Post on 17-Jul-2020
transcript
Source Protection Committee - AGENDA
Agenda for Meeting of the Source Protection Committee (SPC) to be held on Wednesday, November 19,
2014, in the Essex Civic Centre, Committee Room E, 360 Fairview Avenue West, Essex, ON, commencing at
4:00 PM.
PAGES
Chair’s Welcome
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
Agenda
Agenda for the Meeting of the Essex Region Source Protection Committee (SPC) held on
Wednesday, November 19, 2014.
Recommendation
THAT the Agenda for the Wednesday, November 19, 2014, Meeting of the Essex Region Source
Protection Committee (SPC) be approved.
1-2
Minutes
Minutes for the Meeting of the Essex Region Source Protection Committee (SPC) held on
Wednesday, October 29, 2014.
Recommendation
THAT the Minutes for the Wednesday, October 29, 2014, Meeting of the Essex Region Source
Protection Committee (SPC) be approved.
3-26
Correspondence
None
Source Protection Authority (SPA) Information
None
MOE Liaison’s Update
Teresa McLellan, Crown Liaison Officer, Ministry of the Environment (MOE) will provide a brief
update to the SPC.
Reports
1. Report SPC 14/14 – AR updates – Chapter 4
Recommendation
THAT the SPC approve new IPZ-3 maps for Lake Erie intakes and EBA maps for all intakes; and
further,
27-62
SPC Agenda Page 1 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
THAT the SPC approve all edits and additions made to Chapter 4 contained in Report SPC 14/14
Report SPC 15/14 – AR updates – Chapters 1 and 5
Recommendation
THAT Report SPC 15/14 be received by the SPC for information and discussion purposes
63-68
Report SPC 16/14 – SPP updates
Recommendation
THAT Report SPC 16/14 be received for information and discussion purposes
69-81
Report SPC 17/14 – Pre-consultation comments and responses
Recommendation
THAT Report SPC 17/14 be received for information and discussion purposes
82-85
Other Business
New Business
Date – Next Meeting
The next meeting of the SPC is not yet scheduled but is expected to be held in January 2015.
Conclusion of Meeting
Katie Stammler, Source Water Protection Project Manager/ Water Quality Scientist
SPC Agenda Page 2 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Source Protection Committee - MINUTES
Minutes of Meeting of the Essex Region Source Protection Committee (SPC) held on Wednesday,
October 29, 2014, in the Essex Civic Centre, Committee Room C, 360 Fairview Avenue West,
Essex, Ontario.
Members
Present:
John Barnett – carrying proxy for David Church
Tom Fuerth (Chair)
Antonietta Giofu
Thom Hunt
Charles McLean
Robert Peterson
Hans Peter Pfeifer
Mario Songeo – carrying proxy for Tim Mousseau
Ashley Stevenson
Larry Verbeke (SPA Liaison)
Ian Wilson – carrying proxy for Bill Dukes
Absent: Tim Mousseau
John Stuart
Regrets: David Church
Bill Dukes
Tim Mousseau
Bernard Nelson
Andrew Pula
Staff: Katie Stammler, Project Manager, Source Water Protection/Water Quality Scientist
Candice Kondratowicz, Corporate Services Assistant
Mike Nelson, Watershed Planner
Roger Palmini, GIS Technician
Susanne Tomkins, Communications Specialist
Delegates: None
Guests: John Kehoe, Town of Lakeshore
Kit Woods, Municipality of Leamington
SPC Agenda Page 3 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
CALL TO ORDER
The Chair of the SPC, Tom Fuerth, called the meeting to order
CHAIRS WELCOME
Chair Tom Fuerth welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Chair Fuerth noted that at the last SPC Chairs meeting the Minister of Environment and Climate
Change, Honourable Glen Murray was present. Rajesh Bejankiwar from the International Joint
Commission (IJC) was also at this meeting and provided his powerpoint on the Blue Green Algae to the
Chairs.
INTRODUCTIONS
None
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None
AGENDA
1. The Agenda for the Meeting of the Essex Region Source Protection Committee (SPC) held on
Wednesday, October 29, 2014.
Resolution SPC 18/14 Moved by Mario Sonego
Seconded by Bob Peterson
THAT the Agenda (including Report 13B/14) for the Wednesday, October 29, 2014, Meeting of the
Essex Region Source Protection Committee (SPC) be approved. - CARRIED
MINUTES
1. Minutes of the Meeting of the Source Protection Committee (SPC) held on Tuesday,
September 23, 2014.
Resolution SPC 19/14 Moved by Ian Wilson
Seconded by Antonietta Giofu
THAT the Minutes for the Tuesday, September 23, 2014, Meeting of the Essex Region Source
Protection Committee (SPC) be approved as amended to reflect that no guests were present at this
meeting. - CARRIED
CORRESPONDENCE
None
SOURCE PROTECTION AUTHORITY (SPA) INFORMATION
1. Minutes of the Meeting of the Source Protection Committee (SPC) held on April 11, 2013.
Resolution SPC 20/14 Moved by Charles McLean
Seconded by Ashley Stevenson
THAT the Minutes for the April 11, 2013, Meeting of the Source Protection Authority (SPA) be
received for members information. - CARRIED SPC Agenda Page 4 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
MOE LIAISON’S UPDATE
Teresa McLellan provided a brief update to the SPC.
MOE has approved the format for the signage that will be installed on roads passing through
vulnerable areas near municipal drinking waters sources. These signs will help inform the public
and emergency responders of the “drinking water protection zones” and provide a consistent
branding logo. If there are signs currently in place, signs will be replaced on an as needed basis.
The MOE anticipates a media announcement in the future around this topic.
REPORTS
1. Report SPC 10/14 – Fall/Winter 2014/2015 schedule update
Resolution SPC 21/14 Moved by Charles McLean
Seconded by Ashley Stevenson
THAT Report SPC 10/14 be received for information and discussion purposes. - CARRIED
2. Report SPC 11/14 – MOE Comments on the Essex Region SPP
Resolution SPC 22/14 Moved by Thom Hunt
Seconded by Ian Wilson
THAT Report SPC 11/14 be received for members information and discussion purposes; and further,
THAT the SPC approve the new S.58 policy for Waste disposal sites (storage of hazardous or liquid
industrial waste) and associated changes to existing Policy 14; and further changes as noted to
include examples of materials that contain arsenic and chromium 6 and to provide the RMO the
ability to issue blanket approvals; and further,
THAT the SPC endorse the changes made to Policy 4 – Storm water management and Policy 6 –
Discharge of industrial effluent: non-contact cooling water. - CARRIED
3. Report SPC 12/14 – Proposed Policy Approaches, updated Assessment Report and Technical
Report: Microcystins (draft policies attached)
Resolution SPC 23/14 Moved by Mario Sonego
Seconded by Ian Wilson
THAT the SPC approve the proposed Monitoring and Education and Outreach Policies with the
changes as amended; and further,
THAT the SPC approve the addition of microcystins information on the Assessment Report; and
further,
THAT the SPC approve the technical report for inclusion as an appendix to the Updated Assessment
Report. - CARRIED
4. Report SPC 13/14 & Report SPC 13B/14 – Fuel Policy Update
Resolution SPC 24/14 Moved by Bob Peterson
Seconded by Charles McLean
SPC Agenda Page 5 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
THAT Report SPC 13/14 be accepted for information and discussion purposes; and further,
THAT the SPC endorse the proposed changes to all existing fuel policies in the Essex Region Source
Protection Plan; and further,
THAT Policy 16/17/18 (the handling and storage of fuels at sewage works) be removed and a
statement added to Policy 40 to indicate that this policy also addresses the handling and storage of
fuel used for back-up generators at sewage treatment plants. - CARRIED
OTHER BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
1. Source Protection Committee (SPC) Composition (powerpoint attached)
Chair Fuerth and Katie Stammler explained the upcoming structure of the SPC for the Essex
Region Source Protection Area
MEETING ADJOURNMENT
Resolution SPC 25/14 Moved by Consensus
Seconded by Consensus
THAT the meeting be adjourned. - CARRIED
DATE – NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the SPC will be held on Wednesday, November 19, 2014 at 4:00PM at the Essex County Civic
Centre, Committee Room E.
CONCLUSION OF MEETING
Katie Stammler, Project Manager, Source Water Protection/ Water Quality Scientist
SPC Agenda Page 6 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Region SP Plan Policy Draft for Consultation – October 2014
Issue Microcystin-LR
Threat The establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste disposal site;
The establishment, operation or maintenance of a system that collects, stores,
transmits, treats or disposes of sewage;
The application of agricultural source material to land;
The storage of agricultural source material;
The management of agricultural source material;
The application of non-agricultural source material to land;
The handling and storage of non-agricultural source material;
The handling and storage of commercial fertilizer;
The use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an outdoor confinement
area or a farm-animal yard
Target Area Essex Region Source Protection Area
Policy Number
Policy Reference
Number
Risk Level of Threat Not applicable
Sub Threats Not applicable
Significant Risk
Circumstances
Not applicable
Threat Status Existing and Future Threats
Current Land Use Various
Approach Education and Outreach under Section 22(2)-7 of the Clean Water Act
It is proposed that the Essex Region Conservation Authority initiate and lead an
Education and Outreach (E & O) source protection policy in order to assist in addressing
microcystins-LR as drinking water issue.
E & O materials on typical Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be provided for
SPC Agenda Page 7 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Region SP Plan Policy Draft for Consultation – October 2014
landowners, residents, various business sectors, as well as organizations such as industry
associations and professional organizations. BMPs apply to a range of measures from
operational procedures to administrative processes.
Policy Text The Essex Region Conservation Authority will initiate and lead Education and Outreach by
building on existing Education and Outreach programs to promote best management
practices targeted at phosphorus reduction from a variety of sources. The entire Essex
Region Source Protection Area will be included in the E&O program. Targeted programs
may include:
Education and outreach programs on the importance of commercial fertilizer-free buffers around wells and surface water, targeted at commercial fertilizer application technicians and/or homeowners.
Promoting voluntary nutrient management plans for farms that do not qualify under O. Reg. 267/03 and who land apply commercial fertilizers.
Promoting and encouraging use of a nutrient calculator to determine the proper amount of nutrients to be applied in each situation and for each crop.
Promoting BMPs for the application, storage and handling of commercial fertilizer
in areas where it is or would be a significant drinking water threat.
Implementation will be conditional on availability of funding. The E & O will be targeted
for full implementation within three to five years after the Plan takes effect, and will
continue as needed based on reviews. The above applies to drinking water threats that
may release phosphorus, which contributes to algal growth and the production of
microcystins-LR:
The establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste disposal site;
The establishment, operation or maintenance of a system that collects, stores,
transmits, treats or disposes of sewage;
The application of agricultural source material to land;
The storage of agricultural source material;
The management of agricultural source material;
The application of non-agricultural source material to land;
The handling and storage of non-agricultural source material;
The handling and storage of commercial fertilizer;
The use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an outdoor confinement
area or a farm-animal yard
Rationale Education and Outreach policies are intended to increase the awareness on the benefits
of drinking water source protection, improve landowner acceptance of Source Protection
Plan (SPP) policies, promote Best Management Practices, and encourage positive changes
SPC Agenda Page 8 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Region SP Plan Policy Draft for Consultation – October 2014
in behaviour. E & O approaches provide cost-effective opportunities to assist in helping
address threats in the Essex Region SPA that release phosphorus, which contributes to
algal growth and the production of microcystins-LR.
Microcystin-LR was identified as an issue under the Clean Water Act pursuant to rule
115.1 at Lake Erie intakes in both the Essex Region and Thames-Sydenham Region, which
have shared municipalities. Microcystins are the toxins produced by cyanobacteria (blue-
green algae). The western basin of Lake Erie experiences blooms of cyanobacteria and
associated high levels of microcystins annually in summer months. The blooms are visible
to the public and affect recreational activities. Phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for
these algae and can come from a variety of sources including human and animal waste and
fertilizer. Educating the public on these sources of phosphorus and their linkage to algae
blooms may encourage the use of best management practices. The entire Essex Region
SPA is the target for this program because the adoption of phosphorus best management
practices will have the greatest affect if all citizens of the region are informed. Without
the delineation of an Issue Contributing Area, there is no defined Vulnerable Area.
The Essex Region Conservation Authority will implement this E & O policy for consistent
messaging on drinking water source protection, microcystins and phosphorus sources
across the Essex Region Source Protection Area. The implementation of this policy in this
manner builds on the strengths and efficiencies of the Conservation Authority. The
Conservation Authority has existing E & O programs that could be tailored or enhanced
to include the suggested messaging.
Policy Tool Education & Outreach under Section 22-7 of the Clean Water Act
Municipality Policy
Applies to
All municipalities within the Essex Region Source Protection Area
Implementing Body Essex Region Conservation Authority to be the lead
Legal Effect Non-legally binding (Strategic Action)
Compliance Date Within three to five years after the Plan takes effect
Status of Threat Policy Draft policies for consultation
SPC Agenda Page 9 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Region SP Plan Policy Draft for Consultation – October 2014
MONITORING POLICY
Issue Microcystin-LR
Threat The establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste disposal site;
The establishment, operation or maintenance of a system that collects,
stores,
transmits, treats or disposes of sewage;
The application of agricultural source material to land;
The storage of agricultural source material;
The management of agricultural source material;
The application of non-agricultural source material to land;
The handling and storage of non-agricultural source material;
The handling and storage of commercial fertilizer;
The use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an outdoor
confinement area or a farm-animal yard
Monitoring Policy
Number
Monitoring Policy
Reference Number
Sub Threats Not applicable
Legal Effect Non-legally binding (Strategic Action)
Monitoring Policy
Text
The Essex Region Conservation Authority will document the actions taken to
comply with policy REF NUMBER and submit an annual report. The date of
compliance is by February 1 of each year.
Monitoring Policy
Rationale
The implementation of this policy in this manner builds on the strengths and
efficiencies of the Conservation Authority.
A form to document the information may be provided by the Source Protection
Authority (SPA) in order to assist in the report preparation. It must be noted that
the Director, Source Protection Program Branch, MOE has the formal legislative
authority to prescribe a form for use for the SPA.
Monitoring Policy By February 1 of each year, the Conservation Authority will prepare and submit to
SPC Agenda Page 10 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Region SP Plan Policy Draft for Consultation – October 2014
Compliance Date the Source Protection Authority a report summarizing their actions for the previous
year, to comply with the monitoring policy.
Municipality Policy
Applies to
All municipalities within the Essex Region Source Protection Area
Implementing Body Essex Region Conservation Authority
Status of Policy Draft policies for consultation
SPC Agenda Page 11 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Region SP Plan Policy Draft for Consultation – October 2014
Issue Microcystin-LR
Target Area Lake Erie drinking water intakes and tributaries
Vulnerable Area Not applicable
Policy Number
Policy Reference Number
Risk Level of Threat Not applicable
Sub Threats Not applicable
Significant Risk Circumstances
Not applicable
Threat Status Not applicable
Current Land Use Varied
Approach Monitoring Policy under Section 22(2)-7 of the Clean Water Act
Policy Text In accordance with Section 22(2)-[7] of the Clean Water Act, further monitoring and research of microcystin-LR and phosphorus is required for the Lake Erie drinking water intakes (Wheatley, Union, Harrow-Colchester and Pelee Island) and tributaries. The Leamington Water Services, Union Water Supply System …__ and Essex Region Conservation Authority, in collaboration with the Province (Ministry of Environment), Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority and other bodies where possible, should continue the support of existing water quality monitoring programs (e.g. DWSP, PWQMN and research projects) where they relate to the assessment and understanding of microcystin-LR as a drinking water issue. Where it is appropriate, additional water quality monitoring should be incorporated into existing programs or developed as new programs. These monitoring efforts should be directed at such things as, but not limited to: • event based water quality monitoring (both blooms and runoff events), • correlation between the various monitoring programs (locally and within the western Basin of Lake Erie), and • contributions through transport pathways, including but not limited to agricultural non-point sources, septic systems, water treatment plants and residential sources such as lawns Participation in these monitoring programs is dependent on adequate resources (including funding and staff capacity) being available.
SPC Agenda Page 12 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Region SP Plan Policy Draft for Consultation – October 2014
Rationale Microcystin-LR was identified as an issue under the Clean Water Act pursuant to rule
115.1 at Lake Erie intakes in both the Essex Region and Thames-Sydenham Region, which
have shared municipalities. Microcystins are the toxins produced by cyanobacteria (blue-
green algae). The western basin of Lake Erie experiences blooms of cyanobacteria and
associated high levels of total microcystins annually in summer months. The blooms are
visible to the public and affect recreational activities. Phosphorus is the limiting nutrient
for these algae and can come from a variety of sources including human and animal waste
and fertilizer.
Data are available for the Wheatley, Union and Harrow-Colchester drinking water
intakes, however the length of the data record is currently insufficient to determine if
there is a trend of increasing concentrations and the data collection is too infrequent
(weekly) to fully assess the severity of this drinking water issue. Pelee Island, which is
most affected by algal blooms and associated microcystins-LR, has only recently begun
regular sampling for microcystin-LR. Data from more locations with higher sampling
frequency and longer data records are required to monitor and assess whether
microcystin-LR continues to be an issue.
Phosphorus is the limiting nutrient for the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) that produce
microcystins-LR. Results of ongoing phosphorus monitoring and modelling are currently
insufficient to determine the areas and types of threats that may be contributing to
microcystins-LR. Continued and/or improved monitoring of phosphorus in Lake Erie and
its tributaries may provide more insight in future assessments of potential phosphorus
contributions from a variety of sources. These data are needed in order to delineate and
Issue Contributing Area; without the delineation of an Issue Contributing Area, there is no
defined Vulnerable Area and no significant drinking water threats can be identified or
addressed.
Policy Tool Section 22(2)-7 of the Clean Water Act
Municipality Policy Applies to
Town of Amherstburg, Town of Essex, Town of Kingsville, Municipality of Leamington, Township of Pelee
Implementing Body Essex Region Conservation Authority to be the lead
Legal Effect Non-legally binding (Strategic Action)
Compliance Date When Source Protection Plan takes effect.
Status of Threat Policy Draft policies for consultation
SPC Agenda Page 13 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Region SP Plan Policy Draft for Consultation – October 2014
MONITORING POLICY
Issue Microcystin-LR
Monitoring Policy
Number
Monitoring Policy
Reference Number
Sub Threats Not applicable
Legal Effect Non-legally binding (Strategic Action)
Monitoring Policy Text The Essex Region Conservation Authority will prepare and submit a report to the
Source Protection Authority which summarizes the actions taken to comply with policy
…..
The above applies to the monitoring of microcystins at Lake Erie intakes and
phosphorus in Lake Erie and its tributaries
The date of compliance is by February 1 of each year.
Monitoring Policy
Rationale
The implementation of this policy will provide an assessment of the effectiveness of the
environmental monitoring. Monitoring programs may be continued or improved based
on this assessment. The annual report may also include information such as how and
what progress has been made on joint monitoring of blooms and runoff events at the
Lake Erie intakes and Lake Erie tributaries between organizations (PUCs, ERCA,
LTVCA, MOE, …others?)
A form to document the information may be provided by the Source Protection
Authority (SPA) in order to assist in the report preparation. It must be noted that the
Director, Source Protection Program Branch, MOE has the formal legislative authority
to prescribe a form for use for the SPA.
Monitoring Policy
Compliance Date
By February 1 of each year, the Essex Region Conservation Authority will prepare and
submit to the Source Protection Authority a report summarizing their actions for the
previous year, to comply with the monitoring policy.
Municipality Policy
Applies to
Town of Amherstburg, Town of Essex, Town of Kingsville, Municipality of Leamington,
Township of Pelee
Implementing Body Essex Region Conservation Authority to be the lead
Status of Policy Draft policies for consultation
SPC Agenda Page 14 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Essex Region SP Plan Policy Draft for Consultation – October 2014
SPC Agenda Page 15 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Source Protection Committee Term of Appointments
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
October 23, 2014
1 SPC Agenda Page 16 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Source Protection Committees
2
SPC Agenda Page 17 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
3
• Current status • Purpose of SPC member expiry and replacement • Ongoing SPC responsibilities after plan approval • SPC member Term of Appointments • SPC member replacement process • Going forward • Discussion
Presentation Outline
SPC Agenda Page 18 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Current Status
• 8 Source Protection Plans have been approved • Requirements under CWA & O. Reg. 288/07
• Section 7 of the CWA requires SPAs to establish SPCs - governs how the SPA appoints members and maintains the committee.
• Section 8 of the regulation requires that, once a source protection plan approval is posted on the Environmental Registry, the terms of appointment of the committee members begin to expire.
• Section 9 of the regulation allows for interim members to appointed to meet quorum (s. 13)
4
SPC Agenda Page 19 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Purpose of SPC Member Expiry and Replacement
• Avoid member fatigue – allow members who no longer want to be on the committee to leave
• Allow municipalities to select new representatives
• Allow for new sectoral members (agricultural, environment NGOs, public) and new perspectives
5
SPC Agenda Page 20 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Ongoing SPC Responsibilities After Plan Approval
• Source protection committees have an ongoing role to play after plan approval as local champions of the program as we transition to the implementation of approved plans
• Review and consult on any new technical work for new systems (CWA s.34)
• SPA will consult with SPC on the work plan where s.36 Order under the CWA specifies the requirement for a workplan
• Review annual reports developed by the SPA, before they are
submitted to the Minister
6
SPC Agenda Page 21 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SPC Member Term of Appointments
Plan approval notice on EBR
Members’ terms expire
1st anniversary Members’ terms
expire
2nd anniversary Members’
terms expire
7
Municipal Other:
Environmental/
Health/Public, other interests
Agricultural, Commercial /
Industrial / Small Business
SPC Agenda Page 22 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Term of Appointments
8 8
Committee Size (Including Chair)
Year 1* Year 2 Year 3
10 1 from each group (3)
1 from each group (3)
1 from each group (3)
16 2 from each group (6)
2 from each group (6)
1 from each group (3)
22 3 from each group (9)
2 from each group (6)
2 from each group (6)
*FN member appointments expire at this time as well.
SPC Agenda Page 23 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SPC Member Replacement Process
• SPC members are to be replaced by the SPA: • Soliciting local municipalities and First Nations for
candidates • Publishing a notice in newspapers and on the internet • Inviting public input on the composition of the
committee • Incumbent members may be reappointed, so long as
the appointment process is followed • SPA may appoint interim members during this
recruitment process
9
SPC Agenda Page 24 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Going Forward
• SPAs need to meet regulatory requirements • MOECC recognizes that this recruitment
process as described in regulation takes time and resources
10
SPC Agenda Page 25 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Discussion
• Is the current appointment process appropriate?
• Does the current SPC structure meet the requirements of the CWA during implementation and into the future?
• If not, what needs to change? – SPC size? – Composition? – Recruitment Process?
11 11
SPC Agenda Page 26 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE - REPORT SPC 14/14
FROM: Katie Stammler, Project Manager
Roger Palmini, GIS technician
SUBJECT: AR updates – Chapter 4
DATE: November 17, 2014
PURPOSE
To inform the SPC of new IPZ-3 and EBA mapping as well as other required edits and additions to
Chapter 4 of the ERSPA Assessment Report
REPORT SUMMARY
New modelling work resulted in delineation of IPZ-3s for Lake Erie intakes
Event Based Areas are the combination of all IPZs, with areas of high uncertainty excluded. EBAs are
the areas where modelled and local threats are significant and associated policies apply
A desktop GIS exercise was used to locate existing fuel threats in the ERSPA, new threat counts have
been added to the AR
Local Threats Assessments and Uncertainty Assessments are required elements for the AR and have
been added/updated
Data and knowledge gap section has been updated
BACKGROUND
IPZ-3 delineations (Lake Erie intakes)
New modelling of fuel spills in the Lake Erie watershed was used to delineate IPZ-3s for all Lake Erie intakes as discussed in previous SPC reports. A general description of the methodology of these IPZ-3 delineations was added to Section 4.2.1.2.3 and detailed descriptions of the IPZ-3 for each Lake Erie intake was added to the appropriate WTP section of Chapter 4 to reflect this new technical work (See attachment 1)
Event Based Area (all intakes)
The Event Based Area (EBA) is an area where modeling has demonstrated that a spill from a specific activity can or could cause deterioration to the raw water quality at the drinking water system. If the modeling test is met, the activity is deemed a significant drinking water threat and becomes subject to
Source Protection Plan policies. For each intake in the Essex Region, the EBA is the combination of IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 for modeled activities (i.e. fuel spill with 2% benzene, and a volume of 34,000 L) to which associated significant drinking water threat policies apply. Some areas of very high uncertainty may be included in the IPZ-3, which are acceptable under Rule 68 (Part VI.5) (Technical Rules: Assessment Report CWA, 2006), but are excluded from the EBA (Rule 130 (Part VI.5) (Technical Rules: Assessment Report CWA, 2006). Future studies may improve the certainty of these areas, which could be added to the EBA in an updated Assessment Report. In the case of the Essex Region Source Protection Area, the in water portions of the IPZs for all intakes are included in the EBAs because a large fuel spill in the shipping channels (e.g. from a tanker or ferry) would reach the drinking water intakes at concentrations that could
SPC Agenda Page 27 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
cause deterioration of raw water quality. Time of travel of the in-water portions of IPZs is shorter than the time of travel from the modeled spill locations in the watersheds to the drinking water intakes which would result in higher concentrations of benzene at the intakes. Therefore, it is very reasonable to assume that if such spills occur in the in-water portions, they would be considered as significant threats. Exclusions for each WTP in the ERSPA are discussed in respective WTP sections. EBA maps which show the extent of the EBA as well as the spill locations used for modeling fuel spills are also included in each WTP section.
Event Based Areas are new for all intakes since the approved Assessment Report in 2011. New maps and text descriptions for the EBAs for each intake are included in the updated AR (see Attachment 1).
Drinking water threats – Events based approach (Lake Erie intakes)
The results of fuel modelling and significant drinking water threat criteria (e.g. volume) have been added
for each Lake Erie intake (see attachment 1)
Existing Drinking Water threats - Events based approach (All intakes)
A desktop GIS exercise was performed to identify existing sites with above ground fuel storage using established criteria (fuel with 2% benzene, at volumes determined through modeling for each intake). Information from fuel providers in Essex County, Google Street View, and 2013 aerial photography overlaid with the EBA delineations using ESRI ArcGIS 10.2.2 for Desktop, were all used to determine the locations of fuel storage and approximate size of fuel storage tanks. For all intakes in the ERSPA, the new or updated total number of fuel threats has been included in the updated AR as a result of this exercise (See attachment 1)
Local Threats Assessment (all intakes)
In the ERSPA, the Director approved the transportation of fuel and other chemicals of concern (i.e. organic solvents DNAPLs, pesticides/herbicides and fertilizers) as local drinking water threats in August 2011 at the request of the SPC. At this time only spill events of transportation of fuels containing 2% benzene have been modelled in the Essex Region SPA and deemed to be significant drinking water threats in all Event Based Areas (EBAs) in the ERSPA. Because none of the IPZs in ERSPA have a vulnerability score of 10, only moderate or low local threats can be identified
using the vulnerability score. Tables that show the classification of the transportation of various substances as significant, moderate or low drinking water threats based on the vulnerability score of each IPZ are included for each WTP in the ERSPA in the respective WTP sections. In order to determine which circumstance of which local threat activity is or would be a low or moderate threat using the vulnerability score, the tables need to be read in conjunction with the Director’s letter (See attachment 2)
Uncertainty Analysis
This section has been updated to included uncertainty for the new Lake Erie intake IPZ-3’s, which all
have HIGH uncertainty based on a number of limitations including the small number of spill scenarios,
simple analytical approach used and no consideration of decay of the contaminant due to chemical and
physical processes (See Attachment 2).
SPC Agenda Page 28 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Data and knowledge gaps and future steps
Previously identified gaps (e.g. IPZ-3’s for Lake Erie intakes, microcystin issue identification) that were
addressed by additional technical work since the previous AR was approved in 2011 were removed.
Under ‘Issues Evaluation’ a call for more microcystin and phosphorus data was added.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the SPC approve new IPZ-3 maps for Lake Erie intakes and EBA maps for all intakes; and further,
THAT the SPC approve all edits and additions made to Chapter 4 contained in Report SPC 14/14
Katie Stammler, Project Manager Roger Palmini, GIS technician
Attachments:
1) Updates to Chapter 4 of Essex Region Assessment Report: Lake Erie IPZ-3 delineations, Event Bases Areas
for all intakes, updated existing threats for all intakes
2) Local threats and Uncertainty assessments
SPC Agenda Page 29 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Updates to Chapter 4 of Essex Region Assessment Report: IPZ-3 delineations
(Lake Erie), Event Bases Areas (all intakes), threats criteria (Lake Erie) and
Existing threats (all intakes)*
*Table and map numbers to be finalized
Lake Erie WTPs (section 4.2.1.2.3. IPZ-3 Delineation)
The modeling completed for the WTPs located along Lake Erie followed the general approach
outlined in the MOE Technical Bulletin (July 2009) and incorporated both reverse particle
tracking and contaminant transport modeling. The joint probability analysis previously
undertaken by Baird was used to define the 100 year return period event. Five actual wind
events and two year return period flow from the Detroit River and the modeled tributaries were
used to model the impacts of spills on Lake Erie intakes. Big Creek, Richmond Drain/Cedar
Creek, Sturgeon Creek, Pelee/Hillman Creek and Pelee Island were the locations selected for the
simulated tanker truck spill contaminant modeling of a 34,000L gasoline (with 2% benzene)
spill. For each tributary, a road crossing near the headwaters was identified for a spill release.
On Pelee Island one spill location was used for the West and North pump outlets. These tanker
truck spill locations were also considered representative of potential fixed fuel locations in the
area and, in the threats analysis, they were also considered representative of the activity of the
transportation of fuels. Refer to Section 4.2.1.4.4 ‘Event Based Approach’ for further details.
If it was found that the contaminant reached the intake at a concentration above the benchmark
(Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standard), an IPZ-3 would be required to be delineated if the
spill location is outside IPZ-1 and IPZ-2. For this analysis, Baird and Associates used a
conservative maximum equilibrium concentration of 10 mg/L for Benzene concentrations at the
mouth of the tributaries; however the equilibrium concentration may be as high as 58 mg/L.
Given that all spill scenarios resulted in exceedances of the Ontario Drinking Water Quality
Standard at this conservative concentration, it is reasonable to assume that higher equilibrium
concentrations would also result in exceedances. Baird and Associates recommended that, where
modeling shows that spills close to the headwaters would result in exceedances at the intake, the
delineation could be extended to the headwaters. This is because the time of travel to the spill
SPC Agenda Page 30 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
location is relatively small and dilution unlikely to occur which would still result in an
exceedance at the intake.
Further, Baird and Associates recommended extending the delineation to the watershed limits of
the modeled watercourses, thereby including all tributaries of these watercourses. Baird and
Associates also recommended that all tributaries between the modeled watercourses and the
applicable WTP intake, as well as in the vicinity of the intake, be included in the delineation.
This is based on several important considerations. Firstly these tributaries have a shorter flow
path than the modeled watercourses. Also, the flow characteristics of these tributaries are very
similar to those of the modeled watercourses. If modeling shows that spills close to the
headwaters of modeled watercourses result in exceedances at the intake, then spills occurring
along these tributaries would also result in similar, likely greater, exceedances at the intake.
As specified in the Technical Rules, the Floodplain Regulation Limit was also used in
delineating the extent of the IPZ-3 along subject waterways where this limit exceeded the 120
meter setback. Further if the modeling showed that the contaminant reached any intake located in
Lake Erie, that tributary was included in the IPZ-3 delineated for that intake as well. The Baird
& Associates report (August 2013) addressing IPZ-3 delineation for WTPs along Lake Erie is in
Appendix **
SPC Agenda Page 31 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
4.2.1.2.x. Event Based Area
The Event Based Area (EBA) is an area where modeling has demonstrated that a spill from a
specific activity can or could cause deterioration to the raw water quality at the drinking water
system. If the modeling test is met, the activity is deemed a significant drinking water threat and
becomes subject to Source Protection Plan policies. For each intake in the Essex Region, the
EBA is the combination of IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 for modeled activities (i.e. fuel spill with 2%
benzene, and a volume of 34,000 L) to which associated significant drinking water threat policies
apply. Some areas of very high uncertainty may be included in the IPZ-3, which are acceptable
under Rule 68 (Part VI.5) (Technical Rules: Assessment Report CWA, 2006), but are excluded
from the EBA (Rule 130 (Part VI.5) (Technical Rules: Assessment Report CWA, 2006). Future
studies may improve the certainty of these areas, which could be added to the EBA in an updated
Assessment Report. In the case of the Essex Region Source Protection Area, the in water
portions of the IPZs for all intakes are included in the EBAs because a large fuel spill in the
shipping channels (e.g. from a tanker or ferry) would reach the drinking water intakes at
concentrations that could cause deterioration of raw water quality. Time of travel of the in-water
portions of IPZs is shorter than the time of travel from the modeled spill locations in the
watersheds to the drinking water intakes which would result in higher concentrations of benzene
at the intakes. Therefore, it is very reasonable to assume that if such spills occur in the in-water
portions, they would be considered as significant threats. Exclusions for each WTP in the
ERSPA are discussed in respective WTP sections. EBA maps which show the extent of the EBA
as well as the spill locations used for modeling fuel spills are also included in each WTP section.
SPC Agenda Page 32 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
4.2.6. Harrow-Colchester South Water Treatment Plant
4.2.6.4. Intake Protection Zone-3 (IPZ-3)
As per Rule 68 (Part VI.5) (Technical Rules: Assessment Report CWA, 2006) IPZ-3s may be
delineated for the Type A intakes which extend outward from IPZ-2 to include all rivers and
tributaries that may contribute water to the intake under extreme storm event conditions up to a
100 year storm event. Appropriate guidelines for delineation of IPZ-3 are described in Table
4.10 (Section 4.2.1.2). Baird & Associates conducted the modeling to determine if an IPZ-3
would be required for the Harrow-Colchester South WTP and the details of this study are in
Appendix **.
The methodology is described in Section 4.2.1.2.3. The modeling incorporated both reverse
particle tracking (boundary approach) and contaminant transport modeling to determine the
boundaries of the in-water IPZ-3. The joint probability analysis previously undertaken by Baird
was used to define the 100 year return period event. Five actual wind events and two year return
period flow from the Detroit River and the modeled tributaries were used to model the impacts of
spills on Lake Erie intakes. Big Creek and Richmond Drain/Cedar Creek were selected for the
simulated tanker truck spill contaminant modeling. For each tributary, a road crossing near the
headwaters was identified for a spill release. These spill locations are shown in Figure 2.1 of the
Baird and Associates report (August 2013) in Appendix ** and in Map 4.45c.
Based on model results, a fuel spill (with 2% benzene, and a volume of 34,000 L) from a tanker
truck approximately 13,500 m upstream of the mouth of Big Creek would result in an
exceedance of the ODWQS benchmark for benzene at the Harrow-Colchester South WTP. The
modeling also indicated that a fuel spill approximately 21,100 m upstream of the mouth of
Richmond Drain/Cedar Creek would result in an exceedance of the ODWQS benchmark at the
intake.
Baird & Associates recommended that the IPZ-3 delineation be extended, as described in Section
4.2.1.2.3 (IPZ-3 delineation methodology). They recommended that the delineation be extended
to the watershed limits of the modeled watercourse, thereby including the headwaters of these
watercourses and their tributaries because the time of travel to the spill location from the
headwaters is small and dilution unlikely to occur which would still result in an exceedance at
SPC Agenda Page 33 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
the intake. Baird & Associates also recommended that the delineation be extended to the
tributaries between the watercourses modeled and the WTP intake, as well as in the vicinity of
the intake (i.e. closer to the intake) because these tributaries have a shorter flow path than the
modeled watercourses. The area west of the outlet of Big Creek is included in the IPZ-3 because
the time of travel to the mouth of Big Creek is shorter than that of the spill location. Based on
these recommendations, the IPZ‐3 for the Harrow-Colchester South intake was extended to
include the headwaters of Big Creek and Richmond Drain/Cedar Creek, and tributaries of both as
well as Fox/Dolson’s Creek and Colchester Area Drainage.
An off-bank setback of 120 m was applied to all watercourses; however this setback was
truncated at subwatersheds as overland flow would be traveling away from the watercourse. As
specified in the Technical Rules, the Floodplain Regulation Limit was also used in delineating
the extent of the IPZ-3 along subject waterways, where this Limit exceeds the 120 metre setback.
The modeling report from Baird & Associates report (August 2013) addressing IPZ-3 delineation
for Harrow-Colchester South WTP is in Appendix **. Refer to Map 4.45b for the IPZ-3
delineation.
4.2.6.x Event Based Area
The Event Based Area for Harrow-Colchester South WTP is the combination of all on land
portions and in water portions of IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (see section 4.2.1.x). Refer to Map
4.45c for the Event Based Area to which the significant drinking water threat policies for the
handling and storage of fuel and transportation of fuel along shipping and ferries corridors apply.
4.2.6.6. Drinking Water Threats
Event Based Threats Approach
As per Technical Rule 68 in conjunction with Rule 130, an activity is or would be a significant
drinking water threat in a surface water intake protection zone at the location where an activity is
or would be engaged in, if modeling demonstrates that a release of a chemical parameter or
pathogen from the activity or proposed activity would be transported through the surface water
intake protection zone to the intake and result in a deterioration of the water for use as a source
of drinking water. The Essex Region SPC has accepted the Ontario drinking water quality
standard (ODWQS) to identify deterioration of raw water quality at the intake.
SPC Agenda Page 34 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
The modeling that was completed to delineate the IPZ-3 for the Harrow-Colchester South WTP
is described in Section 4.2.6.4, while the general methodology on the events based approach is
described in Section 4.2.1.4.4. Further details are described in the modeling report from Baird &
Associates (August 2013) addressing IPZ-3 delineation for this WTP is in Appendix **.
The Essex Region SPC has expressed concern with the potential for fuel spills along
transportation corridors, as well as the possible presence of fixed fuel tanks, in close proximity to
watercourses and drains within the IPZ-2s and IPZ-3s. Consequently, spill locations of 34,000 L
of 2% benzene gasoline were selected for contaminant modeling undertaken by Baird &
Associates on Big Creek and Richmond Drain/Cedar Creek as described in section 4.2.6.4. The
selection of the location and volume of gasoline is a simulated tanker truck spill that is also
considered representative of potential fixed fuel storage locations. Simulated fuel tanker truck
spills were used to represent potential fixed fuel storage locations near watercourses and drains
within the local area. The modeling simulations identified that a spill location approximately
13,500 m upstream of the mouth of Big Creek and a fuel spill location approximately 21,100 m
upstream of the mouth of Richmond Drain/Cedar Creek resulted in an exceedance of the
ODWQS for benzene (by 2.5 times and 2.7 times respectively) at the Harrow-Colchester South
WTP intake.
From the results of the modeling and level of exceedance, it is reasonable to assume that a
substantially reduced spill volume would also result in an exceedance at the intake. The volume
of spill and concentration at the intake are not necessarily proportional but it is reasonable to
deduce that a reduction of approximately 50% or more in spill volume would also result in a
significant threat. Based upon the modeling completed to date and interpretation of the results it
is logical to assume that a spill volume of approximately 15,000 L from existing or planned
above ground fixed fuel storage sites as well as transportation of fuel along shipping and ferries
corridors be considered as significant threats.
Consequently, existing and future fixed fuel storage sites and transportation of fuel along
shipping and ferries corridors of 15,000 L or greater in the Event Based Area for Harrow-
Colchester South WTP (Map 4.45c), would be considered to be significant threats as they would
inherently deteriorate the quality of source water in the event of a spill. Table 4.xxd provides a
SPC Agenda Page 35 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
summary of the potential significant threats criteria based on the modeling work as described
above for the Harrow-Colchester South WTP.
Table 4.xxd: Potential Significant Threats Criteria for the Harrow-Colchester South WTP
for 2% Benzene in Fuel
WTP EBA
Storage Volume (L)
Harrow-Colchester South 15,000 L
Existing Significant Drinking Water Threats
It is not possible to have any significant threats using the threats based approach in IPZ-1
(vulnerability score = 6.0), IPZ-2 (vulnerability score = 4.8) or IPZ-3 (no vulnerability score) of
the Harrow-Colchester South WTP (see Table 4.43).
Using the events based approach, a desktop GIS exercise was performed to identify existing sites
with greater than 15,000 L of above ground fuel storage in the EBA for the Harrow-Colchester
South WTP using established criteria (fuel with 2% benzene, at volumes of 15,000 L, see Table
4.xxd). Information from fuel providers in Essex County, Google Street View, and 2013 aerial
photography overlaid with the EBA delineation using ESRI ArcGIS 10.2.2 for Desktop, were all
used to determine the locations of fuel storage and approximate size of fuel storage tanks. For the
Harrow-Colchester South WTP this resulted in 21 unconfirmed fuel threats. Table 4.xxa
summarizes the existing significant drinking water threats for the EBA of the Harrow-Colchester
South WTP. Also, Map 4.xx shows the existing significant threats in the EBA.
Table 4.xxa: Number of Existing Unconfirmed Significant Drinking Water Threats in the
EBA of the Harrow-Colchester South WTP
Specific Land Use Activity Number of
Threats
Uncertainty
Above ground fuel storage – parcel based* 21 High
*Identified through events based modeling
SPC Agenda Page 36 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
4.2.7. Union Water Treatment Plant
4.2.7.4. Intake Protection Zone-3 (IPZ-3)
As per Rule 68 (Part VI.5) (Technical Rules: Assessment Report CWA, 2006) IPZ-3s may be
delineated for the Type A intakes which extend outward from IPZ-2 to include all rivers and
tributaries that may contribute water to the intake under extreme storm event conditions up to a
100 year storm event. Appropriate guidelines for delineation of IPZ-3 are described in Table 4.7
(Section 4.2.1.2). Baird & Associates conducted the modeling to determine if an IPZ-3 would be
required for the Union WTP and the details of this study are in Appendix **.
The methodology is described in Section 4.2.1.2.3. The modeling incorporated both reverse
particle tracking (boundary approach) and contaminant transport modeling to determine the
boundaries of the in-water IPZ-3. The joint probability analysis previously undertaken by Baird
was used to define the 100 year return period event. Five actual wind events and two year return
period flow from the Detroit River and the modeled tributaries were used to model the impacts of
spills on Lake Erie intakes. Richmond Drain/Cedar Creek and Sturgeon Creek were selected for
the simulated tanker truck spill contaminant modeling. For each tributary, a road crossing near
the headwaters was identified for a spill release. These spill locations are shown in Figure 2.1 of
the Baird and Associates report (August 2013) in Appendix ** and in Maps 4.51c and 4.52c.
Based on model results, a fuel spill (with 2% benzene, and a volume of 34,000 L) from a tanker
truck approximately 21,100 m upstream of the mouth of Richmond Drain/Cedar Creek would
result in an exceedance of the ODWQS benchmark for benzene at the Union WTP. The
modeling also indicated that a fuel spill approximately 12,500 m upstream of the mouth of
Sturgeon Creek would result in an exceedance of the ODWQS benchmark at the intakes.
Baird & Associates recommended that the IPZ-3 delineation be extended, as described in Section
4.2.1.2.3 (IPZ-3 delineation methodology). They recommended that the delineation be extended
to the watershed limits of the modeled watercourse, thereby including the headwaters of these
watercourses and their tributaries because the time of travel to the spill location from the
headwaters is small and dilution unlikely to occur which would still result in an exceedance at
the intake. Baird & Associates also recommended that the delineation be extended to the
tributaries between the watercourses modeled and the WTP intakes, as well as in the vicinity of
SPC Agenda Page 37 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
the intakes (i.e. closer to the intakes) because these tributaries have a shorter flow path than the
modeled watercourses. Although the area just north of Point Pelee does not drain into Sturgeon
Creek, Baird and Associates recommended including it in the IPZ-3 because it is pumped to an
outlet near the mouth of Sturgeon Creek. The time of travel from this area to the mouth of
Sturgeon Creek is shorter than that from the modeled spill location and it is therefore reasonable
that a fuel spill would result in an exceedance at the Union WTP intakes. It was also
recommended to include the tributaries and in water area along the west shore of Point Pelee.
Additionally, Point Pelee has been added to the IPZ-3 because the in water portion of both sides
is included either in the Union IPZ-3 or Wheatley IPZ-3 and spills on land may also reach the
intakes. Although these areas were not modeled, it was felt that it would be reasonable to
include these areas in the IPZ-3. Based on these recommendations, the IPZ‐3 for the Union
intakes was extended to include the headwaters of Richmond Drain/Cedar Creek and Sturgeon
Creek, and tributaries of both as well as Wigle Creek, Mill Creek, Point Pelee and Leamington
Area Drainage.
An off-bank setback of 120 m was applied to all watercourses; however this setback was
truncated at subwatersheds as overland flow would be traveling away from the watercourse. As
specified in the Technical Rules, the Floodplain Regulation Limit was also used in delineating
the extent of the IPZ-3 along subject waterways, where this Limit exceeds the 120 metre setback.
The modeling report from Baird & Associates report (August 2013) addressing IPZ-3 delineation
for Union WTP is in Appendix **. Refer to Map 4.51b and Map 4.52b for the IPZ-3
delineations for the primary and emergency intakes of the Union WTP.
4.2.7.x Event Based Area
The Event Based Area for Union WTP is the combination of most on land portions and in water
portions of IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (see section 4.2.1.x). Point Pelee, the tributaries on the west
shore of Point Pelee and the in water portion in Lake Erie west of Point Pelee have been
excluded from the EBA because there is high uncertainty that fuel storage or transportation in
these areas would result in a significant drinking water threat. Refer to Map 4.51c for the Event
Based Area to which the significant drinking water threat policies for the handling and storage of
fuel and transportation of fuel along shipping and ferries corridors apply.
SPC Agenda Page 38 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
4.2.7.6. Drinking Water Threats
Event Based Threats Approach
As per Technical Rule 68 in conjunction with Rule 130, an activity is or would be a significant
drinking water threat in a surface water intake protection zone at the location where an activity is
or would be engaged in, if modeling demonstrates that a release of a chemical parameter or
pathogen from the activity or proposed activity would be transported through the surface water
intake protection zone to the intake and result in a deterioration of the water for use as a source
of drinking water. The Essex Region SPC has accepted the Ontario drinking water quality
standard (ODWQS) to identify deterioration of raw water quality at the intake.
The modeling that was completed to delineate the IPZ-3 for the Union WTP is described in
Section 4.2.7.4, while the general methodology on the events based approach is described in
Section 4.2.1.4.4. Further details are described in the modeling report from Baird & Associates
(August 2013) addressing IPZ-3 delineation for this WTP is in Appendix **.
The Essex Region SPC has expressed concern with the potential for fuel spills along
transportation corridors, as well as the possible presence of fixed fuel tanks, in close proximity to
watercourses and drains within the IPZ-2s and IPZ-3s. Consequently, spill locations of 34,000 L
of 2% benzene gasoline were selected for contaminant modeling undertaken by Baird &
Associates on Richmond Drain/Cedar Creek and Sturgeon Creek as described in section 4.2.7.4.
The selection of the location and volume of gasoline is a simulated tanker truck spill that is also
considered representative of potential fixed fuel storage locations. Simulated fuel tanker truck
spills were used to represent potential fixed fuel storage locations near watercourses and drains
within the local area. The modeling simulations identified that a spill location approximately
21,100 m upstream of the mouth of Richmond Drain/Cedar Creek and a fuel spill location
approximately 12,500 m upstream of the mouth of Sturgeon Creek resulted in an exceedance of
the ODWQS for benzene (by 10.7 times and 1.4 times respectively) at the Union WTP intakes.
From the results of the modeling and level of exceedance, it is reasonable to assume that a
substantially reduced spill volume would also result in an exceedance at the intake in Richmond
Drain/Cedar Creek and surrounding watercourses. The volume of spill and concentration at the
intake are not necessarily proportional but it is reasonable to deduce that a reduction of
SPC Agenda Page 39 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
approximately 50% or more in spill volume would also result in a significant threat. Based upon
the modeling completed to date and interpretation of the results it is logical to assume that a spill
volume of approximately 15,000 L from existing or planned above ground fixed fuel storage
sites be considered as significant threats. Because the modeled spill on Sturgeon Creek resulted
in a mild exceedance at the Union WTP intake, a spill volume of approximately 34, 000 L from
existing or planned above ground fixed fuel storage sites as well as transportation of fuel along
shipping and ferries corridors should be considered as significant threats.
Consequently in the Cedar Creek, Wigle Creek, Mill Creek and Leamington Area Drainage
watersheds of the Event Based Area for the Union WTP (Maps 4.51c and 4.52c), existing and
future fixed fuel storage sites and transportation of fuel along shipping and ferries corridors of
15,000 L or greater would be considered to be significant threats as they would inherently
deteriorate the quality of source water in the event of a spill. In the Sturgeon Creek watershed of
the EBA for the Union WTP (Maps 4.51c and 4.52c), existing and future fixed fuel storage sites
as well as transportation of fuel along shipping and ferries corridors of 34,000 L or greater would
be considered to be significant threats. Table 4.xxd provides a summary of the potential
significant threats criteria based on the modeling work as described above for the Union WTP.
Table 4.xxd: Potential Significant Threats Criteria for the Union WTP for 2% Benzene in
Fuel
WTP
EBA (Cedar/Wigle/Mill
Creeks, Leamington Area
Drainage)
Storage Volume (L)
EBA (Sturgeon Creek)
Storage Volume (L)
Union 15,000 L 34,000 L
SPC Agenda Page 40 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Existing Significant Drinking Water Threats
It is not possible to have any significant threats based on vulnerability scores using the threats
based approach in IPZ-1 (vulnerability score = 5.0 (P); 6.0 (E)), IPZ-2 (vulnerability score = 4.0
(P); 4.8(E)) or IPZ-3 (no vulnerability score) of the Union WTP (see Table 4.43).
Using the events based approach, A desktop GIS exercise was performed to identify existing
sites with greater than 15,000 L or 34,000 L of above ground fuel storage in the EBA for Union
WTP using established criteria (fuel with 2% benzene, at volumes of 15,000 L or 34,000 L see
Table 4.xxd). Information from fuel providers in Essex County, Google Street View, and 2013
aerial photography overlaid with the EBA delineation using ESRI ArcGIS 10.2.2 for Desktop,
were all used to determine the locations of fuel storage and approximate size of fuel storage
tanks. For the Union WTP this resulted in 146 unconfirmed fuel threats for the primary intake,
and 145 fuel threats for the emergency intake. Table 4.xxa summarizes the existing significant
drinking water threats for the EBA of the Union WTP. Also, Maps 4.xx and 4.xy show the
existing significant threats in the EBA.
Table 4.xxb: Number of Unconfirmed Existing Significant Drinking Water Threats in the
EBA of the Union WTP
Specific Land Use Activity Number of
Threats
Uncertainty
Above ground fuel storage (primary intake)
* 146 High
Above ground fuel storage (emergency
intake) * 145 High
*Identified through events based modeling
SPC Agenda Page 41 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
4.2.8. Pelee Island West Shore Water Treatment Plant
4.2.8.4. Intake Protection Zone-3 (IPZ-3)
As per Rule 68 (Part VI.5) (Technical Rules: Assessment Report CWA, 2006) IPZ-3 may be
delineated for Type A intakes which extend outward from IPZ-2 to include all rivers and
tributaries that may contribute water to the intake under extreme storm event conditions up to a
100 year storm event. Appropriate guidelines for delineation of IPZ-3 are described in Table
4.10 (Section 4.2.1.2). Baird & Associates conducted the modeling to determine if an IPZ-3
would be required for the Pelee Island West Shore WTP and the details of this study are in
Appendix **.
The methodology is described in Section 4.2.1.2.3. The modeling incorporated both reverse
particle tracking (boundary approach) and contaminant transport modeling to determine the
boundaries of the in-water IPZ-3. The joint probability analysis previously undertaken by Baird
was used to define the 100 year return period event. Five actual wind events and two year return
period flow from the Detroit River and the modeled tributaries were used to model the impacts of
spills on Lake Erie intakes. The intersection of East Shore Road and East-West Road was
selected for the simulated tanker truck spill contaminant modeling. Spills from this location were
modeled separately to the outlets of the West and North Pumps. The spill location is shown in
Figure 2.1 of the Baird and Associates report (August 2013) in Appendix ** and in Map 4.63b.
Based on model results, a fuel spill (with 2% benzene, and a volume of 34,000 L) from a tanker
truck approximately 7,470 m upstream of the outlet of the West Pump would result in an
exceedance of the ODWQS benchmark for benzene at the Pelee Island West Shore WTP. The
modeling also indicated that a fuel spill approximately 9,460 m upstream of the outlet of the
North Pump would result in an exceedance of the ODWQS benchmark at the intake.
Baird & Associates recommended that the IPZ-3 delineation be extended, as described in Section
4.2.1.2.3 (IPZ-3 delineation methodology). They recommended that the delineation be extended
to the watershed limits of the modeled watercourse, thereby including the outer limits of Big
Marsh because the time of travel to the spill location from the marsh is small and dilution
unlikely to occur, which would still result in an exceedance at the intake. Baird & Associates
also recommended that the delineation include all drainage canals located between the spill and
SPC Agenda Page 42 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
the intake, as well as in the vicinity of the intake (i.e. closer to the intake) because these canals
have a shorter flow path than the modeled locations. Although not modeled, Baird & Associates
also recommended that the delineation be extended to include Curry Marsh and Round Marsh,
which are both within the Regulation Limits on Pelee Island (Technical Rule 68-2(b)). Based
on these recommendations, the IPZ‐3 for the Pelee Island West Shore intake was extended to
include the all drainage canals between the spill location and the pump outlets as well as Big
Marsh, Curry Marsh, and Round Marsh. The IPZ-3 encompassing most of Pelee Island. The
areas that are not captured in the IPZ-3 are those areas not included in the Regulation Limits for
the Island.
An off-bank setback of 120 m was applied to all watercourses; however this setback was
truncated at subwatersheds as overland flow would be traveling away from the watercourse. As
specified in the Technical Rules, the Floodplain Regulation Limit was also used in delineating
the extent of the IPZ-3 along subject waterways, where this Limit exceeds the 120 m setback.
The modeling report from Baird & Associates report (August 2013) addressing IPZ-3 delineation
for Wheatley WTP is in Appendix **. Refer to Map 4.63b for the IPZ-3 delineations for the
Pelee Island West Shore WTP.
4.2.9.x Event Based Area
The Event Based Area for Pelee Island West Shore WTP is the combination of all on land
portions and in water portions of IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (see section 4.2.1.x). Refer to Map
4.xxc for the Event Based Area to which the significant drinking water threat policies for the
handling and storage of fuel and transportation of fuel along shipping and ferries corridors apply.
4.2.8.6. Drinking Water Threats
Event Based Threats Approach
As per Technical Rule 68 in conjunction with Rule 130, an activity is or would be a significant
drinking water threat in a surface water intake protection zone at the location where an activity is
or would be engaged in, if modeling demonstrates that a release of a chemical parameter or
pathogen from the activity or proposed activity would be transported through the surface water
intake protection zone to the intake and result in a deterioration of the water for use as a source
SPC Agenda Page 43 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
of drinking water. The Essex Region SPC has accepted the Ontario drinking water quality
standard (ODWQS) to identify deterioration of raw water quality at the intake.
The modeling that was completed to delineate the IPZ-3 for the Pelee Island West Shore WTP is
described in Section 4.2.8.4, while the general methodology on the events based approach is
described in Section 4.2.1.4.4. Further details are described in the modeling report from Baird &
Associates (August 2013) addressing IPZ-3 delineation for this WTP is in Appendix **.
The Essex Region SPC has expressed concern with the potential for fuel spills along
transportation corridors, as well as the possible presence of fixed fuel tanks, in close proximity to
watercourses and drains within the IPZ-2s and IPZ-3s. Consequently, spill locations of 34,000 L
of 2% benzene gasoline were selected for contaminant modeling undertaken by Baird &
Associates on Pelee Island as described in section 4.2.9.4. The selection of the location and
volume of gasoline is a simulated tanker truck spill that is also considered representative of
potential fixed fuel storage locations. Simulated fuel tanker truck spills were used to represent
potential fixed fuel storage locations near watercourses and drains within the local area. The
modeling simulations identified that spill locations approximately 7,470 m upstream of the outlet
of the West Pump and 9,460 m upstream of the outlet of the North Pump resulted in an
exceedance of the ODWQS for benzene (by 5.7 times) at the Wheatley WTP intake.
From the results of the modeling and level of exceedance, it is reasonable to assume that a
substantially reduced spill volume would also result in an exceedance at the intake in Pelee
Island drainage canals. The volume of spill and concentration at the intake are not necessarily
proportional but it is reasonable to deduce that a reduction of approximately 50% or more in spill
volume would also result in a significant threat. Based upon the modeling completed to date and
interpretation of the results it is logical to assume that a spill volume of approximately 15,000 L
from existing or planned above ground fixed fuel storage sites as well as transportation of fuel
along shipping and ferries corridors be considered as significant threats.
Consequently, existing and future fixed fuel storage sites and transportation of fuel along
shipping and ferries corridors of 15,000 L or greater in the Pelee Island West Shore EBA (Map
4.63c), would be considered to be significant threats as they would inherently deteriorate the
quality of source water in the event of a spill. Table 4.23d provides a summary of the potential
SPC Agenda Page 44 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
significant threats criteria based on the modeling work as described above for the Pelee Island
West Shore WTP.
Table 4.xxd: Potential Significant Threats Criteria for the Pelee Island West Shore WTP
for 2% Benzene in Fuel
WTP EBA
Storage Volume (L)
Pelee Island West
Shore
15,000 L
Existing Significant Drinking Water Threats:
Using the treats based approach, it is not possible to have any significant threats based on the
vulnerability scores in IPZ-1 (6.0), IPZ-2 (4.2) or IPZ-3 (no vulnerability score) of Pelee Island
West Shore WTP (see Table 4.43).
Using the events based approach, A desktop GIS exercise was performed to identify existing
sites with greater than 15,000 L of above ground fuel storage in the EBA for the Pelee Island
West Shore WTP using established criteria (fuel with 2% benzene, at volumes of 15,000 L, see
Table 4.xxd). Information from fuel providers in Essex County, Google Street View, and 2010
aerial photography overlaid with the EBA delineation using ESRI ArcGIS 10.2.2 for Desktop,
were all used to determine the locations of fuel storage and approximate size of fuel storage
tanks. For the Pelee Island West Shore WTP this resulted in 3 unconfirmed fuel threats. Table
4.xxb summarizes the existing significant drinking water threats for the EBA for the Pelee Island
West Shore WTP. Also, Map 4.xx shows the existing significant threats in the EBA.
Table 4.xxb: Number of Unconfirmed Existing Significant Drinking Water Threats in the
EBA of the Pelee Island West Shore WTP
Specific Land Use Activity Number of
Threats
Uncertainty
Above ground fuel storage * 3 High
*Identified through events based modeling
SPC Agenda Page 45 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
4.2.9. Wheatley Water Treatment Plant
4.2.9.4. Intake Protection Zone-3 (IPZ-3)
As per Rule 68 (Part VI.5) (Technical Rules: Assessment Report CWA, 2006) IPZ-3 may be
delineated for the Type A intakes which extend outward from the IPZ-2 to include all rivers and
tributaries that may contribute water to the intake under extreme storm event conditions up to a
100 year storm event. Appropriate guidelines for delineation of IPZ-3 are described in Table
4.10 (Section 4.2.1.2). Baird & Associates conducted the modeling to determine if an IPZ-3
would be required for the Union WTP and the details of this study are in Appendix **.
The methodology is described in Section 4.2.1.2.3. The modeling incorporated both reverse
particle tracking (boundary approach) and contaminant transport modeling to determine the
boundaries of the in-water IPZ-3. The joint probability analysis previously undertaken by Baird
was used to define the 100 year return period event. Five actual wind events and two year return
period flow from the Detroit River and the modeled tributaries were used to model the impacts of
spills on Lake Erie intakes. Pelee/Hillman Creek was selected for the simulated tanker truck spill
contaminant modeling. A road crossing near the headwaters was identified for a spill release.
This spill location is shown in Figure 2.1 of the Baird and Associates report (August 2013) in
Appendix ** and in Maps 4.69c and 4.70c.
Based on model results, a fuel spill (with 2% benzene, and a volume of 34,000 L) from a tanker
truck approximately 12,300 m upstream of the mouth of Pelee/Hillman Creek would result in an
exceedance of the ODWQS benchmark for benzene at the Wheatley WTP.
Baird & Associates recommended that the IPZ-3 delineation be extended, as described in Section
4.2.1.2.3 (IPZ-3 delineation methodology). They recommended that the delineation be extended
to the watershed limits of the modeled watercourse, thereby including the headwaters of this
watercourse and its tributaries because the time of travel to the spill location from the headwaters
is small and dilution unlikely to occur, which would still result in an exceedance at the intake.
Although not modeled, Baird & Associates also recommended that the delineation be extended
to the tributaries north of the WTP intakes, which includes Hillman Creek, Muddy Creek and
Atwell Drain watersheds. The headwaters of these tributaries have approximately equal time of
travel to the mouth of Pelee/Hillman Creek as the headwaters upstream of the modeled spill
SPC Agenda Page 46 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
location and it is therefore reasonable to assume that a spill in these tributaries would result in an
exceedance of the ODWQS benchmark for benzene at the Wheatley WTP. Although the area
south of the mouth of Pelee/Hillman Creek does not drain directly to this creek, Baird and
Associates recommended including it in the IPZ-3 because it is pumped to outlets near the mouth
of the creek. The time of travel from this area to the mouth of Pelee/Hillman Creek is shorter
than that from the modeled spill location and it is therefore reasonable that a fuel spill would
result in an exceedance at the Wheatley WTP intakes. It was also recommended to include the
tributaries and in water area along the east shore of Point Pelee. Additionally, Point Pelee has
been added to the IPZ-3 because the in water portion of both sides is included either in the Union
IPZ-3 or Wheatley IPZ-3 and spills on land may also reach the intakes. Although these areas
were not modeled, it was felt that it would be reasonable to include these areas in the IPZ-3.
Based on these recommendations, the IPZ‐3 for the Wheatley intake was extended to include the
headwaters of Pelee/Hillman Creek, its tributaries as well as Muddy Creek, Atwell Drain, and
Pelee Area Drainage watersheds.
An off-bank setback of 120 m was applied to all watercourses; however this setback was
truncated at subwatersheds as overland flow would be traveling away from the watercourse. As
specified in the Technical Rules, the Floodplain Regulation Limit was also used in delineating
the extent of the IPZ-3 along subject waterways, where this Limit exceeds the 120 metre setback.
The modeling report from Baird & Associates report (August 2013) addressing IPZ-3 delineation
for Wheatley WTP is in Appendix **. Refer to Maps 4.69b and 4.70b for the IPZ-3
delineations for the primary and emergency intakes of the Wheatley WTP.
4.2.9.x Event Based Area
The Event Based Area for Wheatley WTP is the combination of most on land portions and in
water portions of IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (see section 4.2.1.x). Point Pelee, the tributaries on the
east shore of Point Pelee and the in water portion in Lake Erie east of Point Pelee have been
excluded from the EBA because there is high uncertainty that fuel storage or transportation in
these areas would result in a significant drinking water threat. Refer to Map 4.69c and Map
4.70c for the Event Based Area to which the significant drinking water threat policies for the
handling and storage of fuel and transportation of fuel along shipping and ferries corridors apply.
SPC Agenda Page 47 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
4.2.9.6. Drinking Water Threats
Event Based Threats Approach
As per Technical Rule 68 in conjunction with Rule 130, an activity is or would be a significant
drinking water threat in a surface water intake protection zone at the location where an activity is
or would be engaged in, if modeling demonstrates that a release of a chemical parameter or
pathogen from the activity or proposed activity would be transported through the surface water
intake protection zone to the intake and result in a deterioration of the water for use as a source
of drinking water. The Essex Region SPC has accepted the Ontario drinking water quality
standard (ODWQS) to identify deterioration of raw water quality at the intake.
The modeling that was completed to delineate the IPZ-3 for the Wheatley WTP is described in
Section 4.2.9.4, while the general methodology on the events based approach is described in
Section 4.2.1.4.4. Further details are described in the modeling report from Baird & Associates
(August 2013) addressing IPZ-3 delineation for this WTP is in Appendix **.
The Essex Region SPC has expressed concern with the potential for fuel spills along
transportation corridors, as well as the possible presence of fixed fuel tanks, in close proximity to
watercourses and drains within the IPZ-2s and IPZ-3s. Consequently, spill locations of 34,000 L
of 2% benzene gasoline were selected for contaminant modeling undertaken by Baird &
Associates on Pelee/Hillman Creek as described in section 4.2.9.4. The selection of the location
and volume of gasoline is a simulated tanker truck spill that is also considered representative of
potential fixed fuel storage locations. Simulated fuel tanker truck spills were used to represent
potential fixed fuel storage locations near watercourses and drains within the local area. The
modeling simulations identified that a spill location approximately 12,300 m upstream of the
mouth of Pelee/Hillman Creek resulted in an exceedance of the ODWQS for benzene (by 5.9
times) at the Wheatley WTP intakes.
From the results of the modeling and level of exceedance, it is reasonable to assume that a
substantially reduced spill volume would also result in an exceedance at the intake in
Pelee/Hillman Creek and surrounding watercourses. The volume of spill and concentration at the
intake are not necessarily proportional but it is reasonable to deduce that a reduction of
approximately 50% or more in spill volume would also result in a significant threat. Based upon
SPC Agenda Page 48 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
the modeling completed to date and interpretation of the results it is logical to assume that a spill
volume of approximately 15,000 L from existing or planned above ground fixed fuel storage
sites as well as transportation of fuel along shipping and ferries corridors be considered as
significant threats.
Consequently, existing and future fixed fuel storage sites and transportation of fuel along
shipping and ferries corridors of 15,000 L or greater in the Wheatley EBA (Maps 4.69c and
4.70c), would be considered to be significant threats as they would inherently deteriorate the
quality of source water in the event of a spill. Table 4.xxd provides a summary of the potential
significant threats criteria based on the modeling work as described above for the Wheatley
WTP.
Table 4.xxd: Potential Significant Threats Criteria for the Wheatley WTP for 2% Benzene
in Fuel
WTP EBA
Storage Volume (L)
Wheatley
15,000 L
Existing Significant Drinking Water Threats:
Using the treats based approach, it is not possible to have any significant threats based on the
vulnerability scores in IPZ-1 (6.0 (P); 7.0 (E)), IPZ-2 (4.8 (P); 5.6 (E)) or IPZ-3 (no vulnerability
score) of Wheatley WTP (see Table 4.43).
Using the events based approach, a desktop GIS exercise was performed to identify existing sites
with greater than 15,000 L of above ground fuel storage in the EBA for Wheatley WTP using
established criteria (fuel with 2% benzene, at volumes of at volumes of 15,000 L see Table
4.xxd). Information from fuel providers in Essex County, Google Street View, and 2013 aerial
photography overlaid with the EBA delineation using ESRI ArcGIS 10.2.2 for Desktop, were all
used to determine the locations of fuel storage and approximate size of fuel storage tanks. For
the Wheatley WTP this resulted in 50 unconfirmed fuel threats. Table 4.xxb summarizes the
SPC Agenda Page 49 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
existing significant drinking water threats for the EBA of the Wheatley WTP. Also, Map 4.xx
shows the existing significant threats in the EBA.
Table 4.xxb: Number of Unconfirmed Existing Significant Drinking Water Threats in the
EBA of the Wheatley WTP
Specific Land Use Activity Number of
Threats
Uncertainty
Above ground fuel storage (primary intake)
* 50 High
Above ground fuel storage (emergency
intake) * 50 High
*Identified through events based modeling
SPC Agenda Page 50 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Stoney Point
4.2.6.x Event Based Area
The Event Based Area for Stoney Point WTP is the combination of all on land portions and in
water portions of IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (see section 4.2.1.x). Refer to Map 4.xxc for the
Event Based Area to which the significant drinking water threat policies for the handling and
storage of fuel and transportation of fuel along shipping and ferries corridors apply.
.
Existing Significant Drinking Water Threats
Using the events based approach, a desktop GIS exercise was performed to identify existing sites
with greater than 15,000 L of above ground fuel storage in the EBA for the Stoney Point WTP
using established criteria (fuel with 2% benzene, at volumes of 15,000 L, see Table 4.16d).
Information from fuel providers in Essex County, Google Street View, and 2013 aerial
photography overlaid with the EBA delineation using ESRI ArcGIS 10.2.2 for Desktop, were all
used to determine the locations of fuel storage and approximate size of fuel storage tanks. For the
Stoney Point WTP this resulted in 32 unconfirmed fuel threats. Table 4.16e summarizes the
existing significant drinking water threats for the EBA of the Stoney Point WTP. Also, Map 4.xx
shows the existing significant threats in the EBA.
Table 4.xxa: Number of Existing Unconfirmed Significant Drinking Water Threats in the
EBA of the Stoney Point WTP
Specific Land Use Activity Number of
Threats
Uncertainty
Above ground fuel storage – parcel based* 32 High
*Identified through events based modeling
SPC Agenda Page 51 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Lakeshore (Belle River)
4.2.6.x Event Based Area
The Event Based Area for Lakeshore (Belle River) WTP is the combination of all on land
portions and in water portions of IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (see section 4.2.1.x). Refer to Map
4.xxc for the Event Based Area to which the significant drinking water threat policies for the
handling and storage of fuel and transportation of fuel along shipping and ferries corridors apply.
Existing Significant Drinking Water Threats
New text and table to reflect fuel inventory work completed since last AR:
Using the events based approach, a desktop GIS exercise was performed to identify existing sites
with greater than 15,000 L of above ground fuel storage in the EBA for the Lakeshore (Belle
River) WTP using established criteria (fuel with 2% benzene, at volumes of 15,000 L, see Table
4.23d). Information from fuel providers in Essex County, Google Street View, and 2013 aerial
photography overlaid with the EBA delineation using ESRI ArcGIS 10.2.2 for Desktop, were all
used to determine the locations of fuel storage and approximate size of fuel storage tanks. For the
Stoney Point WTP this resulted in 61 unconfirmed fuel threats. Table 4.23e summarizes the
existing significant drinking water threats for the EBA of the Harrow-Colchester South WTP.
Also, Map 4.xx shows the existing significant threats in the EBA.
Table 4.23e: Number of Existing Unconfirmed Significant Drinking Water Threats in the
EBA of the Lakeshore (Belle River) WTP
Specific Land Use Activity Number of
Threats
Uncertainty
Above ground fuel storage – parcel based* 61 High
*Identified through events based modeling
SPC Agenda Page 52 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
A.H. Weeks (Windsor)
4.2.4.x Event Based Area
The Event Based Area for A.H. Weeks (Windsor) WTP is the combination of all on land
portions and in water portions of IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (see section 4.2.1.x). Refer to Map
4.xxc for the Event Based Area to which the significant drinking water threat policies for the
handling and storage of fuel and transportation of fuel along shipping and ferries corridors apply.
Existing Significant Drinking Water Threats
An inventory of land use activities, within the IPZs with vulnerability scores greater than 8.0, for
the WTPs in the Essex Region SPA, was undertaken by Stantec Consulting Ltd. A desktop
analysis was conducted based on parcel information from the Region and Municipal Property
Assessment Corporation (MPAC) data, property owner contact and business specific surveys.
The detail on the methodology that was applied during the inventory work is described in detail
in the Technical Memorandum submitted by Stantec Consulting Ltd dated February 2011
(Appendix XI).
An analysis of each activity, namely, the ability to discharge to surface water, the requirement to
report to the NPRI, and the chemicals that may be present in the discharge was conducted and
properties of the threats were investigated. Based on the desktop investigation eight municipal
significant threats were identified. The eight significant threats consisted of pathogen threats
from combined sewers and a wastewater treatment plant. These analyses also identified 4
unconfirmed existing significant threats for the IPZ-1 and IPZ-2 (for both intakes) for the A.H.
Weeks (Windsor) WTP. These unconfirmed threats are storm water discharge from two
combined sewers and two storm sewers. If it is determined that there is the presence of particular
contaminants (for example arsenic, mercury etc.) in the discharge, these threats would be
considered significant threats. This work has not been undertaken.
Using the events based approach, a desktop GIS exercise was performed to identify existing sites
with greater than 15,000 L of above ground fuel storage in the EBA for the A.H. Weeks
(Windsor) WTP using established criteria (fuel with 2% benzene, at volumes of 15,000 L, see
SPC Agenda Page 53 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Table 4.23d). Information from fuel providers in Essex County, Google Street View, and 2013
aerial photography overlaid with the EBA delineation using ESRI ArcGIS 10.2.2 for Desktop,
were all used to determine the locations of fuel storage and approximate size of fuel storage
tanks. . For the A.H. Weeks (Windsor) WTP this resulted in 26 unconfirmed fuel threats and 2
confirmed fuel threats from the previous study. Tables 4.31a-c summarizes the existing
significant drinking water threats for the IPZs of the A. H. Weeks (Windsor) WTP. Also, Maps
4.30 and 4.31 shows the existing significant threats in the IPZs.
Therefore there are eight confirmed existing significant threats and four unconfirmed significant
threats for the A.H. Weeks (Windsor) WTP. Tables 4.31a to 4.31c summarize the existing
significant drinking water threats for the IPZ-1s and IPZ-2s, and EBAs , for both intakes of the
A. H. Weeks (Windsor) WTP . Also, Map 4.30 and Map 4.31 show the existing significant
threats in the east and west intakes IPZs respectively.
Table 4.31a: Number of Confirmed/Unconfirmed Existing Significant Drinking Water
Threats in the IPZ-1s of the A. H. Weeks (Windsor) WTP
Significant DW Threats Number of
Threats
Uncertainty
Combined sewer - confirmed 3 Low
Combined sewer - unconfirmed 2 High
Table 4.31b: Number of Confirmed/Unconfirmed Existing Significant Drinking Water
Threats in the IPZ-2s of the East and West Intakes of the A. H. Weeks (Windsor) WTP
Specific Land Use Activity Number of
Threats
Uncertainty
Combined sewer – confirmed 4 Low
Wastewater Treatment Plant - confirmed 1 Low
Storm sewer - unconfirmed 2 High
SPC Agenda Page 54 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Table 4.31c: Number of Existing Confirmed/Unconfirmed Significant Drinking Water
Threats in the EBA of the A.H. Weeks (Windsor) WTP
Specific Land Use Activity Number of
Threats
Uncertainty
Above ground fuel storage – parcel based* 24 High
Above ground fuel storage – confirmed* 2 High
*Identified through events based modeling
SPC Agenda Page 55 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Amherstburg
4.2.5.x Event Based Area
The Event Based Area for Amherstburg WTP is the combination of all on land portions and in
water portions of IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 (see section 4.2.1.x). Refer to Map 4.38c for the
Event Based Area to which the significant drinking water threat policies for the handling and
storage of fuel and transportation of fuel along shipping and ferries corridors apply.
Existing Significant Drinking Water Threats
Using the events based approach, a desktop GIS exercise was performed to identify existing sites
with above ground fuel storage in the EBA for the Amherstburg WTP using established criteria
(see Table 4.39a). Information from fuel providers in Essex County, Google Street View, and
2013 aerial photography overlaid with the EBA delineation using ESRI ArcGIS 10.2.2 for
Desktop, were all used to determine the locations of fuel storage and approximate size of fuel
storage tanks. For the Amherstburg WTP this resulted in 54 unconfirmed fuel threats. Table
4.39b summarizes the existing significant drinking water threats for the EBA of the Amherstburg
WTP. Also, Map 4.41 shows the existing significant threats in the EBA.
Table 4.39c: Number of Existing Unconfirmed Significant Drinking Water Threats in the
EBA of the Amherstburg WTP
Specific Land Use Activity Number of
Threats
Uncertainty
Above ground fuel storage – parcel based* 54 High
*Identified through events based modeling
SPC Agenda Page 56 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Updates to Chapter 4 of Essex Region Assessment Report: Local Threats and
Uncertainty Assessments
4.2.1.4.5. Local Threats (To be added to general section at beginning of Chapter 4)
Fixed fuel storage tanks are considered ‘prescribed’ drinking water quality threats, as they are
included under the activity of ‘handling and storage of fuel’ in the MOE Drinking Water Threats
Tables. However the transportation of fuel (such as by tanker trucks) is not an activity listed in
these Threats Tables. A request was made to the Director in June 2011 to add the transportation
of fuel as an ‘other’ or ‘local’ drinking water quality threat. This request was made because there
are many high intensity transportation corridors (e.g. highways, roads, railways, navigation
channels) in the vulnerable areas of the Essex Region Source Protection Area. The Director
approved the transportation of fuel and other chemicals of concern (i.e. organic solvents
DNAPLs, pesticides/herbicides and fertilizers) as local drinking water threats in August 2011)
(Appendix XIII). At this time only spill events of transportation of fuels containing 2% benzene
have been modeled in the Essex Region SPA and deemed to be significant drinking water threats
in all Event Based Areas (EBAs) in the ERSPA. Because none of the IPZs in ERSPA have a
vulnerability score of 10, only moderate or low local threats can be identified using the
vulnerability score, for more details see Director’s Letter dated August 2011 (Appendix XIII).
Tables that show the classification of the transportation of various substances as significant,
moderate or low drinking water threats based on the vulnerability score of each IPZ are included
for each WTP in the ERSPA in the respective WTP sections. In order to determine which
circumstance of which local threat activity is or would be a low or moderate threat using the
vulnerability score, the tables need to be read in conjunction with the Director’s letter.
SPC Agenda Page 57 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Table 4.xx: Threat level for Local Threats (transportation of various substances) for
Stoney Point WTP
IPZ Vulnerability
Score
Significant Moderate Low
1 9 √ √
2 6.3 √
3a 6.3 √
3b 5.4 √
3c 4.5
Table 4.xx: Threat level for Local Threats (transportation of various substances) for
Lakeshore (Belle River) WTP
IPZ Vulnerability
Score
Significant Moderate Low
1 9 √ √
2 6.3 √
3a 6.3 √
3b 5.4 √
3c 4.5
SPC Agenda Page 58 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Table 4.xx: Threat level for Local Threats (transportation of various substances) for A. H.
Weeks (Windsor) WTP
IPZ Vulnerability
Score
Significant Moderate Low
1 9 √ √
2 8.1 √ √
3 N/A
Table 4.xx: Threat level for Local Threats (transportation of various substances) for
Amherstburg WTP
IPZ Vulnerability
Score
Significant Moderate Low
1 9 √ √
2 7.2 √
3 N/A
Table 4.xx: Threat level for Local Threats (transportation of various substances) for
Harrow-Colchester WTP
IPZ Vulnerability
Score
Significant Moderate Low
1 6 √
2 4.8
3 N/A
SPC Agenda Page 59 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Table 4.xx: Threat level for Local Threats (transportation of various substances) for Union
WTP
IPZ Vulnerability
Score
Significant Moderate Low
1 (Primary) 5 √
1 (Emergency) 6 √ 2 (Primary) 4
2 (Emergency) 4.8
3 N/A
Table 4.xx: Threat level for Local Threats (transportation of various substances) for Pelee
Island West Shore WTP
IPZ Vulnerability
Score
Significant Moderate Low
1 6 √
2 4.2
3 N/A
Table 4.xx: Threat level for Local Threats (transportation of various substances) for
Wheatley WTP
IPZ Vulnerability
Score
Significant Moderate Low
1 (Primary) 6.0 √
1 (Emergency) 7.0 √ 2 (Primary) 4.8
2 (Emergency) 5.6 √
3 N/A
SPC Agenda Page 60 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
4.2.10 Uncertainty Analysis
Table 4.73: Uncertainty Level Rating for the Harrow-Colchester South WTP
Component IPZ-1 IPZ-2 IPZ-3
IPZ Delineation
In-Water LOW HIGH HIGH
Upland/Up-
Tributary LOW LOW
HIGH
Overall LOW HIGH HIGH
Vulnerability Score LOW LOW NA
Combined Rating* LOW HIGH HIGH
*Combined rating defaults high level with presence of HIGH certainty in any component
Table 4.74: Uncertainty Level Rating for the Union WTP
Component IPZ-1 IPZ-2 IPZ-3
IPZ Delineation
In-Water LOW HIGH HIGH
Upland/Up-
Tributary LOW LOW
HIGH
Overall LOW HIGH HIGH
Vulnerability Score LOW LOW NA
Combined Rating* LOW HIGH HIGH
*Combined rating defaults high level with presence of HIGH certainty in any component
Table 4.75: Uncertainty Level Rating for the Wheatley WTP
Component IPZ-1 IPZ-2 IPZ-3
IPZ Delineation
In-Water LOW HIGH HIGH
Upland/Up-
Tributary LOW LOW
HIGH
Overall LOW HIGH HIGH
Vulnerability Score LOW HIGH NA
Combined Rating* LOW HIGH HIGH
SPC Agenda Page 61 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Table 4.76: Uncertainty Level Rating for the Pelee Island West Shore WTP
Component IPZ-1 IPZ-2 IPZ-3
IPZ Delineation
In-Water LOW HIGH HIGH
Upland/Up-
Tributary LOW LOW
HIGH
Overall LOW HIGH HIGH
Vulnerability Score LOW LOW NA
Combined Rating* LOW HIGH HIGH
*Combined rating defaults high level with presence of HIGH certainty in any component
SPC Agenda Page 62 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE - REPORT SPC 15/14
FROM: Katie Stammler, Project Manager
SUBJECT: AR updates – Chapters 1 and 5
DATE: November 17, 2014
PURPOSE
To inform the SPC of updates made to Chapter 1 (introduction) and Chapter 5 (Great Lakes
Considerations) of the Assessment Report
REPORT SUMMARY
Chapters 1 and 5 of the Assessment Report have been updated to reflect new technical work and call
for microcystin-LR to be consider for Great Lakes Target
BACKGROUND
Chapter 1
Chapter 1is the general introduction to the Assessment Report and has been updated to reflect new
work done since the AR was approved in 2011. This includes updating the timeline, consultation
schedule and SPC membership. New work on Lake Erie intakes including fuel modelling to delineate
IPZ-3s and the identification of microcystin-LR as a drinking water issue have been added. As well,
descriptions of event based areas and local threats have been added.
Chapter 5
Chapter 5 discusses Great Lakes initiatives considered in the preparation of the AR including Great Lakes
Agreements, Areas of Concern (Detroit River and Wheatley Harbour), the Lake Erie Lakewide
Management Plan (LaMP) as well as Great Lakes Targets. Great Lakes Targets may be established by the
Minister of the Environment relating to the use of the Great Lakes as a source of drinking water for any
Source Protection Area that contributes water to the Great Lakes. However, targets and
recommendations have yet to be developed in this regard.
Because microcystin-LR has been identified as a drinking water issue in both the Essex Region and
Thames-Sydenham Region Lake Erie intakes and because this issue is likely to continue in the future, a
new paragraph has been added suggesting that the Minister consider setting a Great Lakes target for
microcystin-LR under the Clean Water Act.
Note that Chapters 2, 3 and 6 of the AR have not been updated at this time because no further technical
work was conducted related to these chapters.
SPC Agenda Page 63 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Report SPC 15/14 be received by the SPC for information and discussion purposes
Katie Stammler, Project Manager
Attachment:
1. Updates to Chapters 1 and 5 of Essex Region Assessment Report
SPC Agenda Page 64 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Updates to Chapters 1 and 5 of Essex Region Assessment Report
Chapter 1:
1.2 Source Protection Planning Process
Figure 1.1 Source Protection Timeline
Milestone 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Terms of Reference
Technical Studies - Proposed AR
Technical Studies - Updated/
Amended Proposed AR
Source Protection Plans
Technical Studies - Updated
Assessment Report
Updated Source Protection Plan
1.4 Source Protection Committee
CHAIR
Tom Fuerth
MUNICIPAL SECTOR
Antonietta Giofu Tom Hunt Charles McLean
Robert Peterson Mario Sonego
ECONOMIC SECTOR
John Barnett Hans Peter Pfeifer Bernard Nelson
David Church David Watsa (retired) Ian Wilson
OTHER
Robert Auger (retired) Andrew Pula Tim Mousseau
Ashley Stevenson John Stuart Bill Dukes
SOURCE PROTECTION AUTHORITY LIAISON
Larry Verbeke
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT LIAISON
Teresa McLellan
HEALTH UNIT LIAISON
Vacant
SPC Agenda Page 65 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
1.6 Framework of the Assessment Report
Updates and amendments were made to the ERSPA Approved Assessment Report to form the
current Updated Assessment Report. These changes reflect new information that has become
available to the SPC, and amendments that have been made to the Approved Assessment Report.
New information includes the delineation and threats assessment of Type 3 Intake Protection
Zones (IPZ-3s), the identification of existing significant threats through events based spills
modeling, and the establishing of potential significant threats criteria in Lake Erie intakes. A
desktop GIS exercise identified existing fuel threats for all intakes. The threat counts have been
updated for each intake. As well, technical work was completed to identify microcystin-LR as a
drinking water issue at Lake Erie intakes.
1.8 Consultation on the Assessment Report
New paragraph:
The Updated Assessment Report is now available for a 30-day comment period beginning
November 24, 2014. A copy for review is available at the Essex Region Conservation Authority
office. The notice was published in the newspaper on November 29, 2014 to notify the public
and other stakeholders of updates and amendments. Notification was distributed to municipal
clerks and to persons engaging in activities that are or would be significant drinking water
threats. A public meeting is also to be held on December 10, 2014. Comments received will be
reviewed by the Source Protection Committee and the Source protection Authority Board
(ERCA Board of Directors).
SPC Agenda Page 66 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
1.9.1 Vulnerable Areas
New paragraph:
Event Based Areas (EBA)
By definition the IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 for each intake do not overlap. The Event Based Area
(EBA) is an area where modeling has demonstrated that a spill from a specific activity can or
could cause deterioration to the raw water quality at the drinking water system. If the modeling
test is met, the activity is deemed a significant drinking water threat and becomes subject to
Source Protection Plan policies. The EBAs in the Essex Region encompass the combination of
these three zones for modeled activities (i.e. fuel spill with 2% benzene, and a volume of 34,000
L) to which associated significant drinking water threat policies apply. Some areas of very high
uncertainty may be included in the IPZ-3, which are acceptable under Rule 68 (Part VI.5)
(Technical Rules: Assessment Report CWA, 2006), but are excluded from the EBA (Rule 130
(Part VI.5) (Technical Rules: Assessment Report CWA, 2006). Future studies may improve the
certainty of these areas, which could be added to the EBA in an updated Assessment Report.
1.9.2 Drinking Water Threats
New paragraph:
Local threats specific to a Source Protection Area and not included in the MOE’s drinking water
threats tables may also be considered with special permission from the Director. In June 2011,
the Essex Region SPC requested that the transportation of fuel (such as by tanker trucks) be
considered a local threat because there are many high intensity transportation corridors (e.g.
highways, roads, railways, navigation channels) in the vulnerable areas of the Essex Region
Source Protection Area. The Director approved the transportation of fuel and other chemicals of
concern (i.e. organic solvents DNAPLs, pesticides/herbicides and fertilizers) as local drinking
water threats in August 2011). The threats based approach is used to assess the threat level of
these substances in each IPZ in the Essex Region. These threats are deemed significant in all
EBAs as a result of modelling activities.
SPC Agenda Page 67 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Chapter 5:
New paragraph:
In 2104, both the Essex Region SPC and Thames-Sydenham Region SPC identified microcystin-
LR as a drinking water issue at Lake Erie intakes (Harrow-Colchester, Union, Pelee Island West
Shore and Wheatley) because concentrations of microcystin-LR have exceeded half the
maximum allowable concentration on multiple occasions in the raw water of these intakes.
Microcystin-LR is a neurotoxin produced by cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) and is released
when the cell walls of the algae break down. Each summer the western basin of Lake Erie
experiences algal blooms that result in high levels of total microcystins and microcystin-LR.
Drinking water plant operators are required to alter their operations during a bloom at a
significantly increased cost over regular operations. There is evidence that microcystin
producing algal blooms are also occurring with increasing frequency and severity in the central
basin of Lake Erie as well as in Lake St.Clair. Given that this drinking water issue is so
extensive and likely to continue in the future, the Essex Region SPC suggests that the Minister of
the Environment consider establishing a Great Lakes target for microcystin-LR.
SPC Agenda Page 68 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE - REPORT SPC 16/14
FROM: Katie Stammler, Project Manager
SUBJECT: SPP updates
DATE: November 17, 2014
PURPOSE
To inform the SPC of changes made to the Source Protection Plan
REPORT SUMMARY
The Source Protection Plan has been updated to reflect new technical work included in the AR as
well as changes to the policies discussed in previous SPC reports
BACKGROUND
Changes to the SPP are outlined by section or Appendix
Section 2 – Assessment Report Summary
Definition of Events Based Area added as in Chapter 1 of the Assessment Report (Report SPC 15/14).
IPZ-3s in Lake Erie are discussed including the volume thresholds for fuel for each new area.
Call for microcystin-LR to be considered for Great Lakes target added as in Chapter 5 of the Assessment
Report (Report SPC 15/14)
Section 4 – Understanding the Source Protection Plan
New text has been added to the ‘Land Use Planning’ section (at the request of MMAH) and a new
description of monitoring tools under Section 22(2)-7 (used for microcystin-LR monitoring policy) has
been added (new text in italics).
Land Use Planning
The Clean Water Act recognizes the authority of the Planning Act to regulate land uses and provides for the implementation of certain Source Protection Plan policies through Ontario’s existing land use planning framework. The Planning Act in Ontario provides tools with which municipalities can regulate development as they plan their communities, such as allocating land for agricultural, residential, commercial or mixed uses. The individual planning authorities will reflect the implementation of policies in their respective Official Plans. In a specific case where the implementation of a policy is not appropriate given the specific circumstances in an Official Plan, the planning authority will make the final decision on inclusion subject to review by the SPC. For example, there is no benefit in Lakeshore providing land use planning measures to complement a Prescribed Instrument policy for waste disposal sites, given the unique nature of this particular IPZ-1 in the Town of Lakeshore. The land based portion of the IPZ-1 affects only a very narrow protrusion into Lake St. Clair, including marina and small portion of a municipal park.
SPC Agenda Page 69 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Monitoring tool specified in Section 22(2)-7 of the Clean Water Act
Section 22(2)-7 of the Clean Water Act allows for policies which govern environmental monitoring of drinking
water issues identified in the Assessment Report (e.g. microcystin-LR), if such monitoring is advisable.
Monitoring may be advisable if more data are needed to determine the extent of the issue, whether trends
exist in the data and/or what the sources of the issue may be.
Section 5 – Source Protection Policies
Table 5.1: List of Essex Region Draft Source Protection Plan Policies (Attached) and Table 5.2: Essex
Region Draft Source Protection Plan Policies have been updated to reflect changes made to policies since
the receipt of MOE’s official comments in July 2014 and as a result of new technical work.
Section 6 – Implementation of the Source Protection Plan
Part IV policy section updated to reflect change in Section 59 policies and applicability of Fuel section 58
policy to newly modelled areas.
Section 7 – Looking ahead
Previously identified gaps (e.g. IPZ-3’s for Lake Erie intakes, microcystin issue identification) that were
addressed by additional technical work since the previous SPP were removed. A call for more
microcystin and phosphorus data was added as well as the suggestion that microcystin-LR be considered
for a Great Lakes target.
Appendix A – Essex Region Source Protection Plan Policy Details
Summary of changes to policies provided in Table 5.1 from SPP (attached)
Additional changes to policies as a result of pre-consultation are addressed in Report SPC 17/14
Appendix B – Legal Provision Lists
Updated to add new policies, remove policies and update policy numbers
Appendix C – Clean Water Act Part IV S57, S58, and S59 Lists
Table with list of activities to which Section 58 (Risk Management Plan) applies and areas within which
Section 58 applies for each designated activity updated to reflect new areas affected by the fuel RMP
policy (all EBAs in the Essex Region SPA) and the new RMP policy for the Handling and Storage of
Hazardous or Liquid Industrial Waste in Windsor, Lakeshore and Amherstburg IPZ-1s
Table with List of land uses to which Section 59 (Restricted Land Use)* applies and areas within which
Section 59 applies for each land use updated to reflect new areas affected by the fuel RMP policy (all
EBAs in the Essex Region SPA) and additional land use designations (Agriculture) and zoning classifications
(Agriculture and Green District)
Appendix D – List of Prescribed Instrument Policies
Updated to remove policy 16/17/18 and update all policy numbers
SPC Agenda Page 70 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Appendix E – Terms and Definitions
New entries:
Event Based Areas (EBA) are the areas within the Intake Protection zones (parts of IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3) where event-based modeling has demonstrated that a spill can reach the intake at a concentration which would deteriorate the water for the purposes of drinking. Event-based modeling involved the use of specific events which were not to exceed an extreme event as defined by the Technical Rules. The spills modeled may be the result of the local threat activity (transportation) or it may be the result of a similar prescribed drinking water threat (storage or handling). Within the EBA these activities are identified as SDWT under the circumstance (volume) modeled. Each EBA is associated with a specific contaminant and quantity. Extreme event is a period of heavy precipitation or winds up to a 100 year storm event; a freshet; or a surface water body exceeding its high water mark (Technical Rules). An event up to an extreme event is used for event based modeling
Appendix F – Acronyms
New entries:
EBA – Event Based Area
MTO – Ontario Ministry of Transportation*
* Provincial ministries may be realigned from time to time and references to MTO are intended to be
generic references to the ministry having responsibilities for transportation and as such may be a
reference to any one of the past or future ministries having that responsibility.
OMAFRA; OMAF – Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; Ontario Ministry of
Agriculture and Food*
* Provincial ministries may be realigned from time to time and references to OMAFRA are intended to
be generic references to the ministry having responsibilities for agriculture and as such may be a
reference to any one of the past or future ministries having that responsibility.
Edits to account for changing ministry names over time:
MNR; MNRF – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and
Forestry.*
* Provincial ministries may be realigned from time to time and references to MNR are intended to be
generic references to the ministry having responsibilities for natural resources and as such may be a
reference to any one of the past or future ministries having that responsibility.
MOE; MOECC; MOEE – Ontario Ministry of the Environment; Ontario Ministry of the Environment
and Climate Change; Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy.*
* Provincial ministries may be realigned from time to time and references to MOE are intended to be
generic references to the ministry having responsibilities for the environment and as such may be a
reference to any one of the past or future ministries having that responsibility.
SPC Agenda Page 71 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Appendix G – Maps
New IPZ-3 and EBA maps have been created (see Report SPC 14/14)
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Report SPC 16/14 be received for information and discussion purposes
Katie Stammler, Project Manager
Attachments
1. Table 5.1: List of Essex Region Draft Source Protection Plan Policies
SPC Agenda Page 72 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Table 5.1: List of Essex Region Draft Source Protection Plan Policies
No. New No. TOOL Sub-threat/Threat Vulnerable Area Policy Reference No.
1 1 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Combined sewer discharge from a stormwater outlet to surface water
Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1W2L1A1-combinedsewer-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
2 2 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Sewage treatment plant bypass discharge to surface water, Sewage treatment plant effluent discharges (includes lagoons), Storage of sewage
Windsor IPZ-1, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1L1A1-bypass/effluent/storage-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
3 3 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Storage of sewage Windsor IPZ-1 W1-storage-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
4 4 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Stormwater management
Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1W2L1A1-stormwater-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
5 5 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Industrial effluent discharges
Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1W2L1A1-industrialeff-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
6 6 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Industrial effluent discharges
Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1W2L1A1-industrialeff-2 (Prescribed Instrument)
SPC Agenda Page 73 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
No. New No. TOOL Sub-threat/Threat Vulnerable Area Policy Reference No.
7 7 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Sewage treatment plant bypass discharge to surface water, Sewage treatment plant effluent discharges (includes lagoons)
Windsor IPZ-2 W2-bypass/effluent-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
8 8 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Application of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)
Windsor IPZ-2 W2applNASM-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
9 9 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Storage of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)
Windsor IPZ-2 W2storageNASM-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
10 10 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Application of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)
Windsor IPZ-1, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1L1A1-applicationNASM-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
11 11 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Storage of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)
Windsor IPZ-1, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1L1A1-storageNASM-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
12 12 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Application of untreated septage to land
Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1W2L1A1-hauledsewage-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
13 13 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Storage, treatment and discharge of tailings from mines
Windsor IPZ-1, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1L1A1-minetail-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
SPC Agenda Page 74 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
No. New No. TOOL Sub-threat/Threat Vulnerable Area Policy Reference No.
14 14 Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Land disposal of petroleum refining waste, Land disposal of hazardous waste, Land disposal of municipal waste, Land disposal of industrial or commercial waste, Storage of hazardous waste at disposal sites
Windsor IPZ-1, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1L1A1-waste-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
15 15 Prescribed Instrument (Pesticides Permits)
Application of pesticide
Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2, Lakeshore IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1W2L1A1applPesticide-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
16/17/18
REMOVED Prescribed Instrument (Environmental Compliance Approval)
Handling and storage of fuel - IPZ-1,2,3
Stoney Point, Lakeshore, Windsor and Amherstburg IPZ-1,2,3
SLWA123-handlestorefuel-3 (Prescribed Instrument)
19/20/21
16 Prescribed Instrument (Municipal Drinking Water License and Permit)
Handling and storage of fuel - IPZ-1,2,3
Stoney Point, Lakeshore, Windsor and Amherstburg IPZ-1,2,3
SLWA123-handlestorefuel-1 (Prescribed Instrument)
22/23/24
17
Prescribed Instrument (Aggregate Licenses, Wayside Permits, and Aggregate Permits and Site Plans)
Handling and storage of fuel - IPZ-1,2,3
Stoney Point, Lakeshore, Windsor and Amherstburg IPZ-1,2,3
SLWA123-handlestorefuel-5 (Prescribed Instrument)
SPC Agenda Page 75 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
No. New No. TOOL Sub-threat/Threat Vulnerable Area Policy Reference No.
25 18 O. Reg 287/07 Section 26 (Specify Action)
The transportation of organic solvents, dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs), fuels, pesticides/herbicides, fertilizers
All IPZ-1s, IPZ-2s and IPZ-3s
All123-transportcorridor-1 (Specify Action)
26 19 O. Reg 287/07 Section 26 (Specify Action)
The transportation of organic solvents, dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs), fuels, pesticides/herbicides, fertilizers
All IPZ-1s, IPZ-2s and IPZ-3s
All123-transportcorridor-3(Specify Action)
27 20 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 57 (prohibit)
The application of Agricultural Source Material (ASM)
Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1W2L1A1-applASM-1 (Clean Water Act)
28 21 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 57 (prohibit)
The storage of Agricultural Source Material (ASM)
Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1W2L1A1-storageASM-1 (Clean Water Act)
29 22 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 57 (prohibit)
The application of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)
Windsor IPZ-1, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1L1A1-applNASM-1 (Clean Water Act)
30 23 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 57 (prohibit)
The storage of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)
Windsor IPZ-1, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1L1A1-storageNASM-1 (Clean Water Act)
SPC Agenda Page 76 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
No. New No. TOOL Sub-threat/Threat Vulnerable Area Policy Reference No.
31 REMOVED Clean Water Act Part IV Section 59 (restricted land use)
The storage of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)
Windsor IPZ-1, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1L1A1-storageNASM-3 (Clean Water Act)
32 24 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 57 (prohibit)
The storage of Road Salt
Windsor IPZ-1, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1L1A1-storageroadsalt-1 (Clean Water Act)
33 REMOVED Clean Water Act Part IV Section 59 (restricted land use)
The storage of Road Salt
Windsor IPZ-1, Amherstburg IPZ-1 and Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1
W1A1L1-storageroadsalt-3 (Clean Water Act)
34 25 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 57 (prohibit)
The storage of Snow Windsor IPZ-1, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1L1A1-storagesnow-1 (Clean Water Act)
NEW 26 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 58 (risk management plan)
Storage of Hazardous or Liquid Industrial Waste
Windsor IPZ-1, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1L1A1-hazardouswaste (Clean Water Act)
35 27 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 58 (risk management plan)
The application of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)
Windsor IPZ-2 W2-applNASM-1 (Clean Water Act)
36 28 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 58 (risk management plan)
The storage of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)
Windsor IPZ-2 W2-storageNASM-1 (Clean Water Act)
SPC Agenda Page 77 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
No. New No. TOOL Sub-threat/Threat Vulnerable Area Policy Reference No.
37 29 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 58 (risk management plan)
The application of Pesticide
Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2, Amherstburg IPZ-1 and Lakeshore IPZ-1
W1W2A1L1applPesticide-1 (Clean Water Act)
38 30 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 58 (risk management plan)
Storage of Pesticide
Windsor IPZ-1, Amherstburg IPZ-1, and Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1
W1A1L1-storagepesticide-1 (Clean Water Act)
39 REMOVED Clean Water Act Part IV Section 59 (restricted land use)
Storage of Pesticide
Windsor IPZ-1, Amherstburg IPZ-1, and Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1
W1A1L1-storagepesticide-3 (Clean Water Act)
40 31 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 58 (risk management plan)
The handling and storage of Fuel
Stoney Point, Lakeshore, Windsor and Amherstburg IPZ-1,2,3
SLWA123-handlestorefuel-1 (Clean Water Act)
NEW 32 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 59 (restricted land use)
The handling and storage of Fuel
All IPZ-1s, IPZ-2s and IPZ-3s
All123-handlestorefuel-1 (Clean Water Act)
NEW 33 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 59 (restricted land use)
All activities that are subject to Sections 57 (Prohibition) or 58 (Risk Management Plan) policies
Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2, Amherstburg IPZ-1 and Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1
W1W2A1L1-allactivities-1 (Clean Water Act)
41 34 O. Reg 287/07 Section 26 (Specify Action)
Sewage treatment plant bypass discharge to surface water
Windsor IPZ-2 W2bypass-1 (Specify Action)
SPC Agenda Page 78 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
No. New No. TOOL Sub-threat/Threat Vulnerable Area Policy Reference No.
42 35 O. Reg 287/07 Section 26 (Specify Action)
Sewage treatment plant effluent discharges (includes lagoons)
Windsor IPZ-2 W2effluent-1 (Specify Action)
43 36 O. Reg 287/07 Section 26 (Specify Action)
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), bypass, effluent discharge
Windsor IPZ-1 and Windsor IPZ-2
W1W2-combinedsewerbypasseffluent-1 (Specify Action)
44 37 O. Reg 287/07 Section 26 (Govern Research)
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
Windsor IPZ-1 and Windsor IPZ-2
W1W2-combinedsewer-2 (Govern Research)
45 38 Clean Water Act Section 22(7) (Education and Outreach)
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Stormwater management
Windsor IPZ-1 and Windsor IPZ-2
W1W2-combinedsewerstorm-3 (E&O)
46 39 O. Reg 287/07 Section 26 (Stewardship)/ Clean Water Act Section 22(7) (Incentive)
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), bypass, effluent discharge
Windsor IPZ-1 and Windsor IPZ-2
W1W2-combinedsewerbypasseffluent-4 (Stewardship/Incentive)
47 40 O. Reg 287/07 Section 26 (Specify Action)
Storage of sewage (e.g.: treatment plant tanks)
Windsor IPZ-1, Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1 and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1L1A1storage-1 (Specify Action)
48 41 O. Reg 287/07 Section 26 (Specify Action)
The handling and storage of fuel
Stoney Point, Lakeshore, Windsor and Amherstburg IPZ-1,2,3
SLWA123-handlestorefuel-1 (Specify Action)
SPC Agenda Page 79 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
No. New No. TOOL Sub-threat/Threat Vulnerable Area Policy Reference No.
49 42 Land Use Planning
Use of Land as Livestock Grazing or Pasturing Land, an Outdoor Containment Area or Farm Animal Yard
Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2, and Amherstburg IPZ-1
W1W2A1-livgraz-1 (Planning)
50 43 Clean Water Act Section 22(7) (Education and Outreach)
Various aAll IPZs All IPZ s (E & O)
51 44 Clean Water Act Section 22(7) (Education and Outreach)
Various HVAs and SGRAs and rural areas with private wells
HVAs, SGRAs, Wells -1(E&O)
52 45 O. Reg 287/07 Section 26 (Stewardship)/ Clean Water Act Section 22(7) (Incentive)
The handling and storage of fuel
Stoney Point, Lakeshore, Windsor and Amherstburg IPZ-1,2,3
SLWA123-handlestorefuel-1 (Stewardship/Incentive)
53 46 O. Reg 287/07 Section 26 (Stewardship)/ Clean Water Act Section 22(7) (Incentive)
Various All IPZs, HVAs and SGRAs and rural areas with private wells
All IPZs, HVAs, SGRAs, Wells –1 (Stewardship/Incentive)
54 47 O. Reg 287/07 Section 26 (Specify Action)
Management of runoff that contains chemicals used in the de-icing of aircraft
Windsor IPZ-1, Amherstburg IPZ-1, and Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1
W1A1L1-deicair (Specify Action)
SPC Agenda Page 80 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
No. New No. TOOL Sub-threat/Threat Vulnerable Area Policy Reference No.
55 48 Clean Water Act Section 22(7) (Education and Outreach)
Use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an outdoor containment area or farm animal yard
Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1
L1-livgraz-1 (E & O)
NEW 49 Clean Water Act Section 22(7) (Education and Outreach)
Issue: Microcystin-LR Target Area: Essex Region Source Protection Area:
ERSPA-microcystinLR-1 (E&O)
NEW 50 Clean Water Act Section 22(2)-7
Issue: Microcystin-LR Target Area: Lake Erie drinking water intakes and tributaries
LE-microcystinLR-1 (Clean Water Act)
SPC Agenda Page 81 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SOURCE PROTECTION COMMITTEE - REPORT SPC 17/14
FROM: Katie Stammler, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Pre-consultation comments and responses
DATE: November 17, 2014
PURPOSE
To provide information on the results of comments received to date and responses to those comments
BACKGROUND
Pre-consultation packages were sent to 15 organizations on October 31, 2014, with a request for comments by November 10, 2014. This includes ten (10) municipalities, three (3) Provincial Ministry offices, the Joint Board of Management of the Union Water Supply System, and the Essex Region Conservation Authority.
Comments received
To date responses have been received from the following: - Town of Tecumseh – In person meeting (November 4, 2014) to discuss policy changes and implications, no official comments received - Township of Pelee – Phone meeting (November 5, 2014) to discuss new policies and implications. Request for changes to microcysin monitoring policy to reflect cost challenges for Pelee and the fact that they are not included in MOE’s Drinking Water Surveillance Program (DWSP) - Union Water Supply System – official comments received by email November 14, 2014 (attached) - Municipality of Leamington – email and phone requests for clarification of policies received and vulnerable areas included (Nov 3 and Nov 6, respectively), official comments received by email November 7, 2014 (attached) -ERCA – no comments on E&O components of policies received by email November 7, 2014 - Ministry of the Environment – minor editorial comments received to date. Comments suggesting rephrasing of vulnerable areas for all fuel policies are expected prior to public consultation as result of new technical work and delineation of Event Based Areas. Additional comments that do not affect the intention of the policies is expected to be received during public consultation
SPC Agenda Page 82 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Responses
Microcystin monitoring policy
The microcystin monitoring policy has been edited to reflect the concerns of the Township of Pelee.
Highlighted text has been added:
In the policy text: The Harrow-Colchester South Water Treatment Plant, Union Water Supply System,
Pelee Island West Shore Water Treatment Plant and Wheatley Water Treatment Plant shall continue to
conduct existing water quality sampling (both raw and treated water) and to share information and data
with other interested parties where resources are available.
In the rationale: Data are available for the Wheatley, Union and Harrow-Colchester drinking water
intakes; however the length of the data record is currently insufficient to determine if there is a trend of
increasing concentrations. Increased sampling frequency (currently weekly) would help to fully assess the
severity of this drinking water issue. Pelee Island WTP is not currently included in the MOECC Drinking
Water Surveillance Program (DWSP). Because this intake is most affected by harmful algal blooms and
sees high concentrations of microcystins throughout the summer, this WTP should be included in the
MOECC’s DWSP program.
Fuel Risk Management Plan policy
The following highlighted text has been added to the rationale of the fuel RMP policy to address the
concerns of the Municipality of Leamington that the application of RMPs be consistent across the Region:
Given the uncertainties and potential weakness related to some aspects of existing inspections and
documentation/record keeping practices, particularly for ‘private outlets’, the Risk Management Plan
(RMP) tools available through the Clean Water Act, will enable the Risk Management Official (RMO) to
produce a RMP consisting of details to address installation, operation and regular inspection of fuel
storage tanks as well as how and where fuel is contained and stored, which demonstrate compliance with
the TSSA requirements for installation, operation, regular inspections, etc. While unique RMPs will be
negotiated with each landowner; however all RMPs will have requirements that are consistent with TSSA
requirements. This policy is not intended to require that the RMO actually undertake official TSSA
inspections.
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Report SPC 17/14 be received for information and discussion purposes
Katie Stammler, Project Manager
Attachments: 1) Comments from Municipality of Leamington 2) Comments from UWSS
SPC Agenda Page 83 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
SPC Agenda Page 84 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper
Email received by K.Stammler 14 November, 2014 Dear Ms. Katie Stammler, On behalf of the Union Water Supply System Joint Board of Management, I have reviewed the Monitoring Policy under Section 22(2)-7 of the Clean Water Act that is being proposed to address the Microcystin LR (and associated cyanobacteria algal blooms) issue in Lake Erie. This review was focused on the effects of the proposed policy to the Union Water Supply System’s operations. It is noted that this policy is a Strategic Action type policy and not legally binding. As you are aware, the UWSS has developed a monitoring program for blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) blooms and associated algal toxins, including microcystin. This program was initiated in July 2012 through a 3-year collaborative study with the Canadian Water Network (CWN) funded Secure Source Waters Consortium project, being led by Dr. Sarah Dorner of the University of Montreal’s Ecole Polytechnique. It is the UWSS’ intention to continue and enhance this monitoring program beyond the completion of the 3-year CWN study. It should be noted that the monitoring being currently being conducted and data collected as part of this study, in addition to the algae related data that UWSS collects as part of the MOE’s DWSP program, basically meets or exceeds the actions being proposed as part of the Essex Source Protection Committee’s Microcystin-LR Monitoring Policy. Further, the UWSS doesn’t see any issues with providing said algae related monitoring data to the Essex Region Source Protection Area for its reporting requirements in regards to this proposed policy. At this time, I do not have any revisions to provide in regards to the proposed monitoring policy. I believe that protection of Lake Erie source waters is very important to UWSS in the context of providing safe drinking water to the public and that this proposed policy is a step in the right direction. Should you have any comments regarding the information contained within this email, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. Best Regards, Rodney Rodney R. Bouchard
General Manager Union Water Supply System (UWSS) P.O. Box 340 1615 Union Avenue Ruthven, ON N0P 2G0
Office: 519-326-1668 Mobile: 519-324-6862 rbouchard@unionwater.ca www.unionwater.ca
SPC Agenda Page 85 of 85 Printed on 50% Recycled Paper