Pembroke District Water Response Team Bulletin #16 December 05, 2012 CONTENT: 1. Confirmed SWMC Low Water Conditions Map as of November 30, 2012 2. Approved Minutes of Water Response Team meeting #15 held November 8, 2012. 3. Draft notes of Water Response Team meeting #16 held November 22, 2012. 1. Confirmed SWMC Low Water Conditions Map as of November 30, 2012 Only one watershed remains in Level 2 and 9 others including Pembroke District remain in Level 1. All other areas do not have a confirmed low water condition. 2. Approved Minutes of Water Response Team meeting #15 held November 8, 2012 Ministry of Natural Resources Pembroke District Water Response Team Meeting Minutes November 8, 2012 Location: Conference Call Only Date: November 8, 2012 Time: 10 am until noon Attendees: Asselin, Mike Renfrew Baird, Alastair County of Renfrew Batten, Sherry Laurentian Hills Belanger, Tammy MNR Pembroke Buckwald, Doug North Algona/Wilberforce Cronier, Karen Petawawa Gilbert, Beth MOE Regional Office Grace, Mike Renfrew County & District Health Unit Handford, Karen MNR Pembroke Hudder, Lorna Killaloe, Hagarty & Richards Kirby, Wayne Laurentian Hills Louis, Annette Admaston/Bromley McGregor Briscoe, Sara Admaston/Bromley Mellema, Noreen McNab Braeside Moore, Bruce OMAFRA Samson, Joanna MNR Pembroke Sayers, Betsy Greater Madawaska Sheridan, Susan Killaloe, Hagarty & Richards Sitland, Doug City of Pembroke Stephen, Scott MNR – Regional Operations Division Taman, Mary Ann MPP Yakabuski’s Office Trost, Claus Laurentian Valley Quintanilla, Raul CFB Petawawa Regrets: Arnprior (Town of) Bonnechere Valley (Township of) Brudenell, Lyndoch & Raglan (Township of) Deep River (Town of) Head, Clara & Maria (Township of) Horton (Township of) Madawaska Valley (Township of) Ministry of Environment (MOE) – Ottawa District Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MAH) Algonquin Park MCSCS – Emergency Management Ontario Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) Agricorp Renfrew County National Farmer’s Union Renfrew Power Generation Ontario Power Generation Algonquins of Ontario Ontario Clean Water Agency Low Water Response Team Meeting Minutes Page 2 1. Welcome Karen Handford (MNR) presented agenda and welcomed everyone. The proposed discussion about the Source Water Protection program (MoE) was removed. Information will be distributed in the next Bulletin for discussion on next agenda. 2. Roll call and confirmation of meeting participants Karen Handford (MNR) completed the roll call. 3. Review of Meeting Notes from October 25, 2012. Karen Handford (MNR) provided an opportunity for all to comment and/or make any changes to the previous meeting minutes and reviewed ACTION items. Also gave opportunity for questions regarding the information distributed in Bulletin #14. She clarified the “Primary Water Service” map was based on the Municipal Property Assessment Corp database which relies on accurate reporting by property owners. Hence some errors exist such as a “municipal” source being reported in a municipality without piped municipal service. Minutes of October 25, 2012 – Approved with the addition of outcomes/responses to ACTION items. CARRYOVER Action items from October 25, 2012 meeting: ACTION – Requesting municipalities to update Info spreadsheet (v2) with the municipal actions recorded (e.g. Conservation bylaws) on the municipal worksheet. Ensure to record if any bylaws have been passed and how are they working and enforced? Also important to know if low water issue is being discussed at council meetings (i.e. what level of awareness & concern) within each municipality. ACTION ‐ Paul Moreau suggested a focused letter to be sent to all municipalities/councils from the WRT. This letter would provide a summary of what has been done, the current situation, where concerns continue to be and what action are planned. The County of Renfrew and MNR are to work off line to put this letter together. ACTION – HOMEWORK ‐ All WRT members asked to prepare a list of “lessons learned” over the past few months. What do they feel they better understand now about the Renfrew County watersheds and low water situation? Take some time to review the previous minutes to jog your memory. Think from your own perspective about topics and discussions that have been particularly interesting or informative. Please send via email to Karen Handford for compilation. ACTION – Rob MacKinnon to review and forward comments on ‘Winter Tips’ document back to Lauree Armstrong (Laurentian Valley). ACTION – MNR will work with County on speaking with School Boards to get regarding how many schools rely on wells. Low Water Response Team Meeting Minutes Page 3 4. Review of current low water response Level II a. Most recent Southern Ontario updates – changing Levels with our neighbours in Eastern Ontario Joanna Samson (MNR) ‐ Received new indicators late last week. Our closest neighbour (Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority – MVCA) has not yet confirmed if they are still in level 2. However, their precipitation and flow levels are definitely showing an increase. b. Current Precipitation & flow indices Joanna Samson (MNR) ‐ Like our neighbours our situation appears to be improving. Precipitation Update: Our 1 month precipitation indicator is showing 103mm of rain last month (71.6 is the 1 month average). Our 3 month indicator is at 109% and our 18 month precipitation indicator is at 91% both of which are well above the 80% level I threshold. Purely based on the 1 precipitation gauge in the County, we would be clearly out of a level response. Flow Update: As of a couple of weeks ago we were still having issues on Bonnechere River. Stream flow on the Petawawa River is definitely up; now flowing at over 100cms. The flow indicator on the Madawaska watershed is now showing 86.41% of the lowest average monthly flow level. Bonnechere for Oct was 2.172%. RPG has removed a good number of logs. Flow is closer to 20 cms now. Indicator is now above 80% as well. In summary, the SWMC indicators for flows on all rivers have now picked up and are no longer within water response level thresholds. However, these indicators need to be confirmed based on what is seen locally. Karen Handford (MNR) indicated she contacted the company responsible for gathering and quality checking the Agricorp data to see if the company monitors other gauges for other clients beyond the May to August period required by the agricultural community. They are currently checking for this information as well as any historical uncapped data for the 16 gauges monitored for Agricorp. Karen Handford (MNR) cautioned everyone that the SWMC precipitation and flow indicator data is a bit misleading on its face value since power generators are currently artificially generating flow as they are drawing down their reservoirs in preparation for winter. Also, the Petawawa River watershed has typically been receiving more rain than the remainder of the county all summer and thus, may not be a good indicator of rainfall elsewhere. Karen Handford (MNR) asked the group for feedback from their local perspective where they felt we stood in terms of a Water Response Level. Low Water Response Team Meeting Minutes Page 4 Mike Asselin (Town of Renfrew) – Indicated that based on the indicators, we should consider backing off from Level II. He was initially comfortable with dropping all levels and was concerned about staying at Level I contrary to the indicators. He reminded the group that back in the spring, moving to a Level I was a big deal and we relied heavily on the very same data. Upon further discussion with the group, Mike later agreed to support a move to Level 1 with the understanding of a re‐evaluation at the next meeting in 2 weeks. Alastair Baird (County of Renfrew) – Highlighted the fact that impacts are still being seen to ground water and wells, but also inquired with municipalities to report usage from municipal systems. Mike Asselin (Town of Renfrew) – Typical seasonal usage Doug Sitland (City of Pembroke) – Typical/normal water usage Doug Sitland (City of Pembroke) – Echoed Mike Asselin’s comments indicating that the ground in Pembroke is saturated (lots of clay here) and that the Ottawa River level has come up significantly to the point where it has flooded a construction site. Drought conditions are becoming an increasingly difficult argument to make so would support a move to Level 0. Betsy Sayers (Greater Madawaska) – Greatest impact in their area has always been on a tourism and recreational level. Have only had one dry well all summer. She agrees that we definitely cannot confirm a Level 2 but would support Level 1. She is looking forward to feedback from hunters as to whether or not swamps and streams have replenished. Also pointed out that one 34 ft dug well in the Village of Calabogie (beside Calabogie Lake) recently went dry and that the well driller had to go to 130ft with the new drilled well in order to find water. Lorna Hudder (Killaloe, Hagarty & Richards) – Haven’t had any indication of any issues all summer; nothing different this year. She agrees with moving to Level 0. Noreen Mellema (McNab/Braeside) – Never had any issues throughout the summer and also supports moving to Level 0. Joanna Samson (MNR) – Re‐iterated that even if we do drop to a non‐level (Level 0) we would not immediately stop this team’s activities, but would continue to pursue opportunities and monitor the situation. Changing levels does not preclude us from continuing our efforts. The SWMC is seeking local feedback and confirmation that the indicators are accurate. Claus Trost (Laurentian Valley) – Still thinks that the water table hasn’t been affected by all the recent precipitation and suggests that we should remain on top of this as we could easily see ourselves in the same situation come spring. He supports a move to a Level 1 response. Alastair Baird (County of Renfrew) – It is clear from speaking with a few well drillers that the impacts of the drought vary widely from one area to the next.