December 4, 2001

Accordingly, the Commission’s evaluation of a RAP at any stage includes consideration of an ecosystem approach to the restoration and protection of beneficial uses and an assessment of the adequacy of public consultation as well as the Annex 2 requirements for the particular stage of RAP submitted to the Commission for its review and comment. Thus, the Commission’s review and comments on the Stage 2 Niagara River RAP reflect an assessment of the document submitted in relation to the five Stage 2 requirements outlined in the introduction , consideration of the implementation of an ecosystem approach to the restoration and protection of beneficial uses, and an assessment of the adequacy of public consultation.

Have in-place remedial measures been evaluated?

The RAP states “The Niagara-Welland basin contributes less than 0.1% of the total flow in the Niagara River. There is concern that efforts undertaken by the Ontario RAP to restore beneficial uses will have limited impact unless significant U.S. sources are addressed.” Therefore, it is difficult to quantify potential environmental benefits of measures due to the magnitude of sources from New York State.

However, progress in reducing industrial point source discharges has been tracked under the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP). The Ontario RAP notes “Industries reduced by 91% the measured daily loads of the 10 chemicals targeted for 50% reduction by 1996.” Based on this progress, the RAP recommended continued monitoring of industrial point sources and the results be published. This is the extent of information in regard to the evaluation of any in-place remedial measures to control industrial point source discharges.

Key components, costs, and benefits of Niagara Region wastewater projects completed since 1990 are outlined in Table 4 in the RAP document. In the table the benefits of these projects are described by qualitative statements such as “improved effluent and quality in Welland River”, “reduces overflows to power canal (Niagara River)”, and “filtration to reduce nutrient load to river”. Quantifying the benefits would be useful in encouraging implementation.

In one example, the RAP details the installation of a granular activated carbon system in the City of Niagara Falls water treatment plant in order to control taste and odour problems. While no evaluation of the action is provided, the RAP states “The Region of Niagara is monitoring the effectiveness of its program to reduce taste and odour problems in the drinking water”. Such information is of value to the AOC community.

In order to have a meaningful assessment of the sufficiency of in-place remedial measures an evaluation of them is needed.

Have alternative additional measures to restore beneficial uses been evaluated?

The Niagara River RAP participants developed criteria in December 1992 for the evaluation and selection of preferred recommendations. These criteria included feasibility, effectiveness, goal attainment, linkage and timing, ecosystem approach and cost.

An evaluation of possible recommendations resulted in nine categories of measures that are considered necessary to restore and protect Niagara River water quality from Ontario sources of pollution. This evaluation process appears to have been useful in highlighting the more effective remedial actions. However, the RAPS recommendations have not been ranked or judged in relation to each other and no priority has been set to focus resources on those which are most cost-effective.

Have additional remedial measures to restore beneficial uses been selected?

RAP participants formulated a list of 37 recommendations that are detailed in Table 6 of the RAP document. Recommendations that RAP participants judged necessary to directly address the Niagara River RAP goals and beneficial use impairments are:

1. the Niagara River RAP become involved in infrastructure needs studies;
2. enforce the Regional Sewer Use Bylaw;
3. the Region of Niagara continue to work towards implementing a water pollution control plant optimization program for all its plants;
4. enforce the Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement: Municipal Program for municipal sewage treatment plants;
5. continue monitoring industrial point sources and publish results;
6. prepare and implement a rural non-point source pollution remediation strategy;
7. ensure mandatory septic system inspection for all rural properties at least once every 15 years;
8. research residential sewage disposal systems to determine best system for use in the Niagara River AOC;
9. continue financial incentive programs by existing agencies;
10. research impact of ring-bill gulls on water quality in the rural areas of the AOC, to determine if it contributes to an impaired use;
11. farmers in the Niagara River AOC be encouraged to follow sound farming practices such as recommended in the Environmental Farm Plan program;
12. additional funding per farm business be given to the Environmental Farm Plan Incentive Program operating in the Niagara River AOC;
13. the lower Welland River be the priority focus of any sediment assessment;
14. potentially contaminated locations be prioritized for review, assessment and remediation;
15. test potentially contaminated sediment sites to confirm absence/presence of contamination;
16. prepare a natural heritage strategy for the Niagara River AOC;
17. the PAC will critically evaluate government review processes to ensure that they embody the principles and objectives of the Niagara River RAP;
18. a regulation requiring treatment or exchange to ensure that ballast water cannot be a way for the introduction of exotic species into the Niagara River AOC be enacted;
19. continue to protect habitat on both sides of the Niagara River as one ecosystem; and
20. municipal planning documents incorporate ecologically based policies and design criteria.

This unranked listing of recommendations shows a good breadth of considerations, however, the lack of timelines and priority setting results in an unworkable agenda for implementation. Costs for some recommendations have not been estimated. No indication is provided regarding which recommendations should be pursued first. In particular, two recommendations call for research and an additional recommendation calls for the development, but not necessarily the implementation, of a natural heritage strategy. It is difficult to see how these recommendations will be remedial actions to restore the AOC.

The RAP states that following discussions with those identified agencies, the responsibilities and schedules for implementing recommendations will be formalized in an annex. Subsequently, an Implementation Annex was prepared by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and provided to the Commission in January 2001. It provided an organizational structure for the RAP recommendations.

The Implementation Annex notes that the Province of Ontario declined to support four recommendations of the Stage 2 RAP. As a result, these recommendations will require alternative solutions. These recommendations are:

21. Provincial and federal governments establish specific government funding programs for RAP implementation;
22. Continue monitoring municipal point sources (sewage treatment plants);
23. Continue monitoring industrial point sources and publish results; and
24. Continue to monitor landfills [as determined to be necessary by monitoring results].

Based on an examination of the January 2001 Implementation Annex, it appears the four items above are no longer considered selected remedial measures. Funding implementation efforts and continued monitoring are important for restoring beneficial uses and tracking subsequent changes in the Niagara River AOC.

Has a schedule for implementation been adopted and have persons and agencies responsible for implementation of remedial measures been identified?

In regard to timing, fourteen recommendations outlined in the Stage 2 RAP carried either an ongoing or immediate designation. The RAP document was dated April 1995 and no update of the information was provided when the RAP was transmitted to the Commission for its review and comment on June 15, 1999. Accordingly, the implementation schedule for the various recommendations is uncertain.

Subsequent to the RAP submission, in January 2001, an Implementation Annex was made available to the Commission. Appendix B of the Implementation Annex contains a 2 year action plan which includes identification of projects, project leads and partners, and estimated costs of the various projects. This product is an important step forward from the rather undefined information contained in the Stage 2 RAP.

Has an ecosystem approach been taken to the restoration and protection of beneficial uses?

The Stage 2 RAP notes the Agreement’s general principle toward the use of a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting beneficial uses. In describing one of its long-term goals to create an International RAP for the AOC, the Niagara River RAP notes the Commission’s previous statement in regard to separate RAPs for the Ontario and New York portions of the Niagara River AOC , “The division between the two halves of the AOC is an artificial one and is inconsistent with the ecosystem approach”.

Was the public consulted adequately?

Appendix C of the Stage 2 RAP provides a comprehensive log regarding activities of PAC and public consultation activities through February of 1995. This level of documentation is commendable and it is apparent that considerable effort was devoted to public outreach. In addition, a community liaison coordinator managed a PAC office which served as a readily accessible source of information regarding RAP activities. Clear documentation of public consultation in the decision-making concerning the four recommendations of the Stage 2 RAP that are “not currently supported” by the Province of Ontario is needed.

Conclusion

The Stage 2 RAP presents a far-reaching set of recommendations. Recently, sweeping changes were made in the RAP implementation structure with the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) in cooperation with the Niagara River Restoration Council (NRRC) and other partners leading the implementation effort.

It is clear that, in order to achieve a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting beneficial uses, further integration of RAP and NRTMP activities and accomplishments in the AOC is required.

Public consultation activities during the Stage 2 RAP development appear to have been effective. In particular, the PAC is noted for making RAP materials readily available to the general public. In addition, a considerable number of community workshops were conducted and numerous media contacts were made.