Source Protection Committee - AGENDA · 2018-03-29 · Source Protection Committee - AGENDA....

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


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


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


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


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


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



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,








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



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



MONITORING POLICY


Threat The establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste disposal site;

The establishment, operation or maintenance of a system that collects,

stores,








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



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



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




Target Area Lake Erie drinking water intakes and tributaries

Vulnerable Area Not applicable

Policy Number

Policy Reference Number

Risk Level of Threat 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.



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



Compliance Date When Source Protection Plan takes effect.

Status of Threat Policy Draft policies for consultation



MONITORING POLICY


Monitoring Policy

Number

Monitoring Policy

Reference Number



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


Status of Policy Draft policies for consultation




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


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


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


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


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 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


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)








*FN member appointments expire at this time as well.


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


Going Forward

• SPAs need to meet regulatory requirements • MOECC recognizes that this recruitment

process as described in regulation takes time and resources

10


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


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


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).


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


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


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 **


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.


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


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.


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


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


4.2.7. Union Water Treatment Plant


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


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 **.






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.


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.



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


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.






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.


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.











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 **.





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.


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


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



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


Threats

Uncertainty

Above ground fuel storage (primary intake)

* 146 High

Above ground fuel storage (emergency

intake) * 145 High



4.2.8. Pelee Island West Shore Water Treatment Plant


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




would be required for the Pelee Island West Shore WTP and the details of this study are in

Appendix **.






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.


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.



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


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.




the extent of the IPZ-3 along subject waterways, where this Limit exceeds the 120 m setback.


for Wheatley WTP is in Appendix **. Refer to Map 4.63b for the IPZ-3 delineations for the

Pelee Island West Shore WTP.


The Event Based Area for Pelee Island West Shore WTP is the combination of all on land


4.xxc for the Event Based Area to which the significant drinking water threat policies for the












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 **.





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.


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.


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


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



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.


EBA of the Pelee Island West Shore WTP


Threats

Uncertainty

Above ground fuel storage * 3 High



4.2.9. Wheatley Water Treatment Plant


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




would be required for the Union WTP and the details of this study are in Appendix **.






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.


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.



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


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.






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.


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












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 **.





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.


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


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.


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).


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


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


existing significant drinking water threats for the EBA of the Wheatley WTP. Also, Map 4.xx

shows the existing significant threats in the EBA.


EBA of the Wheatley WTP


Threats

Uncertainty

Above ground fuel storage (primary intake)

* 50 High

Above ground fuel storage (emergency

intake) * 50 High



Stoney Point


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.

.



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



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


Threats

Uncertainty




Lakeshore (Belle River)


The Event Based Area for Lakeshore (Belle River) WTP is the combination of all on land





New text and table to reflect fuel inventory work completed since last AR:


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



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


Threats

Uncertainty




A.H. Weeks (Windsor)


The Event Based Area for A.H. Weeks (Windsor) WTP is the combination of all on land





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.


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


Table 4.23d). Information from fuel providers in Essex County, Google Street View, and 2013



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


Threats

Uncertainty

Combined sewer – confirmed 4 Low

Wastewater Treatment Plant - confirmed 1 Low

Storm sewer - unconfirmed 2 High


Table 4.31c: Number of Existing Confirmed/Unconfirmed Significant Drinking Water

Threats in the EBA of the A.H. Weeks (Windsor) WTP


Threats

Uncertainty


Above ground fuel storage – confirmed* 2 High



Amherstburg


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.



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


Threats

Uncertainty




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.


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


Lakeshore (Belle River) WTP

IPZ Vulnerability

Score


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 A. H.

Weeks (Windsor) WTP

IPZ Vulnerability

Score


1 9 √ √

2 8.1 √ √

3 N/A


Amherstburg WTP

IPZ Vulnerability

Score


1 9 √ √

2 7.2 √

3 N/A


Harrow-Colchester WTP

IPZ Vulnerability

Score


1 6 √

2 4.8

3 N/A


Table 4.xx: Threat level for Local Threats (transportation of various substances) for Union

WTP

IPZ Vulnerability

Score


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


1 6 √

2 4.2

3 N/A


Wheatley WTP

IPZ Vulnerability

Score


1 (Primary) 6.0 √

1 (Emergency) 7.0 √ 2 (Primary) 4.8

2 (Emergency) 5.6 √

3 N/A


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


IPZ Delineation


Upland/Up-

Tributary LOW LOW

HIGH





Table 4.75: Uncertainty Level Rating for the Wheatley WTP


IPZ Delineation


Upland/Up-

Tributary LOW LOW

HIGH


Vulnerability Score LOW HIGH NA



Table 4.76: Uncertainty Level Rating for the Pelee Island West Shore WTP


IPZ Delineation


Upland/Up-

Tributary LOW LOW

HIGH








SUBJECT: AR updates – Chapters 1 and 5


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.


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


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


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).


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.


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.




SUBJECT: SPP updates


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.


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


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


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


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



Appendix G – Maps

New IPZ-3 and EBA maps have been created (see Report SPC 14/14)

RECOMMENDATION



Attachments

1. Table 5.1: List of Essex Region Draft Source Protection Plan Policies


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)


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)


Storage of sewage Windsor IPZ-1 W1-storage-1 (Prescribed Instrument)


Stormwater management


W1W2L1A1-stormwater-1 (Prescribed Instrument)


Industrial effluent discharges


W1W2L1A1-industrialeff-1 (Prescribed Instrument)


Industrial effluent discharges


W1W2L1A1-industrialeff-2 (Prescribed Instrument)




Sewage treatment plant bypass discharge to surface water, Sewage treatment plant effluent discharges (includes lagoons)

Windsor IPZ-2 W2-bypass/effluent-1 (Prescribed Instrument)


Application of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)

Windsor IPZ-2 W2applNASM-1 (Prescribed Instrument)


Storage of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)

Windsor IPZ-2 W2storageNASM-1 (Prescribed Instrument)


Application of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)


W1L1A1-applicationNASM-1 (Prescribed Instrument)


Storage of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)


W1L1A1-storageNASM-1 (Prescribed Instrument)


Application of untreated septage to land


W1W2L1A1-hauledsewage-1 (Prescribed Instrument)


Storage, treatment and discharge of tailings from mines


W1L1A1-minetail-1 (Prescribed Instrument)




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


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)




22/23/24

17

Prescribed Instrument (Aggregate Licenses, Wayside Permits, and Aggregate Permits and Site Plans)






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)


The transportation of organic solvents, dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs), fuels, pesticides/herbicides, fertilizers


All123-transportcorridor-3(Specify Action)

27 20 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 57 (prohibit)

The application of Agricultural Source Material (ASM)


W1W2L1A1-applASM-1 (Clean Water Act)


The storage of Agricultural Source Material (ASM)


W1W2L1A1-storageASM-1 (Clean Water Act)


The application of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)


W1L1A1-applNASM-1 (Clean Water Act)


The storage of Non Agricultural Source Material (NASM)


W1L1A1-storageNASM-1 (Clean Water Act)



31 REMOVED Clean Water Act Part IV Section 59 (restricted land use)



W1L1A1-storageNASM-3 (Clean Water Act)


The storage of Road Salt


W1L1A1-storageroadsalt-1 (Clean Water Act)


The storage of Road Salt

Windsor IPZ-1, Amherstburg IPZ-1 and Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1

W1A1L1-storageroadsalt-3 (Clean Water Act)


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


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)



Windsor IPZ-2 W2-storageNASM-1 (Clean Water Act)




The application of Pesticide

Windsor IPZ-1, Windsor IPZ-2, Amherstburg IPZ-1 and Lakeshore IPZ-1

W1W2A1L1applPesticide-1 (Clean Water Act)


Storage of Pesticide

Windsor IPZ-1, Amherstburg IPZ-1, and Lakeshore (Belle River) IPZ-1

W1A1L1-storagepesticide-1 (Clean Water Act)


Storage of Pesticide


W1A1L1-storagepesticide-3 (Clean Water Act)


The handling and storage of Fuel


SLWA123-handlestorefuel-1 (Clean Water Act)

NEW 32 Clean Water Act Part IV Section 59 (restricted land use)

The handling and storage of Fuel


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)


Sewage treatment plant bypass discharge to surface water

Windsor IPZ-2 W2bypass-1 (Specify Action)




Sewage treatment plant effluent discharges (includes lagoons)

Windsor IPZ-2 W2effluent-1 (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)


W1W2-combinedsewer-2 (Govern Research)

45 38 Clean Water Act Section 22(7) (Education and Outreach)

Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), Stormwater management


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


W1W2-combinedsewerbypasseffluent-4 (Stewardship/Incentive)


Storage of sewage (e.g.: treatment plant tanks)


W1L1A1storage-1 (Specify Action)


The handling and storage of fuel


SLWA123-handlestorefuel-1 (Specify Action)



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)


Various aAll IPZs All IPZ s (E & O)


Various HVAs and SGRAs and rural areas with private wells

HVAs, SGRAs, Wells -1(E&O)


The handling and storage of fuel


SLWA123-handlestorefuel-1 (Stewardship/Incentive)


Various All IPZs, HVAs and SGRAs and rural areas with private wells

All IPZs, HVAs, SGRAs, Wells –1 (Stewardship/Incentive)


Management of runoff that contains chemicals used in the de-icing of aircraft


W1A1L1-deicair (Specify Action)




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)




SUBJECT: Pre-consultation comments and responses


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


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



Attachments: 1) Comments from Municipality of Leamington 2) Comments from UWSS



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 [email protected] www.unionwater.ca


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.unionwater.ca/

Date post:	17-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Source Protection Committee - AGENDA · 2018-03-29 · Source Protection Committee - AGENDA....

Documents