The following cover letter…

The following cover letter and enclosed detailed comments (not shown below) are submitted in pdf format.

***

October 30, 2023

Permissions Modernization Team
Client Services and Permissions Branch
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
135 St. Clair Avenue West
Floor 1
Toronto, ON
M4V 1P5
Canada

Submitted Online: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-6928

Dear Permissions Modernization Team,

RE: Streamlining environmental permissions for stormwater management under the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry, August 2023 (ERO 019-6928)

The Water Environment Association of Ontario (WEAO) membership, comprised of more than 1,000 technical and professional individuals dedicated to the preservation of Ontario’s water environment, has been an active stakeholder supporting the development of design standards and policies related to stormwater management. For example, WEAO has been working together with the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks (MECP) on the Low Impact Development (LID) Guidance Manual as a stakeholder, and on Consolidated Linear Infrastructure Environmental Compliance Approvals (CLI ECA) for stormwater infrastructure through member input to the Ministry’s Stormwater Working Group.

We have reviewed the ERO 019-6928 posting “Streamlining environmental permissions for stormwater management under the Environmental Activity and Sector Registry” dated August 2023, including the associated Discussion Paper. We offer constructive comments intended to support the proposal’s stated goals to achieve “more efficient environmental permissions processes that will support infrastructure development and help protect human health and the environment.”

As noted previously in comments on the LID Manual, WEAO supports stormwater management, infrastructure resiliency, and risk-based approaches through the practical implementation of standards and guidelines respecting regional variances and financial considerations, with a holistic approach to local stormwater management and watershed protection.

Our overall comments on these topics are presented below.

Risk-based Approach

ERO 019-6928’s streamlining of stormwater permissions takes a risk-based approach. It proposes a streamlined registry for privately-owned stormwater works associated with land use activities that have low environmental impacts managed through well-understood technological measures that are regularly applied in our industry.

We believe that further streamlining can be achieved with respect to monitoring requirements by limiting eligible land use activities to very low-risk ones, excluding light industrial types that warrant a less streamlined approach outside this proposal. Ineligible, excluded higher-risk activities could be subject to the approach in the proposal, suitable for point-source discharges where effluent limits may be considered (e.g., under B-1-5). The eligible activities in this proposal are considered non-point sources that, based on risk, should not be subject to a point-source, effluent limits-based approach.

Therefore, WEAO recommends that the proposed registry be restricted to lower-risk sites and land use activities that will not warrant effluent limit monitoring to assess performance and inform operation and maintenance needs. WEAO recommends that higher-risk land uses, such as light industrial, should be subject to monitoring to be determined through a future separate process noted in the Discussion Paper. These recommendations will help ensure a cost-effective approach for low risk activities, focusing resources and efforts on higher-risk activities.

Financial Considerations

We support the MECP in its commitment to complete a regulatory impact assessment to determine the cost of these proposed changes. Costs include those for a Licensed Engineering Practitioner (LEP) to prepare an Operations and Maintenance design report (Discussion Question #4), a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan (Discussion Question #5) and a Spill Contingency Plan (Discussion Question #5). WEAO recommends that the cost of other recommended activities should also be assessed as well, including:

i) Pre-registration Requirements such as identifying nearby receptors, and identification of effluent limits;
ii) Pre-construction Requirements such as nearby receptor notices, as well as
iii) on-going Operational Requirements of record keeping, and effluent limit monitoring,
iv) Notice Provisions such as Monitoring Plans that may be required though a notice by the Director, and
v) Other Requirements such as transition of all existing eligible ECA holders to the EASR over 5 years.

The ECA holder transition cost should include upgrades of existing works to meet the proposal’s new effluent limits. Alternatively, grandfathering existing works designed to meet current Ministry guidance should be considered to reduce the financial burden on existing ECA holders for eligible activities.

We recommend that when overall costs are considered, a risk-based approach should be considered to streamline the requirements for lower-risk activities and reduce the financial burden of this proposal on many low-risk sites. As noted above, this will ensure that these additional efforts and costs focus on higher-risk activities and point sources outside of this proposal where efforts and costs are warranted based on environmental outcomes. Such additional costs are not warranted for eligible, low-risk activities under this proposal.

Practical Technical Standards

The proposal recommends an approach to design and operation that is not supported by industry practice and may be impractical to implement. Specifically, the Technical Requirements Summary indicates “The total suspended solids (TSS) concentration must not exceed 25 mg/L”, however industry practice is to design for average annual TSS removal, not maximum TSS effluent concentrations. Furthermore, the stated TSS limit may not be practically achieved based on past observations - extensive monitoring as part of the “MOE Demonstration Pond” in Markham indicated that average concentrations of 25 mg/L can only be achieved when conventional practices achieve over 90% annual TSS removal, and that peak concentrations would exceed that average value from time to time in facilities designed based on current Ministry design guidance. Therefore, the proposed concentration limit is not practical/achievable with conventional methods and should be carefully reviewed.

Similarly, suggested turbidity, oil and grease and pH limits are not considered in the design of “well-understood stormwater management works” that are the subject of this proposal, nor are they addressed in the Ministry’s design guidance or manufacturer design and performance references. Therefore, we recommend that the proposed effluent limit-based approach be considered outside this proposal for high risk activities under a separate process, as identified in the Discussion Paper.

The focus on receiving water conditions is a worthwhile approach in the context of large systems considering cumulative impacts of thousands of sites over large areas, e.g., monitoring proposed under the municipal stormwater CLI ECA. However, analysis for permissions for low-risk, typically small sites cannot practically assess receiver quality and relate that to effluent limits for an individual site. In essence, the proposal will result in effluent concentration data that cannot be practically combined, analyzed or used to assess receiving waters or advance system-wide management.

Instead WEAO recommends that MECP pursue more-detailed testing of technologies where performance is uncertain and use that information to update design standards where appropriate. Monitoring of individual sites for effluent limits from individual small sites offers no feedback to the industry on practical design standards and performance objectives.

Overlap with Stormwater CLI ECA

Stormwater CLI ECA templates include pre-authorization conditions related to the long-term operation and maintenance of private works that function as part of a treatment train. Municipalities have limited practical means to meet these CLI ECA conditions without developing unique, individual compliance programs that would be inconsistent across the province. Such programs will also be challenging to implement under the current planning approvals regime/timelines (e.g., Bill 23). The proposed EASR represents a parallel system that could effectively replace the CLI ECA conditions for private works, representing a consistent province-wide approach that also categorizes activities according to eligible and ineligible based on stormwater contaminant risks.

WEAO recommends that MECP consider this proposal’s EASR as a practical replacement for stormwater CLI ECA conditions for private works operation and maintenance (i.e., where required as part of a treatment train). The application of an EASR for private works, instead of unique/inconsistent municipality-led compliance systems, will result in significant benefits for hundreds of municipalities. Ultimately, replacing stormwater CLI ECA conditions for private works with an EASR will greatly advance the proposal’s intent on streamlining permissions by avoiding a redundant, parallel CLI ECA compliance approach for private works.

Closure

In addition to the overall comments identified above, additional detailed comments, recommendations and responses to several questions posed in the Discussion Paper, have been prepared. These are attached.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding these comments and recommended revisions to the proposal. WEAO’s member expertise can be consulted and provide significant contribution from a variety of perspectives.

Yours truly,

Anna Cleaver
Chair, Government Affairs Committee
Water Environment Association of Ontario (WEAO)

Encl.: Detailed comments