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas) and should be given specific protection, while others
may not be as important and/or cannot provide the required level of infiltration. Therefore, the water balance assessment (or equivalent) should
include a site specific assessment, acknowledgement of previous planning approvals obtained or in progress that could impact infiltration, and an
identification of recharge characteristics.
Page 2 of 11
CTC Source Protection Plan Policies for Section 34 Amendment— Consultation with the City of Pickering — May 17, 2018
Ultimately, the intent of the water balance assessment is to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Planning Approval Authority, that pre -development
recharge will be maintained to the greatest extent feasible through best management practices such as low impact development (LID), minimizing
impervious surfaces, and lot level infiltration.
Policy ID
Timelines for Policy Implementation
Land Use Planning
T-8
Official plans shall be amended for conformity with the Source Protection Plan within 5 yevrc from the date the Source Protection Plan takescffcet,
of at the time of the next review in accordance with s.26 of the Planning Act, •s first Zoning by-laws shall be amended within 3 years
aFter the approval of the official plan.
Explanatory Document Text
Section 40(1) of the Clean Water Act, 2006 requires that the Council of a municipality ora municipal planning authority that has jurisdiction in an area to
which the source protection plan applies shall amend its Official plan to conform with significant threat policies and designated Great Lakes policies set
out in the source protection plan. In part 2 of Section 40, the Council or municipal planning authority are required to make these amendments before
the date specified in the source protection plan. Timeline T-8 in the CTC Source Protection Plan required that Official Plans be amended for conformity
within 5 years from the date the Plan took effect (i.e., December 2020).
Several upper tier municipalities within the CTC Source Protection Region have communicated the difficulty with achieving the December 2020 timeline
as outlined in the CTC Source Protection Plan which also impacts the ability of those lower tier municipalities dependent on the completion of the
conformity exercise by their upper tier counterparts in meeting the same timeline. Further, the Government of Ontario released the Growth Plan for
the Greater Golden Horseshoe (`Growth Plan') in May 2017. The Growth Plan was prepared and approved under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 and took
effect on July 1, 2017. Upper Tier municipalities are expected to review and update their Official Plans to conform with the updated Growth Plan by July
7027; Inwer tier municipalities must conform within 1 year of their upper tier counterparts. CTC Source Protection Reginn muniripalities have
communicated that completing conformity with the CTC Source Protection Plan and the Growth Plan, 2017, in unison, would be more time and cost
effective.
Page 3 of 11
CTC Source Protection Plan Policies for Section 34 Amendment — Consultation with the City of Pickering — May 17, 2018
Policy ED
Implementing
Body
Legal
Effect
Policy
When Policy
Applies
Monitoring
PoIicy
GEN -1
Municipality
RMO
A
I
s.59 Restricted Land Uses
All land designated for the f Section 59 Restricted Land Usc- the Clean Water
Immediately
(T-9)
Amend OPs
for conformity
within 5
MON-1
MON-2
uses arc purp sc under
Act, 2006 the the following
with exception of residential -uses, rn all areas where activities arc, or would
be, drinking throat....
a significant water
In accordance with Section 59 of the Clean Water Act, 2006, all land uses, except solely residential uses,
where significant drinking water threat activities have been designated for the purposes of Sections 57
and 58 of the Clean Water Act, 2006, are hereby designated as Restricted Land Uses and a written notice
from the Risk Management Official shall be required prior to approval of any Building Permit, Planning
Act or Condominium Act application.
Despite the above policy, a Risk Management Official may issue written direction specifying the situations)
under which a planning authority or Chief Building Official may be permitted to make the determination
that a site specific land use designation is, or is not, designated for the purposes of Section 59. Where
such direction has been issued, a site specific land use that is the subject of an application for approval
under the Planing Act or fora permit under the Building Code Act is not designated for the purposes of
Section 59, provided that the planning authority or Chief Building Official, as applicable, is satisfied that:
a. The application complies with the written direction issued by the Risk Management Official; and„
b. The applicant has demonstrated that a significant drinking water threat activity designated for
the purposes of Section 57 or S8 will not be engaged in, or will not be affected by the
application.
c. Where the Risk Management Official has provided written direction designating a land use for
the purpose of section 59, a written Notice from the Risk Management Official shall be
required prior to approval of any Building Permit under the Building Code Act, I992 as
amended, in addition to Planning Act and Condominium Act applications in accordance with
Section 59 of the Clean Water Act, 2006.
years
and ZBLs
within 3 years
of OP approval
(7-8)
Explanatory Document Text
Policy GEN -1 manages existing and future activities within vulnerable areas where the activity is or would be a significant drinking water threat as
designated under section 59 of the Clean Water Act, 2006, by requiring Risk Management Officials to screen applications for works proposed under the
Planning Act, the Condominium Act, and the Building Code Act 1992 as amended, excluding residential uses.
Page 4 of 11
CTC Source Protection Plan Policies for Section 34 Amendment — Consultation with the City of Pickering — May 17, 2018
Where the activities are or would be a significant drinking water threat, this policy requires municipalities to designate land uses within their Official Plans
and Zoning By -Laws. This will allow for the pre-screening by the Risk Management Official, 4,4 using section 59 of the Cleary Water Act, 2006. Section 59
policies require that municipalities put a process in place to "flag" for the Chief Building Official and the Planning Department applications made under the
Planning Act and o,r the Condominium Act, as well as ei`an application for a building permit under the Building Cade Art, 1992, as amended, that is within
a vulnerable area where a threat could be significant and where Part IV authorities are being used to prohibit or manage activities. The "flag" would
indicate to the Chief Building Official or the Planning Department that the proposal needs to be reviewed by the Risk Management Official. Once the Risk
Management Official is satisfied that the applicable Part IV policies are addressed, he/she would issue a "Notice to Proceed". This Notice is used to let the
Chief Building Official or Planning Department know they can proceed with +Pr processing the proposal.
Risk Management Officials in the CTC Source Protection Region have communicated that Policy GEN -1, as originally written, had ambiguity regarding
their ability to determine when site-specific land uses, activities, or building projects are or are not subject to Section 59 Notice requirements under the
Clean Water Art, 2006. The revised policy text now has clear policy direction allowing Risk Management Officials the autonomy to determine the site
specific land uses that both are and are not subject to Section 59 Notices.
Page 5 of 11
CTC Source Protection Pian Policies for Section 34 Amendment — Consultation with the City of Pickering — May 17, 2018
Policy
ID
Threat
Description
Implementing
Body
Legal
Effect
Policy
Where Policy
Applies
When Policy
Applies
Monitoring
Policy
Land Use Planning
Where the application of road salt would be a moderate or low drinking water threat, the
planning approval authority is encouraged to require a salt management plan, which
Future:
includes a reduction in the future use of salt, as part of a complete application for
development which includes new roads and parking lots in any of the following areas:
immediately
(T-9)
• WHPA-A (V5 = 10) (existing, future); or
Moderate/
Low
• WHPA-B (VS 510) (existing, future); or
See
Chapter 5
Amend OPs
Threats
Planning
• WHPA-C (future); or
of the
for
SAL -10
application
of Road Salt
Approval
Authority
B
• WHPA-D (future); orconformity
• WHPA-E (VS ? 4.5 and <9) (future); or
• HVA (future); or
respective
Assessment
Report
5
N/A
yrcc and
• SGRA (VS ? 6) (future).
ZBLs within
3 years of
Such plans should include, but not be limited to, mitigation measures regarding design of
parking lots, roadways and sidewalks to minimize the need for repeat application of road
salt such as reducing ponding in parking areas, directing stormwater discharge outside of
vulnerable areas where possible, and provisions to hire certified contractors.
OP approval
(T-8)
Page 6 of 11
CTC Source Protection Plan Policies for Section 34 Amendment — Consultation with the City of Pickering — May 17, 2018
Policy
ID
Threat
Description
Implementing
Body
LegalPoli
Effect
Where Policy
Applies
When Policy
Applies
Monitoring
Policy
SAL -12
Moderate/
Low
Threats
Application
of Road Salt
Municipality
.I
Specify Action
Where the application of road salt on unassumed roads and private parking lots with
greater than 200 square metres is, or would be, a moderate or low drinking water threat in
any of the following areas:
• WHPA-A (VS = 10) (existing, future); or
• WHPA-B (VS 5 10) (existing, future); or
• WHPA-C (existing, future); or
• WHPA-D (existing, future); or
• WHPA-E (V5 L:4.5 and <9) (existing, future); or
• HVA (existing, future); or
• SGRA (V5 ? 6) (existing, future);
the municipality is encouraged to:
a) require implementation of a salt management plan which includes the goal to minimize
salt usage through alternative measures, while maintaining public safety; and
b) require the use of trained individuals in the application of road salt (could include
technicians and technologists and others responsible for salt management plans, winter
maintenance supervisors, patrollers, equipment operators, mechanics, and contract
employees).
See
Chapter S
of the
respective
Assessment
Report
Existing &
Future:
Consider
within
2 years
(T-15)
N/A
Page 7 of 11
CTC Source Protection Plan Policies for Section 34 Amendment — Consultation with the City of Pickering — May 17, 2018
Explanatory Document Text
Policies SAL -10 through SAL -13 apply to low and moderate threat areas.
The CTC Source Protection Committee has chosen to include a land use planning policy using Planning Act tools and a number of Specify Action policies
where the threat is low or moderate in recognition that road salt application and storage activities are carried out throughout
the source protection region; chloride and sodium are very mobile chemicals that move easily and rapidly into and through aquifers; and that there are
many other sources of drinking water that may be protected as well through implementation practices to reduce the threat.
All of these low and moderate threat policies are non -legally binding. Each specific implementer must have regard for the policy in making decisions, but
has the flexibility of determining what action(s) will be taken. While an implementer is not required to provide a report on their actions on implementing
law or moderate threat policies. the CTC Source Protection Committee encourages them to provide information that will help in future review and revision
of policies.
Page 8 of 11
CTC Source Protection Plan Policies for Section 34 Amendment --Consultation with the City of Pickering — May 4, 2018
Policy ID
Threat
Description
Implementing
Body
Legal
Effect
Policy
Where Policy
Applies
When Policy
Applies
Monitoring
Policy
REC-1
An activity
that
reduces
recharge to
an aquifer
Planning
Approval
Authority
A
Land Use Planning (Planning Policies far Protecting Groundwater Recharge)
For applications under the Planning Act within the Tier 3 Water Budget WHPA-Q2 identified as having
significant water quantity threats, the relevant Planning Approval Authority shall ensure recharge
reduction does not become a significant drinking water threat by:
1) Requiring new development and site alteration under the PlanningActfor Icnds coned tow
Density Residential Agricultural to implement best management
Future:
WHPA-Q2
with a
significant risk
level
See Maps
3.1
3.2
Future:
WHPA-42
with a
moderate risk
level
See Maps
3.3
3.4
Future:
Immediately
(T-9)
Amend OPs
for
Conformity
within
5
MON-1
(excluding subdivisions) cr rcncd
practices such as Low impact Development (LID) with the goal to maintain predevelopment recharge.
Implementation of best management practices is encouraged, but voluntary, for Agricultural Uses,
Agriculture -related Uses, or On-farm Diversified Uses where the total impervious surface does not
exceed 14 per cent of the lot.
2) Requiring that for family dwelling)
all site plan fexclud+ng an application one single and subdivision
applications to facilitate major development (excluding development on lands down -gradient of
municipal wells in the Toronto & Region Source Protection Area [Figure X]) for new residential,
commercial, industrial and institutional uses provide a water balance assessment for the proposed
development to the satisfaction of the Planning Approval Authority which addresses each of the
following requirements:
a) maintain pre -development recharge to the greatest extent feasible through best management
practices such as UD, minimizing impervious surfaces, and lot level infiltration;
b)re-development recharge cannot be maintained on site, implement and maximize off-site
where p g p
recharge enhancement (within the same WHPA-Q2) to compensate for any predicted foss of
recharge from the development; and
c) for new development (excluding a minor variance) within the WHPA-42 and within an Issue
Contributing Area (for sodium, chloride or nitrates), the water balance assessment shall consider
water quality when recommending best management practices and address how recharge will be
maintained and water quality will be protected.
The Planning Approval Authority shall use its discretion to implement the requirements of this policy
to the extent feasible and practicable given the specific circumstances of a site and off-site recharge
opportunities.
3) Only approving settlement area expansions as part of a municipal comprehensive review where it
has been demonstrated that recharge functions will be maintained on lands designated Significant
Groundwater Recharge Areas within WHPA-Q2.
4) Amending municipal planning documents to reference most current Assessment Reports in regards
tathe Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas within WHPA-Q2.
yr.:. and
ZBLs within
3 years of
OP approval
(T-8)
Page 9 of 11
CTC Source Protection Plan Policies far Section 34 Amendment --Consultation with the City of Pickering— May 4, 2018
EXPLANATORY DOCDIVMENT TEXT
Policy REC-1 is a land use planning policy that manages activities that reduce recharge to an aquifer. This policy applies to future threats in a WHPA-Q2 with a
significant or moderate risk level.
The intent of the policy is to ensure that the Planning Approval Authority makes decisions that do not result in recharge reduction from new development
becoming a significant drinking water threat within a WHPA-Q2. The Planning Approval Authority, through the plan review process (Le., Planning Act applications)
will determine what is required, and determine the acceptability of the proposed actions, in the water balance assessments.
The CTC Source Protection Committee wants the Planning Approval Authority to have the flexibility to require the appropriate level of detail in a specific water
balance assessment commensurate with the scale and location of a proposed development. For example, within the WHPA-Q2 are areas that have been identified
as Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas which are particularly important due to the nature of the soils and slope that permit higher than average infiltration of
precipitation to replenish the groundwater. These areas should be given particular protection. Other areas within the Tier 3 WHPA-Q2, may not be important for
recharge and/or cannot provide the required infiltration due to the local soil and slope conditions. Site specific assessment and identification of the recharge
characteristics of the site should be part of such water balance assessments or equivalent. Where a detailed assessment is warranted, using the current version of
the Tier 3 Water Budget model and updated information should ensure that the results are technically robust and comparable to the original analysis. The local
source protection authority has the model files and information to support this analysis, but it is envisioned that an applicant will have to retain qualified expertise
to do the analysis.
The Source Protection Committee encourages the "complete application" check list be updated to include the Water Balance Assessment.
The intent of Part 1) of the policy is to_-
hydrsgealoo4ca-1 as s, be -t te-pretcct recharge by requiring instead t -het they imp! m—en- be. t pf-etiees that 40-1---d-ec-e-c-relirninate any
imp:c_ from their building or dcvelopmcnt activities that are subject to planning approvals. provide an appropriate level of policy direction to maintain recharge
for development and site alteration associated with smaller -scale or agriculture -related development not covered by Part 2 of this policy. in lieu of providing
hydrogeological assessments, applicants are required, or in the case of agriculture -related development where the total lot impervious surface is beneath a
threshold of 10 per cent, encouraged to voluntarily implement best management practices, that will reduce or eliminate any impact from tteix building, of
development, or site alteration activities that are subject to planning approvals
With respect to the voluntary implementation of Part 1) of this policy for Agricultural uses, Agricultural -Related Uses, and On-farm Diversified Uses these terms
have the same meaning as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 and as further articulated in the Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime
Agricultural Areas, 2016. The 10 percent impervious threshold for agricultural -related uses is adapted from Policy 3.2.4.2 of the Greenbelt Plan, 2017 for the
purposes of this policy.
In general, on low density and agriculturally zoned lands, it is possible to ensure that roof and impermeable surface run-off can be directed to on-site infiltration
and thus maintain recharge without requiring technical assessments.
Page 10 of 11
CTC Source Protection Plan Policies for Section 34 Amendment - — Consultation with the City of Pickering — May 4, 2018
The intent of Part 2) of this policy is to ensure certain Planning Act applications 4excludiflg an application for one single family dwelling and on lands zoned
,agr-i-eu-l-tua include an assessment of the potential reduction in recharge so that specific measures are identified and implemented to ensure the proposal does
not result in recharge reduction becoming a significant drinking water threat within a WHPA-Q2. This requirement applies to major development on lands with the
greatest potential for reducing recharge, such as commercial, employment, institutional, industrial uses and includes residential subdivisions. but excludes
npplicotion f ~ one Single family dwelling. Planning Act applications applicable to Parts 2 (a) and (b) include site plan applications, draft plan of subdivision
applications, and any associated implementing official plan or zoning by-law amendment applications, however, applications for development on lands zoned
agricultural, which do not meet the criteria for major development, and any development on lands down -gradient of municipal wells in the Toronto and Region
Source Protection Area [See Figure X], are exempt from Part 2).
The intent of Part 2 (b) is to allow the municipality the option where it meets local requirements to require the applicant to locate compensating recharge on
another site within the WHPA-02 where it is not feasible to protect pre -development recharge within the development site. The CTC Source Protection Committee
concluded that the local municipality is best placed to determine the optimal actions to protect recharge and this provides them some local flexibility in their
decision-making.
Part 2 (c) of this policy applies ONLY to those parts of a WHPA-02 which are also within an Issue Contributing Area for Sodium, Chloride or Nitrate. These areas are
shown on the maps in the appendices +a of the CTC Source Protection Plan and also will be provided by the Source Protection Authority m other formats upon
request to municipalities or other planning approval authorities. This requirement is intended to ensure that any risk management measure that is implemented to
maintain recharge does not create a threat to source water quality. For example, infiltration of stormwater containing road salt in an Issue Contributing Area for
Sodium or Chloride is a significant drinking water threat and subject to policies SWG-11 and SWG-12. The CTC Source Protection Committee has included Part 2 (c)
of this policy for clarity to ensure that an implementing body does not inadvertently approve an activity to protect water quantity that is a threat to water quality.
The intent of Part 3) is to ensure municipalities evaluate planned growth against recharge reduction ata large scale and only proceed if the planned growth will not
result in new significant drinking water threats. Once feasibility of the growth is confirmed, development proponents are subject to Parts 1) and 2) of this policy
which are site-specific.
Page 11 of 11
The Toronto & Region
Source Protection Area
Estimated Livestock Density
in Significant Groundwater
Recharge Areas
Legend
Livestock Density
fess than 0.5 Nulacre
OP 03-1.0 Nulacre
oir greater than 1.0 Nufacre
Transportation Network
- Provincial Highway
- Major Roads
--- Municipal Boundary
2 1 0 2 a s 1 10
130.01,63
01 C.oy IpOL Telen10 A Region Source 0.14 . Awe 2011
Saver TRCA. 3156: 06171 Sprael.2010 1010.21310.
Tho map has 6..n proparod W it. 11 proyme,11 r.euir.m onto
064., 1h. Otto WVI.r Act 2006 we should Po used for aha
purpnnONLV atea companion onto rhe mnpenelbl.
000w lfiee autlwfityW source p•pmeten .uilwey. The
r Ialysle wed 10 p0Ruce 1MI5 map rain -see 6-044 ayalabl.
OA xaNpn as more tate [erne map. *004(106600106. 0•TcP
c ,1e apache hemmer*, collected In 04.0, .nee wan
cored adon1i:K 01010101, eh.e being used ler o9Hr
01,16010,.
DRINKING WATER
SOURCE PROTECTION
ACT FOR CLEAN WATOR
-con Ontario
Tbatr•AvAt,
The Toronto & Region
Source Protection Area
Managed Lands in
Significant Groundwater
Recharae Areas
Legend
Percent Managed Land
Less than 49%
40 to 80%
® Greater than 80%
Transportation Network
- Provincial Highway
Major Roads
- municipal Boundary
2 1 2 a 6 6 10
lNorR.pes
(y Copyright Torenrp S Realms Sours. PmNehpn Ansa 206.
Soured!: TRCA.2016; COTTI1 Spadal. 2010 MN R. 2016.
TWO Alm has IMAM pt.parad to marl prwindal rpui.mmv
whilst lh. Clean WMOT AO. 21:106ar4 ehpyld b• 1.14 lo" Ono
Rurpo..s ONLY a6.rppmuha ion was 01. rnpanelbl.
cons.rvalipn .uthodty Or lwrce prolecbon arO or ty Rio
analy,a mad to produc. tls map r.11n an h.rianlatr.
hforma6pn as of an date or the map. Prim* should he a bran
10 sIt..foiric edamabon canard h ao:prdance MT
aseeped .eienbfe pttlocols.hoe h.na ua.d fpr char
Pura: u&
ISOUCEjNC PROTECTION
ACT FOR CLEAN WATER '�
4•Co servation • Ontario
The Toronto & Region
Source Protection Area
Significant Groundwater
Recharge Areas
Legend
Vulnerability Score
2 (Low)
7-1 d (Mod)
6 (High)
Transportation Network
Provincial Highway
Major Roads
-�-
Municipal Boundary
2 1 0 2 4 6 6 10
H -
[q Cenyrlphl. Tome S Replan Scum. Pmxepan Anea,2019.
Seu:e.- TPcA.2018; 06601 Spatial. 2010; WM. 2010.
Thea map paa Latin prepandle 11..6 erv.•inertl reveMements
under 111. clan' 00,.1 Act_ 2006 and ahpuld C. uaw F r qhr-
pureean ONLY ager a era ullaean wilt, the. responsible
eenservalien autnanty er spurn ptaleeb + .u60000. The
a akols mealy pro0uc.0.. map nlinna bast avalaale
hlennallen as arme da!e ohne map. Pnasly snaole e. p:.zp
I0 a.l,Spmke nform alar.0Aected In accordance WW1
eec.p1Ad .q.nefc piarocola wh.n b.iny land /prpa�pr
0011050.
—41
DRINKING WATER
SouRCE PROTECFIOIN
ACT Foe CLEAN WATER',
ConseivNlan UOntario
The Toronto & Region
Source Protection Area
Significant Groundwater
Recharge Areas using rule 44 (1)
and Threshold by TRSPA Jurisdiction
Legend
Significant Recharge
Greater than 150 mmlyr and 215 mmryr^
111 High 500
Low : 150
Transportation Network
—'— Provincial Highway
— Major Roads
�-- Municipal Boundary
'SGRA threshold [or Tier f model
..SRA rhreyhgid for Tier 3 modeI
2 1
0 2 e s
Kilometres
5 10
11
tq Ceps: et. rewrite S RWit* SCure. Prolv0lo. Mew 2018.
50e:1s: TRCA. 2018: 0F1TI spinal. 2010: FIN 8.2010.
T $ rim has scan pl.Aared 10 m.el yrpwnda1 requirements
undm 11e dean Wale: Fel, 2006 End Inside Lou -Ned Mr elver
purp0.1a 0.4LY agar cannulation v n1 m. r..e mwtrre
conservation auihordy or leer. nro[r1en wVrmily. ]Te
anmy.is bled q Crenae* trio map 1.11.6 on boa ava1R6b
irrmmal10 as ce me date or qv Nap. Priority should be given
n
sift 'gentle Ie1prnra1pn 00.01.5 w xce+dmrce . 2s
aeeeylee wenorr 0roleeels when sent, vied SW 011.0
purposes,
1 DRINKING WATER,
SOURCE PROTECTION
ACI EON CLEAN WATER
ornvitation
Rt -Ontario
FOIL�L.tirRW �_�_
The Toronto & Region
Source Protection Area
Simulated Average Annual
Groundwater Recharge (mrn/yr)
Legend
Average Annual Recharge
[mmlyr]
High : 500
11111 Low: 0
Transportation Network
- Provincial Highway
Major Roads
----- Municipal Boundary
2 1 0 2 4 s e 15
— l
lel Copyrlghr. Toronto S Replan Source Paecrien Area. 2016.
Sde:e. TRCA, 31ta:SMT! $panel. 20112: AMP, 2616
This nrw Pas been prepared 1v meet proem dal requirements
under m. CI.. peeler ACI.2C06 and .nwla t. used !mesh.,
pummel TINLY arise eemu! hien 111M N. mtppnsael.
COfll* ¢fieri ae hard yor source prpteclan .utnonry. The
analysis us./ Ip e7oduce .11s map r.l.es en .est 02011.11.
efermatlm as de the dare of she map. Priorly Shoup be urn,
to lire ideate nfom.ten poles red in aererdanee*M
.Co.pI.d sp.nrifs praWcols when being used for of er
iu1po.n.
DRINKING WATER
SOURCE PROTECTION
ACT FOR CLEAN WATER l�
ri
Colsseniativn Ontario
Adja€a - Tosorontio
Y
Mississauga
Lake On$ano
The Toronto & Region
Source Protection Area
Tier 3 Model
Average Annual
Evapotranspiration {mm/yr)
Legend
WHPA otct2 (Moderate Risk Levet)
nMajor Watershed
Actual Evapotranspiration (mm/year)
High : 800
Low : 4
— Provincial Highway
- --- Major Roads
- — Municipal Boundary
2 1 0 2 4 6 ! 10
1119016701.
111 C.epydpllL Temn%d 69969 Sparcy PrpreC6n Pet. 2019.
$dnce:19Cs,2016: 01.1TI $491111, 2010; MNR, 2010.
This map has been 91.99,99 19 meat prooneial re9uiremenn
under the Clean wales Act 20C6Dna 19culd 99 used 91 ether
Purposes ONLY9f19r COasuloboo w::n In0 rotorny61e
ounosrootion author0y 96 ICY rte 11rOteelian 1194194 The
&91y91699 to produce this map r.11n ofl 6.9.3+ara/1c
Monn,mn 9e or the date. of 91 a mop. Priority should be preen
n 9,10 epxirc m1vnnamn 901.919E 11 accordance rfrs.
steepled seientifc pro10courdr, eh 00,0 999E for 0'91
99160099.
1 DRINKING WATER
SOURCE PROTECTION
cnnservanon fj Ontario
Nah 1,,:p Gt•
The Toronto & Region
Source Protection Area
Ter 3 Model
Average Annual Precipitation (mm/yr)
Legend
WHPA Q1/02 (Moderate Risk Level)
nMajor Watershed
Precipitation (mrnlyear)
High : 950
Low : 750
- Provincial Highway
- Major Roads
-�� Municipal Boundary
2 1 0 2 6 1 10
elomeees
iel CeeyryIt. Toronto a Region Source Prete Non Area. 204.
Sources TRCA. 2018; OMTI SpaJal, 2010: YNR, 2010.
Th4 map has been prepares to meet provincial reee.remente
u.det the 0..e Wow Act. 2006 sag .Mould be used fe, caner
purposes ONLY eller cane ultatlen m•.n the reepeeelhle
ten'enauen authpd',y or SOON,' preleCLO.1 aulhonty. Th.
analysis used to produce alis map re:Ies on beet ayalable
infoanmlpnaeed thedaleet the map. PegYy enbile60 pn•eh
la sae spe:I1c clamor.. eedetlea In accordance Yeah
c.pF.d scientific prolocds when being used ler Wiser
purposes.
DRINKING WATER
SOURCE PROTECTION
ACT FOR CLEAN WAT!R
• cnaservauon Ontario
Ar tti nri Rif
Mon
Adjala- Tosorontio
Uxbridge
Aurora
-Pslyri�h •�
Mississauga
The Toronto & Region
Source Protection Area
Tier 3 Model
Average Annual Recharge (mrn/yr)
Legend
WHPA 41142 (Moderate Risk Level)
I-7 Major Watershed
Groundwater Recharge (mm/year)
- High : 500
Low :0
- Provincial Highway
- Major Roads
- Municipal Boundary
2 1 0 2 4 a 10
10orhetrea
tc) Cepyrg ht. T raedn & Reglm 5ea0. Pmrett10n Ani. 2Q11.
204,9.: /RCA. 2010; OMTI Spatial, 2010 MN R. 2010.
T!W r.ap has b.en pnyarpd rc •,44•19.0.4191•1 relIxementt
4iMer it, gem waren Act 20064.9 should b.4aed Per 40,4r
PWrpe.es ONLY Aar vntn the reep0Ay6Fe
eon !ragell autherpy ar 90u4ae pralrroe .ulnmey. 7h.
nalyra used u prctlue• this map rMles m fres avalaple
edormatlen el er the dateptlhe may, Pt[p lry• ahOuC 0. 9N..
4 axle specific nrorrnacen eW.efed in atcartfinee'Ndtl
npred scir4 4 prc acc1e 4.44 being used !brother
purp#.
DRINKING WATER.
SOURCE PROTECTION
acs FOR CLIAN .""
rr
Can Ontario
.4,141...4 Ls!,
Whitchurch er
tduriville,.T
•.'Marl harm
The Toronto & Region
Source Protection Area
Tier 3 Model
Average Annual Runoff (mm/yr)
Legend
® WHPA 01102 (Moderate Pk Level)
Major Watershed
Accumulated Cascade Runoff jmmfyear)
pmgl( High : 800
krEW Low : 0
- Provincial Highway
- Major Roads
- Municipal Boundary
2 1 0 2 4 5 10
Kilometres
ICI Coo.. hl. Toronla a Region Sevres arplerion Area. 2010.
Sapw'TRCA 201er MITI Sesta], 2010; MNR 2010.
TbS map hid MCA prn.r.d to moat p'proclal repuiramom:a
under tae dean VAtee Ad, 2CC6 and •houtd bowed for Whirr
purpuan OYLY paer coesul:a:on wm the re.yanxEle
conservation autor:1y or ICU me praterlipn aelhohry. Tap
analyars wed la produce Ih.a map relies on nest aver:able
ilPormatnn ps e/ lee date& the map. PHorlty should be given
1. alto sreci!ic ulaums:On rolerle4 on aeaeedners wen
.ecepled rcien:if prolocola •nen 04,n used fpr elle•.
purpofei
1 ❑R1NKING WATEP
SOURCE PROTECTION
AC. OC>e CLEA>I Wwi Ep'`
r Conservation 13>Orltart0
The Toronto & Region
Source Protection Area
impervious Surfaces
in SignifcantGroundwater
P.echarge Areas
Legend
Percent Impervious
Less than 1%
1% to 896
Greater than a% but IeSs Shan SO%
Transportation Network
- Provincial Highway
Major Roads
-- Municipal Boundary
2 1 0 2 �� E 10
�~ lucm►lr 1
y�l
(el Cepynti TEmnle a Regbn Sevrca Per, lab, Area_ 2015
Seance: TRO, 41B: 01.171 Spatlii. 2010; MR. 2010.
Ties map has ben prepared le meet pro ,del npuercenq
MOH be Crieln War.Fcl, 2005 and •neuld housed ler der
W rpesas oIutr anar ewWptlon wW a1► faapeaNCle
c4nrernleI aulhernya ammo rretedien aNhprltr. The
analy11 +mS m p D1ut►iha map fele on test avasaafe
nrennatlon as of Me dated the map. Priority should be given
b sitespeClriC nformalion eoifled In accordance wm
aeeeplS scientific mamas when berg Wed foe ohm
WT11s►s.
DRINKING WATER
SOURCE PROTECTION
ACT FOR CLEAN WATOT \
Consecration
FeTM;:.:e my
EDntario
Arno
East
Garasra)ea
MO11O
Adjala -
Tosorortio
�al
Aurora
Uxbridge Scugog
Erin
Mississauga
v -
Milton
OakvlI e
''k2 C'rrr7t1C
Legend
WHPA Zone
A
S
C
E
L .1
WHPA- 0 Boundary
WHPA- 0 D wngradient Line
Transportation Network
— Provincial Highway
- Municipal Boundary
CTC Watershed
Lake
The CTC Source Protection Region
WHPA 0 - ❑owngradient Line
2e 0 5 10 15
l6I.i.ter.
(c) Ceviriceq. CTCSeer. Pieteci.n Reac*, 2617.
Sterns: TRC A:7T: COYt Sp3010.7.01T: ONR. 26tt; 1R DT -CW -C, :]ti
r.a an ase bete orettrn a nets p-s-r5ai nePnmr•ns Lr7irtte uric L.Vflr Ant. 277: ir.7 iceLt bt urn :- carer
7:ry.4i1 ONLY/flat yrsw!Kin -xM1> V1 rexp.niiOn nrrwrvabin a_ttxrtyw man. aethPty. Tna a ai}sir
used tep•e7Y.MR3-.aprd.e,inees weaypk n6+Tatite at eltre J;ofea rot:. PnerrylAc07 bt:!.ee rr sfts1:e1C
flreaeon C051•MGi^ i=nrr.Ca wan a:untia ,rt:pre C:ejus4G `enrol. an fPCiar.
DRINKING WATER
SOUROE PROTECTION
wed
es„Wela bre.
ACT FOR CLEAN WATER
Conservation L ► L ont3110
ATTACHMENT # 1 T4
REP0111 PSN -
Detailed Review of the Proposed Amendments to the CTC Source Protection Plan
1. CTC Source Protection Plan's Impact on the City of Pickering
The CTC Source Protection Plan (CTC SPP) is a list of policies and programs to protect
current and future sources of municipal drinking water (drinking water wells and water
supply plants) from contamination and overuse.
The Lake Ontario based Ajax Water Supply Plant, which is operated by the Region of
Durham, is the City's source of municipal drinking water. Implementation of policies within
the CTC SPP addressing drinking water threats to the Ajax Water Supply Plant is the
responsibility of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change and the Region of
Durham.
The City of Pickering does not have any municipal drinking water wells; however, there are
portions of the City that are within the area of influence (Wellhead Protection Area) for two
municipal drinking water wells in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffvilie.
A Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) is a vulnerable area on the land around a municipal
drinking water well that is delineated to protect water quality or water quantity.
WHPAs for water quality are determined by how much time, measured in years, it takes
water to travel underground to the well. Time of travel, which is influenced by a number of
factors, including slope of the land and type of soil, is an indication of how quickly a
contaminant (e.g., pesticides, sewage, organic solvents, etc.) can move from a WHPA into
a municipal drinking water well. The Clean Water Act, 2006 (CWA) requires a standard
100 -metre radius circle around each municipal drinking water well; this is called the
WHPA-A, The CWA also requires the delineation of further zones; specifically a WHPA-B
(2 -year time of travel), WHPA-C (5 -year time of travel) and WHPA-D (25 -year time of
travel),
WHPAs for water quantity are determined differently than vulnerable areas related to
water quality. Areas around drinking water wells to protect water quantity are referred to as
WHPA-Q1 and WHPA-02 (WHPA-Q). Activities in the WHPA-Q which take water without
returning it to the same source or which reduce recharge to the aquifer are considered
threats to water quantity.
Land within a WHPA is scored based on its level of vulnerability (high, medium, or low).
Additionally, depending on the activity and where it is taking place within the vulnerable
area, a threat could be a significant, moderate or low drinking water threat.
1.1 Protection of Water Quality
The CTC SPP identifies twelve properties in Pickering as being within the WHPA-B, C and
D for a municipal drinking water well located in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville (see
Exhibit 1). Properties within these WHPAs are located in the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan Area; are designated as "Countryside Area" and "Oak Ridges Moraine
Natural Linkage Area" within the Pickering Official Plan; and zoned "Oak Ridges Moraine
Agricultural" and "Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection" in By-law 3037.
Lands within these WHPA-B, C and D areas are generally associated with moderate or
low drinking water threats.
Page 1 of 11
Whitchurch-Stouffville
I�mlewlm WIIrII�IfI W llrin
II
Markham
Uxbridge
mom Municipal Boundary
Federal Lands
TT Assessment Parcels
INK PA
Zone 0
Zone C
Zone
Zone A
o
Well
nMLIEnRIn1n11n1•IY1I 11111Mi WIrqagNmmoAS
Pickering
{
T
Significant Groundwater Duality Threat Areas - Whiitchurch-Stouffville (Wells 1, 2 and 3)
Map Layers: Wellhead Protection Area {WHPA}
PICKERI NG CTC Source Protection Plan (December 31, 2015)
Zones A -D from the:
City Development
Department
PAL SCALE COPIES OF TMISPLAN ARE NAV LAKE FOR VIEW NG AT THE CT,' OF PICKER:NG
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
DATE May 14, 2018
SeeN U0p0010ad peagIIGM— G l!q!gxD
for the Protection of Water Quality
ATTfCHAM EN #�y `/ _ro
ftN
RifliP11� _La la
1.2 Protection of Water Quantity
The CTC SPP also delineates Wellhead Protection Areas to protect for water quantity.
Exhibit 2 illustrates areas in northern Pickering that are within the York -Durham WHPA-
Q1/Q2 (York -Durham WHPA-Q). Lands within the York -Durham WHPA-Q are located in
Pickering's Rural System; are designated as "Countryside Area", "Oak Ridges Moraine
Natural Linkage Area", "Oak Ridges Moraine Natural Core Areas" and "Natural Areas"
within the Pickering Official Plan; and predominately zoned "Oak Ridges Moraine Agricultural",
"Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection" and "Agricultural" in By-law 3037.
Lands within the York -Durham WHPA-Q are identified as being a moderate threat area.
2. City's Implementation of the CTC Source Protection Plan
CTC SPP policies written to protect sources of drinking water, which fall within a WHPA-A,
B, C or D, were developed to primarily address significant drinking water threats. As noted
in Section 1.1, the WHPA-B, C and D which extend into the City of Pickering are
associated with either a moderate or low threat. As such, under the CTC SPP, the City of
Pickering is not required to implement any policies related to the protection of water quality
within the Official Plan.
Through an agreement between the Region of York and the Region of Durham, the
Region of York has assumed enforcement related to activities that may be a threat to
water quality within any WHPA (associated with a municipal drinking water well in the
Region) that extends beyond the Region of York municipal boundary. As such, all planning
applications and building permit applications within any of the WHPA-B, C and D zones in
Pickering are to be circulated to the Region of Durham for submission to the Region of
York and review by their Risk Management Official. City Development staff are aware of
this requirement and have been screening applications to determine whether they are
within the WHPA-R, C and D zones in Pickering.
CTC SPP policies with regard to the protection of water quantity in the York -Durham
WHPA-Q were developed to address significant and moderate threats. As noted in Section
1.2, the WHPA-Q lands identified in Pickering are a moderate threat. As such, Pickering is
required to implement the REC-1 and DEM -2 policies. In addition to these two policies, the
City is also required to implement a general policy (GEN -1) from the CTC SPP. These
three policies, summarized below, will be implemented during the City's next municipal
comprehensive review of the Official Plan:
• GEN -1 (General -1) Policy: This general policy establishes the framework for the
review and approval of proposed activities that may be a drinking water threat.
• REC-1 (Recharge -1) Policy: This policy manages activities that reduce recharge to
an aquifer and applies to future threats in a WHPA-Q with a significant or moderate
risk level. This policy requires proposed development to maintain pre -development
recharge to the greatest extent feasible through best management practices.
• DEM -2 (Demand -2) Policy: This policy manages activities that take water from an
aquifer without returning the water to the same aquifer. This policy applies to new
development in a WHPA-Q with a significant or moderate risk level. This policy only
permits new development if it does not require a new or amended Permit To Take
Water (PTTW). However, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change may
approve new development that requires a new or amended PTTW, if it has
determined the activity would not become a significant water quantity threat.
Page 3 of 11
Whitchurch-
Stouffville
1
Uxbridge
44 .4
Jn�jj#I
Markham
044
PICKERING
City Development
Department
Municipal Boundary
York Durham WHPA - Q
maim ORM Boundary
Federal Lands
Rouge National Park
Assessment Parcels
Significant Groundwater Quantity Threat Areas - York -Durham
Map Layer: York -Durham Wellhead Protection Area 01/02 (WHPA-Q) from the:
CTC Source Protection Pian (December 31, 2015)
FURL SCALE COPIES OF 'ins PVN ARE AVAILABLE FOR V+EWN6AT THE CITY OF PICKERIN6
are DEVFLOPLEHT DEPARTMEN1r
[]ATE: May 14.
Y
2117$
Exhibit 2 — Wellhead Protection Areas for the Protection of Water Quantity
z
111 L tJ v, L.111 4 fl 1 TO
,i P4N / -lS
3. CTC Source Protection Plan Process for Amendments
The CWA enables source protection plans to be revised either through a locally initiated
amendment; through a minister ordered amendment; through a comprehensive review of
the source protection plan; or for minor and administrative revisions.
As a result of comments from municipalities with regard to challenges in implementing
some of the CTC SPP policies, the CTC Source Protection Committee authorized the
formation of an Amendments Working Group to develop recommendations for
amendments to the CTC SPP as a locally initiated amendment,
Prior to conducting public consultation on a locally initiated amendment, the CWA requires
that proposed amendments be endorsed by the Council of each municipality affected by
the amendments. A municipality may be considered "affected" if it is located within a
geographic area related to the amendments, and/or the municipality is responsible for
taking actions or otherwise implementing source protection policies related to the
amendments.
The CTC Source Protection Committee is undertaking pre -consultation with affected
municipalities from April through to June 2018 and has requested Council endorsement of
the proposed amendments by June 29, 2018. The CTC Source Protection Committee
expects to conduct broader consultation with the public in July and August 2018. If,
through public consultation, there are significant changes to the proposed amendments
that would impact the City, the CTC Source Protection Committee will notify the City to
determine whether further consultation or Council endorsement is required.
4. Proposed Amendments to the CTC Source Protection Plan
The following is a summary of the proposed amendments to the CTC SPP and the
Toronto & Region Assessment Report that directly affect the City; and comments on the
proposed amendments' implications for the City.
4.1 Amendments to Transition Provision
Transition provisions in the CTC SPP speak to the circumstances under which a future
drinking water threat, that would otherwise be prohibited, may be considered an existing
threat. The provisions recognize situations where an applicant has either obtained an
approval -in -principle to proceed with a development application, or where a complete
application was made prior to the date the CTC SPP came into effect.
Feedback from municipal staff revealed uncertainty regarding the applicability of the
transition policy in relation to when a Water Balance Assessment would be required and in
relation to a planning approval authority's ability to use a certain level of discretion.
As such, proposed amendments clarify that an application submitted after the CTC SPP
came into effect, but which is tied to an application submitted prior to the Plan coming into
effect, may continue to consider proposed threat activities as existing. An example of this
is when a Zoning Bylaw Amendment application is deemed complete prior to the date the
CTC SPP came into effect, but the related Site Plan application is submitted after the CTC
SPP came into effect. In this situation the same proposed threat activities in the Site Plan
application continue to be considered existing. The proposed amendments also clarify
when a Water Balance Assessment is needed for transitioning applications. The proposed
amendments further specify that, based on the scale and location of development, the
planning approval authority has a certain level of flexibility regarding water balance
requirements.
Page 5 of 11
�+IiAL-fi1EN'rN / TO
H[PORR1 # �► !�i «3
Implication for the City: The proposed amendments provide the municipality with
greater discretion in determining when a Water Balance
Assessment may be needed. City Development staff support
this proposed amendment.
4,2 Amendment to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Conformity Timeline
Currently, municipalities are required to amend their official plans to conform with the CTC
SPP within 5 years from the date the CTC SPP takes effect (i.e., December 2020).
Several upper tier municipalities within the CTC Source Protection Region communicated
that achieving the December 2020 timeline for CTC SPP conformity will be difficult given
the requirement to also conform with the Growth Plan, 2017 by July 2022. The upper -
tier's ability to meet these timelines also impacts the lower tier municipality's ability to meet
the same timeline. Municipalities further communicated that completing conformity with
the CTC SPP and the Growth Plan, 2017, in unison, would be more time and cost
effective.
As such, proposed amendments will now require municipalities to bring their Official Plans
into conformity with the CTC SPP at the time of their next municipal comprehensive
review.
Implication for the City: The proposed amendment provides the City with a more
realistic timeframe for implementing the CTC SPP. City
Development staff support this proposed amendment.
4.3 Amendment to Restricted Land Use Policy (GEN -1)
Policy GEN -1 manages existing and future activities within vulnerable areas where the
activity is, or would be, a significant drinking water threat by requiring Risk Management
Officials to screen applications for works proposed under the Planning Act, the
Condominium Act, and the Building Code Act, excluding residential uses.
Risk Management Officials in the CTC Source Protection Region communicated that
policy GEN -1 had ambiguity regarding their ability to determine when site-specific land
uses are, or are not, subject to review under the CWA. The proposed amendment clarifies
that Risk Management Officials have the autonomy to determine the site specific land
uses that are, and are not, subject review under the CWA.
Implication for the City: The proposed amendment does not affect the City's
implementation of the GEN -1 policy. City Development staff
support this proposed amendment.
4.4 Amendment to Planning Policy to Protect Groundwater Recharge (REC-1) and
Creation of Downgradient Line for the York -Durham WHPA-Q
REC-1 is a policy that manages future threat activities, in a WHPA-Q, that could reduce
recharge to an aquifer and potentially affect the water levels in municipal drinking water
wells. The policy requires development (excluding development of one single detached
dwelling) to conduct a Water Balance Assessment. The policy also requires some new
development to implement best management practices, such as low impact development,
in order to maintain pre -development recharge.
Page 6 of 11
ATTACHMEN1 # / TO
RFPCil3i 0 _L.N /
The REC-1 policy applies to land within the York-Durham WHPA-Q. The York-Durham
WHPA-Q was delineated using a conservative approach that resulted in an area that
extends far beyond the actual radius of influence of the municipal drinking water wells to,
in some cases, areas that obtain municipal water from Lake Ontario.
Some lower tier municipalities within the Region of York noted that implementing the REC-1
policy presented challenges for intensification projects supported by the Growth Plan, 2017
that would otherwise be supported by municipalities and Conservation Authorities, but that
cannot match pre -development recharge rates.
As such, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) developed a
downgradient line, south of which development would not have an effect on the municipal
drinking water well supplies (see Exhibit 3). Proposed amendments to the REC-1 policy
clarify that, within the York -Durham WHPA-Q, a Water Balance Assessment is required for
major development north of the proposed downgradient line and may be required for
development on land south of the downgradient line, subject to the planning approval
authority's discretion.
Implication for the City: The proposed amendments to the REC-1 policy and the addition
of a downgradient line within the York -Durham WHPA-Q results
in less land area within Pickering being subject to a Water
Balance Assessment. City Development staff support this
proposed amendment.
Page 7 of 11
1 r!��
The Toronto $ Region
Source Protection Area
�Rfl
! tN�l�� Ap O�
Area south of aowngradient Line
within the +M -IPA -i71 Boundary
1M1+1 -IPA 0 - Oowngradient Line
,tr.• tiL �h co' Ssglo�
wilE appy where me revised REC-1 policy
Legend
IS~aF`p
' it � .. i- ;
WHPA Zone
WHPA-4 Boundary
r
1
"
Rfl
cQ1yLESSVti p
�J'~~ �`
O
k1G11�11
❑
„r—�• oowngradient Line V, �� �+.�
O*LESSV��R C,, II
1yF PA q Boundary
Area south of Oowngradlent Line
within the 1M -Q1 Boundary
where the revised REC•1 policy
• wip apply
SYN
SES` Q� Gt+•�r- r
`� a
,n /Cid '' ,
j `="... �T�' �'
c- z
e="1
-
- AV PA . 0 Downgra0ael Line
i
yRo
,•\ I
Y
' V�`SR❑ D I+1 I
tJF
r 1
R� I%
• ` �tiTO• O I.
T •I
407 I f 1
1
1
2 1 2 z ,t
`
I
` -{ 1
rn 1
I4 ■ 1
I .
' k
1 Ai
1`I
_ 1
w mfr.a�
J.
..1 C.F.q¢,e.m 2&Rrym to, reP ...n•... 5•a
so. . -Nu x!a b. tl 5}CAl ZOIC tam z,R
Pr G.n N..., SW Er a Nf.w..l. r. w dn«
war....r
,ee-..roan..• N.....yyy.
i �
Lake Ontario
401
PRINKING WATER
S0URLT PRO TECTIpIN
.. w.,..
e 19:>0T1126,
Exhibit 3 — York-Durham WHAP-Q Downgradient Line
z' T
n
2
AT1A(HMEI fl 0 TO
n` PcIP1 , PL i f if3
4.5 Revised Significant Groundwater Recharge Area Mapping
In 2017, the TRCA became aware that parameters used to map Significant Groundwater
Recharge Areas (SGRAs) that were incorporated into the Toronto & Region Assessment
Report (July 2015) were based on initial versus final recharge rates. As such, the TRCA
ran a new model that generated revised outputs based on the final recharge rates. These
outputs are considered to be the best available representation of current average annual
conditions. This resulted in revised mapping and a new threshold for SGRAs. Ten SGRA
maps have been revised and are proposed for inclusion in the Toronto & Region
Assessment Report.
The new threshold for SGRAs has resulted in the proportion of SGRAs in the City of
Pickering increasing by about 24% (see Exhibit 4).
Implication for the City: The City is required to include mapping of Significant
Groundwater Recharge Areas within the Official Plan.
Protection of the hydrologic function of these areas is to be
undertaken through conformity to the water resource policies of
the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan. The City of Pickering Official Plan includes mapping of
Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas and is in conformity
with the Greenbelt Plan, 2005 and the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan, 2002.
The additional land in Pickering identified as Significant
Groundwater Recharge Areas in the revised mapping is
predominately located within the Oak Ridges Moraine, other
natural areas, and agricultural areas. Current City of Pickering
Official Plan policies require proposed development within or
adjacent to a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area to
prepare a hydrogeology and water budget study. These
studies will now also be required for proposed development
within or adjacent to these additional lands.
City Development staff do not have any concern with the
revised Significant Groundwater Recharge Area mapping. The
City of Pickering Official Plan will be brought into conformity
with the proposed revisions to Significant Groundwater
Recharge Area mapping, as well as the revised water resource
policies in the Greenbelt Plan, 2017 and Oak Ridge Moraine
Conservation Plan, 2017 at the next municipal comprehensive
review of the Official Plan.
Page 9 of 11
14Jo01-abed
The Toronto & Region
Source Protection Area
Change in
Significant Groundwater
Recharge Areas
Legend
SGRA- e>:IeM updated le 2018
SG RA-e€1en1 updated in 2014
2 0
x
,ab.,....
21 CAy2fr r0fl4 R.yw :.v. 0c..e.o- Ann . 1G11
Sewer MG. 201& 04171 20...4 ]110 u!!. 2010.
MIN map n..t* a.9..Wb...« p00.0.110.000104.11
Wm. a..n m,.,calnnone ewe a 11.. .
.
ONLY eve ...4avn with m....a. We
In
rang... ...e
01419944. .. ei000000•000
e d.w n11.riv0 awn 00•1•0040.
. res om.0
w 21.401 1210'...0. .
M.o./ ..nada...
. Mr
lce.p.e... Ill. genew. wer. bong.. h. om.1
ram....
DRINKING WATER
OIJRCE PROTECHOPJ
ehol
l.aiai��auon 'Ontario
Exhibit 4 — Change in Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas
rr,
m
;11,r!Ii i[ l t� +n
cif , PLN IS -I
4.6 Amendment to Moderate and Low Threat Policies for the Application of Road
Salt (SAL -10 and SAL -12)
The SAL -10 and SAL -12 policies recognize that the application and storage of road salt
are activities that can result in chloride and sodium moving easily and rapidly into and
through aquifers and as such encourage the preparation of a salt management plan.
The proposed amendments ensure that the SAL -10 and SAL -12 policies are applicable in
all relevant vulnerable areas.
Implication for the City: Through the agreement between the Region of York and the
Region of Durham, noted in Section 2, the Region of York will
implement the SAL -10 and SAL -12 policies through their
review of development and building permit applications within
the WHPA-B, C and D that extends into Pickering. Additionally,
municipalities are required to consider implementing the SAL -10
policy in their Official Plans to address the application of road
salt within Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas and Highly
Vulnerable Aquifers. As the preparation of a salt management
plan is a best practice, City Development staff support this
proposed amendment.
Page 11 of 11