Watershed Science Centre. Trent University. Symons … · Watershed Science Centre. Trent...

Watershed Science Centre. Trent University. Symons Campus

1600 West Bank Drive, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 7B8.

www.trentu.ca/wsc

Preliminary Identification of Data and Knowledge Gaps, and Research Needs: Theme 1: Intake Protection Zones in the Great Lakes Basin Proceedings from the Source Water Protection Research Workshop,

September 14th, 2006, Etobicoke, Ontario

November 23rd, 2006

Revised: August, 2007 REPORT PREPARED BY: Gordon Balch Research Associate Watershed Science Centre Trent University Email: [email protected] Phone: 705-748-1011, x 7071 Fax: 705‐748‐1022

The information contained in this report is the result of consultation efforts and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or priorities of the Province of Ontario

http://www.trentu.ca/wsc�

mailto:[email protected]

WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)

Table of Contents

Email: gbalch@trentu.ca..............................................................................................................1 Phone: 705-748-1011, x 7071......................................................................................................1 Table of Contents .........................................................................................................................2 1.0 Summary..........................................................................................................................3 2.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................6

2.1 Goals of the September 14th, 2006 workshop ......................................................7 2.2 Background to workshop .....................................................................................7

3.0 Organization of Workshop..............................................................................................9 4.0 Summary of Workshop Discussions............................................................................ 10

4.1 Refinement and focusing of key recommendations from February 2006 workshop.......................................................................................................................10

4.1.1: Should protection be directed at acute spill events or chronic cumulative impacts?...................................................................................10 4.1.2: What is the best method for IPZ-2 delineation within the Great Lakes Basin? ..............................................................................................11 4.1.3: Source water protection efforts in the Great Lakes basin require collaboration with USA counterparts.........................................................15 4.1.4: Better resolution is required to identify threats from un-monitored point and non-point sources for which water quality is poorly characterized. .............................................................................................15 4.1.5: More data is needed in order to evaluate the risks associated with microbial pathogens, chemicals of emerging concern and cumulative impacts .......................................................................................................18 4.1.6: Groundwater / surface water interactions need better resolution ....19

4.2 Identification of existing sources of information...............................................19 4.3 Identification of key research needs related to Intake Protection Zones (IPZs)20 4.4 Identification of potential research partners and sources of funding.................22 4.5 Concluding Remarks..........................................................................................22

5.0 Appendices ................................................................................................................... 24 5.1 Description of the Watershed Science Centre and role in source water protection ......................................................................................................................24 5.2 Four themes identified in February 2006 workshop ..........................................25 5.3 List of September 14th, 2006 workshop participants and affiliations ................26

2


1.0 Summary

A one day focus group session was held on September 14th

, 2006 in Etobicoke, Ontario to

discuss the data gaps and research needs required for the boundary delineation of intake

protection zones (IPZs) within the Great Lakes basin. In attendance at the workshop were

23 participants, of which 18 were invited and 5 were from the Watershed Science Centre

(WSC) at Trent University. As indicated in the list of attendees (Section 5.3), the

workshop participants were from provincial government agencies (i.e. Ontario Ministry

of the Environment - OMOE, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources - OMNR,

Conservation Authorities - CAs), municipal governments, and a non-government

organization (Canadian Environmental Law Association - CELA) plus academia (i.e.

Trent University, Queen’s University).

A general consensus emerged at the focus session suggesting that the method for

delineation of Intake Protection Zones (as outlined in the OMOE Source Water

Protection Guidance Modules) is most appropriate for the protection of drinking water

from hazards related to spills or releases of contaminants (chemical, pathogenic, nuclear)

which have the potential through hydrodynamic processes to reach a zone of water

surrounding the drinking water intake crib within a relatively short period of time (e.g.,

2h). The approach outlined in the OMOE guidance modules is intended to provide a

mechanism for delineating a zone around a specific drinking water intake. The outer

boundary of the zone is determined by employing a reverse particle tracking approach

using a predetermined time-of-travel (TOT) between the intake crib and the boundary of

the IPZ (e.g., IPZ-2). The purpose of the IPZ is to delineate a zone in which all threats are

identified and the risks associated with each threat are evaluated. Participants also

expressed their view that this approach was less appropriate for identifying the threats

(chronic, cumulative) to drinking water that are associated with overall degradation of

water quality arising from cumulative impacts of low level contaminants which may

individually be at concentrations below provincial guidelines, but cumulatively may still

pose an as-of-yet unidentified threat and thus an un-assessed risk. Threats associated with

3


the potential for chronic exposures to low levels of emerging chemicals of concern and or

the presence of microbial pathogens in source waters are much more difficult to identify

through a time-of-travel, event-driven approach than are the threats associated with acute

spill events. This is particularly true when the sources of chronic / cumulative threats are

either distant (e.g. originating outside of source water protection areas) or diffuse (e.g.

non-point sources), or transient (spatial / temporal). Compounding this problem is that

human health assessments and regulatory guidelines do not exist for many of the

emerging contaminants of concern.

The OMOE guidance modules regarding the delineation of IPZs within the Great Lakes

basin employ both a fixed radius for IPZ-1 (primary zone of protection) and a time-of-

travel for IPZ-2 (secondary zone of protection) approach. The 1 km fixed radius of IPZ-1

constitutes the most vulnerable zone of water around the drinking water intake, thus the

most restrictive for human activity, with the premise that Drinking Water Treatment Plant

(DWTP) operators may not have adequate time to respond to contaminant releases within

this zone. The IPZ-2 is intended to provide additional protection from threats that can be

potentially transported by hydrodynamic processes to the water intake. The outer

boundary of IPZ-2 is based on a time-of-travel principle. The minimal time parameter

suggested by the OMOE guidance modules is 2h, which may be increased if necessary to

ensure the DWTP operators have sufficient warning necessary for taking corrective

action.

Workshop participants recognized the hydrodynamic complexities associated with the

Great Lake waters and as such had difficulty coming to any consensus regarding the best

approach for delineation of IPZ-2 boundaries. In addition, there was a general opinion

that dilution effects within the open water zone of the Great Lakes would, in all but the

most severe spill events, dilute chemical contaminants to levels below provincial

Drinking Water Quality Guidelines. Participants generally agreed that the spatial and

temporal variability of hydrodynamic processes within nearshore zone, plus the inability

to assess cumulative risks from the chronic exposure to low concentrations of emerging 4


chemicals complicates the delineation of IPZs. As such, more research is needed to better

characterize hydrodynamic processes in order to refine the criteria used for the

delineation of IPZs which in turn will be used as a method facilitating the inventory of

potential threats to drinking water supplies within the nearshore zone

Participants generally agreed that there are presently a variety of computerized

hydrodynamic models (e.g. 2-dimentional, 3-dimentional) in existence which could be

employed for IPZ boundary delineation required to identify acute threats (i.e., not

chronic, cumulative threats). The utility of these models is however, often unknown and

possibly hampered from a lack of model calibration and validation to specific site

conditions. The application of these models throughout the Great Lakes basin can be

impeded by: i) a lack of funding and local expertise necessary to calibrate the models to

specific locations, ii) the lack of a coordinating administrative structure to ensure

standardization of modelling efforts among IPZs and source water protection areas, and

iii) the identification of appropriate monitoring surrogates of contamination to assess

contaminant movement and evaluate risks associated with point source discharges (e.g.,

wastewater effluent) or non-point source releases (e.g. microbial indicators of human

pathogens) as a means to validate model predictions. For best results, participants also

expressed that hydrodynamic models should be coupled (when possible) with information

concerning land use practices, overland wet flow events, and lake water / ground water

interactions to reflect that contaminant movement is influenced not only by in-lake

hydrodynamic processes but also includes aspects of overland transport and groundwater

movement.

No one municipality, Conservation Authority or government agency has the resources

needed to address these impediments in a coordinated manner across the Great Lakes

basin. Implementation of such an approach would be best accomplished through strong

leadership arising from the cooperative effort of multiple government agencies.

Participants identified a need to develop a mechanism to involve all levels of government

5


in Canada and the USA in a coordinated effort to address model development, the

formulation of guidelines for model selection, the identification of threats and the

evaluations of risks associated with source water protection.

The workshop participants identified key sources of information and current research

initiatives which provided a good starting point for the Watershed Science Centre in

evaluating science gaps, potential research partners and sources of funding. Information

leads and contacts arising at the focus session will be explored in depth during the next

months. Outcomes from this process will be summarized and documented in a final

report identifying the data gaps and science needs for source water protection.

2.0 Introduction

This report summarizes the discussions which took place during a one day focus group

session (September 2006) which gathered source water practitioners and Great Lakes

experts to discuss issues related to the delineation of intake protection zones within the

surface waters of the Great Lakes basin. IPZ delineation within the Great Lakes is

complex because of the scale of the system, integration of the lakes and the potential for

the transport of water quality impacts from a wide geographical area which is far beyond

a single source protection area. Site specific hydrodynamic processes in the nearshore

zone complicate the predictions of water movements. The identification drinking water

concerns and potential threats to IPZs in the Great Lakes was identified as a research

priority during a previous February, 2006 workshop organized by the OMNR, OMOE,

and Conservation Ontario in February, 2006.

The focus group session in September, 2006 was organized and hosted by the Watershed

Science Centre (WSC) of Trent University. The WSC was established from a partnership

of Trent University with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sir Sandford

Fleming College and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Recently, the mandate of

the WSC was broadened in its watershed management emphasis to include a specific

6

WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop) focus on the identification of knowledge gaps and science needs pertinent to source water

protection (SWP), and the transfer of knowledge in areas of risk mitigation and watershed

management as it relates to sources of drinking water. A short description of the WSC

and its role in SWP is provided in Appendix (Section 5.1). A two day workshop of SWP

practitioners held in February, 2006 broadly defined the research needs for SWP within

four major themes. Those themes are also listed in the Appendix (Section 5.2). The

purpose of the September, 2006 meeting was to further refine discussions within one of

the four themes, that is: Theme 1 - Intake Protection Zones (IPZs). In general terms,

the focus session began where the February 2006 workshop ended.

2.1 Goals of the September 14th, 2006 workshop

The goals of this workshop were to:

1. Refine and focus some of the key recommendations related to IPZs identified

at the February meeting. These key recommendations are presented below

(Section 2.2).

2. Identify existing sources of information (literature, data bases, tools) which

can be later reviewed by the WSC to determine gaps in information and data.

3. Identify the key research needs related to IPZs.

4. Identify potential research partners and sources of funding that can be

leveraged against the resources of the WSC and its Partners in order to

facilitate the work of future research projects aimed at addressing knowledge

gaps.

2.2 Background to workshop

Intake protection zones refer to areas (primarily surface waters, but may include portions

of the shoreline) that surround the intakes for municipal residential drinking water

systems. Draft guidance documents developed by the OMOE delineate four types of

IPZs, namely i) Great Lakes, ii) Great Lakes connecting channels, iii) inland

rivers/streams, and iv) inland lakes. The draft guidance documents can be reviewed at the

following website. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/water/cwa-guidance.htm

7

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/water/cwa-guidance.htm


The February, 2006 workshop determined that the most urgent research questions were

related to IPZs located within the Great Lakes basin. The reasons for this conclusion were

that:

a. more than two-thirds of Ontarians rely directly on surface waters from the

Great Lakes basin for their raw drinking water supply;

b. science knowledge and data gaps regarding IPZ delineation are more

complex within the Great Lakes in comparison to those identified for

inland lakes, rivers and streams;

c. knowledge and science gaps should be addressed as quickly as possible to

help facilitate negotiations around the renewal of inter-provincial and

international agreements to which Ontario is a party.

The February, 2006 workshop recognized the potential for point source and/or non-point

source discharges into watersheds to influence not only the water quality of local IPZs

within a specific watershed but also to influence the quality of water at several more

distant IPZs located in the Great Lakes nearshore environment. It was also recognized

that IPZs could be impacted by discharges that cross international (i.e. Canada-USA) or

provincial boundaries, and by atmospheric deposition as a result of short-, medium- or

long-range transport of contaminants.

The key recommendations arising from the February workshop in relation to IPZs

identified the need for a greater understanding of:

• the inter-relationships between point-source and/or non-point source discharges

and the setting of raw drinking water quality targets at IPZs;

• the possible cumulative impacts to raw drinking water quality at IPZs from

multiple discharge sites;

• the possible impacts to water quality at IPZs in the Great Lakes from discharges

located at sites that are hydro-dynamically “up-current”;

• stresses (chemical, biological) to the Great Lakes nearshore environments which

8


have the potential to impact the quality of raw drinking water at water intakes;

• how existing national and international agreements impact source water (quality /

quantity).

The proposed Clean Water Act, 2005 states that Source Water Protection areas in Ontario

must identify intake protection zones for surface waters. The Source Water

Implementation Group of OMOE has prepared draft guidance documents (modules) for

the delineation of IPZs. The draft document proposes that initial protection zones (i.e.

IPZ-1) include an area with a 1 km radius for intakes within the Great Lakes, or a zone 1

km upstream in a Great Lakes connecting channel. IPZ-1 represents the most vulnerable

region around the drinking water intake and as such is the most restrictive in terms of

human activity which presents a risk to drinking water. A second zone (IPZ-2) provides

an additional level of protection. The delineation of the IPZ-2 boundaries is based on a

time-of-travel principle. The minimal boundary limit of IPZ-2 must ensure a two-hour

time-of-travel to the intake, but can be modified in response to local conditions. In some

cases, hydrodynamic models or spatial analysis tools may be used to define the

boundaries of the IPZ.

The source protection committee for each source protection area (provincially-delineated

watershed) must also develop terms of reference, assessment reports, and source

protection plans that take into consideration specified Great Lakes agreements to which

Canada and/or Ontario are a party. The agreements named in the Act are the Great Lakes

Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the USA, the Great Lakes Charter

between Ontario, Quebec and the Great Lakes states, and the Canada-Ontario Agreement

Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem (COA). It is expected that regulations under

the Act will also name the Great Lakes Charter Annex implementing agreement for

consideration.

3.0 Organization of Workshop

Focus group session participants were selected based on the recommendations of research

9


and advisory staff of the OMOE and OMNR, together with recommendations from

academic researchers, Conservation Authorities, industry, municipalities and non-

government organizations. Attempts were made to include source water protection

practitioners from a variety of backgrounds in order to identify data gaps and research

needs from a wide range of perspectives. A list of focus session participants and

affiliations is provided in the Appendix (Section 5.3).

Session participants were provided with a short summary document prior to the meeting

which outlined background information and identified the major goals of the discussions.

Much of the background information provided to participants is contained in the

introduction section of this report.

4.0 Summary of Workshop Discussions

A summary of the focus group session discussions has been organized to address the four

key goals of the meeting, as originally outlined in the Introduction (Section 2.1) of this

report.

4.1 Refinement and focusing of key recommendations from February 2006 workshop

Much of the workshop was devoted to discussing key factors influencing the i)

delineation of intake protection zones and ii) evaluating perceived threats to the raw

drinking water at these surface water intakes. Key points arising from these talks are

discussed under the following headings:

4.1.1: Should protection be directed at acute spill events or chronic cumulative impacts?

It was the general consensus at the workshop that the current OMOE guidance modules

deals best with drinking water threats that could result in a spill event or catastrophe

leading to acute impacts on drinking water quality. It was also felt that the current version

of the guidance modules do not adequately address chronic risks arising from cumulative

10


exposure to low levels of chemical compounds for which human health implications have

not been adequately assessed (e.g. emerging chemicals of concern such as

pharmaceuticals and personal care products). Nor do the guidance modules affectively

address the physical, chemical and biological complexities of the lake ecosystem which

could impact water quality (e.g., putative impact of dresissenid muscles on nearshore

nutrient dynamics and the development of harmful algal blooms). Participants indicated

that less is known about the potential impacts to water quality that arise from both urban

and rural non-point sources in comparison to the knowledge of threats arising from urban

point sources (e.g., wastewater effluents, industrial discharges) which are routinely

monitored through provincial compliance regulations (e.g., Certificates of Approval).

It was suggested that the consideration of potential (as-of-yet poorly understood)

cumulative impacts in the delineation of IPZs is beyond the scope of the current OMOE

guidance modules. It was also understood that the consideration of these types of poorly

understood threats in the delineation of IPZs is very challenging and as such no clear

direction or consensus emerged from the participants as to how to best address this

concern. Participants acknowledged that other departments within provincial and federal

agencies are attempting to address some of these same concerns; however, they

emphasized the need for greater resources (financial, technical expertise, testing

facilities) for this work in order to more quickly assess the risks associated with emerging

chemicals of concern and to address other science gaps related to source water protection.

4.1.2: What is the best method for IPZ-2 delineation within the Great Lakes Basin?

Much time was devoted at the focus group session to discussing approaches for the

delineation of IPZ-2. There appeared to be a general recognition that the time-of-travel

(TOT) approach outlined in the OMOE guidance modules is best suited to IPZs within

inland rivers and streams or in Great Lake connecting channels where water flow is well

defined. The TOT approach within the nearshore environment of the Great Lakes is

11


complex since flow vectors are not always unidirectional and are often influenced by

other lakewide hydrodynamic processes, such as upwelling and downwelling, wind

stress, seiche effects, thermal bars, and site specific conditions, such as embayments,

basin morphology and groundwater discharge into the nearshore zone.

Participants expressed that a sole reliance on the TOT principle may not be the best

approach to IPZ delineation within the Great Lakes, however, no general consensus

concerning viable alternative approaches developed during this discussion. Some of the

more feasible comments suggested that better criteria are need regarding the placement of

intake cribs and perhaps one of the best ways to ensure the supply of good drinking water

was to locate the intake crib in deeper water. This however, appeared to many to be a

costly alternative, particularly for some locations where the intake line would need to be

extended a significant distance off shore in order to reach deep water. Other approaches

suggested better regulation surrounding the manufacturing and disposal of chemicals was

needed rather than spending resources (financial, technical, etc.) on trying to remove

these compounds from municipal and industrial effluents prior to discharge and / or by

relying on the development of new treatment methods / processes for removal from raw

drinking water.

Discussions once again returned to the time-of-travel approach to IPZ-2 delineation and

how best to estimate / predict hydrodynamic processes influencing water movement. A

significant amount of time was devoted to discussing generalities regarding the use of

hydrodynamic computer models. It was generally believed that IPZ delineation should

consider lakewide circulation patterns which have the potential to transport contaminants

over long distances and possibly carry contaminants across multiple source water

protection boundaries. Group members suggested that lakewide circulation computer

models exist, but also indicated that the scale of resolution may not be suitable for the

detailed information required by IPZ-2 delineation.

12


Discussion among participants revealed that many computerized two-dimensional (2D)

and three-dimensional (3D) hydrodynamic models exist which could be used in

combination with the larger scale lakewide circulation models for the delineation of IPZs

at specific sites. It was, however, stated that many of these computerized models require

site-specific information in order to calibrate them to local hydrodynamic conditions. It

was indicated that a lack of model calibration and model validation at specific sites

increases the level of uncertainty in model output and may decrease output accuracy. The

bulleted points below summarize the major limitations to the use of computerized

models.

• A lack of monitoring data needed to calibrate the models to specific lakes or site

conditions, and an absence of a centralized data portal for dissemination of

existing monitoring data which may be helpful to other nearby source water

protection committees and technical staff.

• A heavy historical reliance on summer monitoring data, with very limited year-

round sampling (e.g., fall, winter, spring) which is required to make year-round

predictions.

• Limited financial resources within some of the smaller Conservation Authorities

and municipalities needed for the purchase of license agreements for the more

sophisticated models and for the establishment of monitoring programs required

for model calibration and validation.

• Limited technical expertise in some of the smaller Conservation Authorities and

municipalities that is required to maximize the predictive capabilities of these

models.

Some members of the focus group stated that computerized models may not be needed

for all IPZ delineations. It was suggested that for some sites it may be possible to use a

combination of existing meteorological data (e.g., information resident at nearby weather

stations, airports, etc.), local knowledge and best professional judgment to make

predictions regarding hydrodynamic processes and time-of-travel estimates. This

approach has the potential to significantly reduce time and financial costs associated with

13


data collection required for computer model calibration and validation while possibly

maintaining a level of uncertainly which may be comparable to the output from computer

models.

Participants discussed the need for greater coupling among in-lake hydrodynamic

processes, overland flow (e.g., wet weather flow models) and surface water / groundwater

interactions. Canadian research consortiums, municipalities (e.g., Toronto – wet weather

flow model) and Great Lakes Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) have demonstrated

the importance of understanding the processes influencing water quality in the nearshore

environment. These efforts have shown that human activity on land and in water can

degrade water quality (nutrient enrichment, algal blooms, chemical contaminants, etc.)

through a variety of mechanisms (increased surface runoff or effluent discharge volumes,

etc.) with the potential to influence water quality across multiple source protection areas

and several IPZs. Although the integration of surface water / groundwater / lake water

interactions is outside the scope of IPZ-2 delineation, it should be remembered that water

quality in the nearshore zone is influenced by these interactions and that most drinking

water intakes are located in the relatively shallow nearshore zone. Anthropogenic

activities have the potential through these interactions to influence water quality over vast

regions of the nearshore zone. The importance of maintaining the physical, chemical and

biological integrity of the nearshore zone may become increasingly apparent once the

cumulative impacts resulting from the disruption of the physical (e.g., climate change:

temperature, storm intensity), chemical (e.g., emerging chemicals of concern) and

biological (invasive species) processes are better understood and assessed.

Lastly, some participants felt that the complexities and magnitude of scale regarding

drinking water quality within the Great Lakes requires efforts that go beyond IPZ

boundary delineation and must include strong leadership from multiple levels of

government and agency departments. Some expressed a belief that there was still room

for a greater coordination / integration of effort amongst leading stakeholders and

regulatory agencies in order to more effectively pool resources and combine efforts to

more effectively ensure security for source drinking waters.

14


In summary, participants expressed that IPZ-2 delineation may be accomplished through

a variety of methods ranging from the use of existing data combined with best

professional judgment to the use of sophisticated computer models. Both ends of this

spectrum have advantages and limitations which must be assessed on a site specific basis.

Protocols and criteria for method selection are needed.

4.1.3: Source water protection efforts in the Great Lakes basin require

collaboration with USA counterparts

Workshop participants stated that they believed it would be advantageous if source water

protection efforts in Ontario included greater dialogue with USA counterparts in order to

exchange information and approaches regarding source water protection within the Great

Lakes basin. It was felt that, if accomplished, this would help to minimize duplication of

effort regarding the study of hydrodynamic processes and other aspects influencing water

quality. It was recognized that USA counterparts are also presently studying issues of

source water protection within American waters of the Great Lakes basin and therefore

the development of a mechanism for better exchange of relevant information may be

beneficial to both countries. Discussions should be initiated to explore ways to integrate

USA and Canadian data and develop better methods to identify threats and evaluate risks

to drinking water supplies arising from a variety of causes such as changing land-use

patterns, climate change and biological factors (i.e. invasive species) It is instructive to

mention that several SWP practitioners from American governmental agencies in Great

Lakes states were invited by WSC staff to attend this workshop, but none of these

invitees could attend because of departmental travel restrictions.

4.1.4: Better resolution is required to identify threats from un-monitored point

and non-point sources for which water quality is poorly characterized.

Water quality impacts arising from large volume point-source discharges are generally

well known and easily identified, particularly for effluents arising from wastewater

15


treatment plants or industries which are monitored through provincial compliance

regulations (e.g., Certificates of Approval). Less appears to be known however, for

smaller non-regulated point-sources such as the discharge from smaller storm water

systems, agricultural tile drains, and tributaries which in some ways can be categorized as

a point-source discharge to the nearshore of the Great Lake. The distinction between

point sources and non-point sources can at times be difficult to make particularly for the

smaller intermittent discharges for which water quality is generally un-assessed. The

threat posed from the cumulative impact of the smaller un-assessed discharges is poorly

understood, particularly when modulating factors such as a changing climate or changes

in land-use patterns are considered.

In jurisdictions which have the resources, several decades of investment in monitoring

have enabled them to effectively model loadings originating from both point and non-

point sources. However, the workshop participants agreed that, despite these efforts, there

is still much to be learned for many regions regarding loadings to the nearshore zone

from non-point source and / or non-assessed discharge locations. Participants also

emphasized that climate change has the potential to influence discharge conditions and

thus impact modelling assumptions concerning flow rates and contaminant loadings

which are based on historical monitoring data. For example, most of the information for

non-regulated discharges, such as storm water retention ponds or agricultural drainage is

based on an “average” storm event. Changing climatic patterns towards a greater

frequency of sever weather events, together with changing patterns of urbanization and

agriculture may mean that many of the assumptions regarding in-place mitigation

measures (e.g. effectiveness of retention ponds, etc.) may not be appropriate or invalid.

Some participants suggested that one intense storm event may contribute more loadings

of sediment, bacteria and / or chemicals to the nearshore environment than the

combination of all other “average” storm events in one year (e.g., “first flush

phenomenon”). It was also discussed that the outflows of rivers and streams into the

Great Lakes nearshore zone should be recognized as “point sources”. The categorization

of a river discharge as a point source provides a useful conceptual approach when

16


attempting to identify and assess impacts to the nearshore environment. Participants

questioned if much is know in regards to the loadings from rivers and smaller tributaries,

particularly for chemicals and microbial organisms not routinely monitored. A general

consensus to this question was that there was much more to learn.

It was generally agreed that much less is known regarding the magnitude of contaminant

loading (chemical, biological) to the nearshore environment of the Great Lakes from non-

point sources relative to the loadings arising from point sources and the overall impact

that non-point sources have on water quality. For instance, it appears that there is more to

learn regarding non-point source impacts arising from: i) the discharge of microbial

pathogens from livestock, companion animals and waterfowl, ii) the impact of aging

urban infrastructure (e.g. sewer, sanitary) on drinking water quality, and iii) the impact of

impervious surfaces (e.g., pavement) in urban areas on infiltration rates and the influence

that increased surface runoff (volume, velocity) has on contaminant loadings. The

interactions among the physical, chemical and biological processes within the nearshore

are complex and disruption to one, may cause disruption to water quality. For example,

non-point source loadings of sediments/nutrients can dramatically alter the distribution of

rooted aquatic plants, which when absent can make the re-suspension of sediments from

wind and wave action more intense, thus influencing the concentration of nutrients,

contaminants and microbial pathogens within source water which in turn could impact or

stress drinking water treatment plant processes. Participants also understood the cost and

difficulties in attempting to monitor every discharge and small tributary draining into the

lake. Recent work by OMOE (surface water unit) has attempted to identify surrogate

parameters (e.g. nitrate, fluorescence) which may provide a more cost-effective approach

to monitoring the zone of influence for some of these sites and thus help in identifying

those discharges which have the greatest potential to impact water quality at nearby

drinking water intakes.

17


4.1.5: More data is needed in order to evaluate the risks associated with

microbial pathogens, chemicals of emerging concern and cumulative impacts

In the opinion of the participants, the threats associated with microbial pathogens,

emerging chemicals of concern and cumulative impacts from multiple chemicals (or

multiple sources of a chemical) are difficult to assess for a variety of reasons. Microbial

pathogens appear to be one threat for which more research and monitoring is needed.

Most monitoring programs test for indicator species; however, this does not provide the

level of detail needed to asses the absence or presence of specific human pathogens and

associated risks, nor can it identify sources of origin (i.e. “source tracking”) necessary to

develop appropriate mitigation measures. It was also discussed that more information is

needed regarding microbial sources and factors influencing pathogen transport,

distribution and densities for specific human pathogens such as those belonging to the

genus of Cryptosporidium and / or Giardia, which tend to be resistant to common

disinfection practices used at many drinking water treatment facilities. Likewise, little is

also known about the presence and distribution (spatial, temporal) of pathogenic viruses

within source waters.

The participants identified a need for information regarding the occurrences, levels and

risks associated with chronic low level (i.e., concentration) exposure to chemicals of

emerging concern, such as “down the drain chemicals”, pharmaceuticals and current-use

pesticides which are generally non-persistent, but because of continual high use are often

characterized as pseudo-persistent. It was also felt that more investigation is required to

identify threats from persistent compounds of emerging concern (e.g. fluorinated

organics, brominated flame retardants). The current OMOE guidance modules regarding

risk evaluation is best suited for assessing threats from the “traditional” chemical

contaminants (e.g. polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

(PAHs), chlorinated pesticides) which have undergone intensive study to determine

human health risks. In most cases, the risks to human health from exposure to compounds

classified as “emerging chemicals of concern” have not yet been completed and as such

risks are to a great extent unknown. Even less is known regarding the cumulative risks

18


associated with a low concentration, but chronic (e.g., life-time) exposure to a mixture of

chemical contaminants. The evaluation of these types of risks are well beyond the scope

of IPZ delineation, but participants raised these points to highlight the possibility that

other types of threats exist (e.g., other than spill or event-driven) for which a time-of-

travel approach may not be an appropriate mechanism by which to identify these types of

threat.

4.1.6: Groundwater / surface water interactions need better resolution Participants indicated that more attention should be directed towards better

characterization of ground water / surface water interactions near the Great Lakes

shoreline. It was felt that these interactions are critical to understanding the potential

impacts such as aging septic systems and old or abandoned landfill sites.

4.2 Identification of existing sources of information

Discussions with focus group session participants identified several key initiatives that

are currently underway and warrant further investigation. These include:

• the OMOE (surface water unit) work on the nearshore zone of Lake Erie and Lake

Huron. Similar work is also occurring within Environment Canada and also

within several LaMPs that include both Canadian and USA researchers.

• the Lake Ontario Research Consortium involving several partners (e.g. Ontario

Water Works Research Consortium, HCCL Coastal & River Engineering, several

municipalities, academia) in efforts to integrate land use and surface water

models, delineate IPZs, and understand the factors that affect the nearshore zone

and impacts on drinking water supplies

• Modelling activities in the USA by government agencies and research groups

such as the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and the US

Geological Survey.

• the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative

• Researchers associated with SOLEC (State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference),

which is monitoring a variety of indicators for the assessment of Great Lake

19


ecosystem health (including human health and drinking water quality / quantity).

Follow up discussions have started with some of these groups and will be initiated with

others, as they are identified.

4.3 Identification of key research needs related to Intake Protection Zones (IPZs)

Discussions from the focus group session identified several data gaps and research needs

which are summarized in point form below. The sequence of needs listed is not

prioritized. These gaps and needs will be further evaluated and refined in the future

months as the WSC continues to review the literature and consult with researchers, policy

advisors, OMOE and OMNR. The preliminary list includes:

• A study should be undertaken to characterize the quality and quantity of existing

data, local knowledge and expertise that could be used in a non-computerized

modelling approach to IPZ delineation and to compare the results of the non-

computerized approach (i.e., zone delineation, level of uncertainty, etc.) with the

results generated using a computer model in order to better assess limitations and

advantageous of each methodology. Better guidance should be developed to

assess technical staff in determining the best approach (non-computerized,

computerized) when attempting to delineate IPZs at a specific drinking water

intake sites.

• The major temporal, spatial and event driven factors governing hydrodynamic

processes (e.g., time-of-travel, thermal bars, storms), and thus IPZ delineation,

should be better identified and characterized.

• Monitoring programs should be put into place to generate the data required for

model calibration and validation at specific sites and / or regions under year round

conditions where the use of computer models for IPZ delineation is desired.

Better guidance is needed to aid technical staff in determining which monitoring

parameters to implement and how best to collect, analyze and store the

monitoring data. There is also a need to develop an appropriate and efficient

20


mechanism to share available technical expertise among source water

practitioners and policy advisors.

• More study is needed to better determine the major factors influencing water

quality in the relatively narrow nearshore zone bordering densely populated

shorelines (e.g., Golden Horseshoe of Lake Ontario). Specifically, more work is

needed to determine the best approach to couple land based wet weather flow

models with subsurface flow models and hydrodynamic surface models so that

the interaction of these processes and how they influence contaminant transport

and water quality is better understood. Future research could assess potential risks

from aging septic systems, abandoned landfills, or industrial sites (e.g. brown

fields) located near the shoreline. Studies may also assess the potential impact of a

changing climate how it might alter hydrodynamic processes that in turn could

influence predictions concerning water and contaminant movement (e.g,. thermal

bars, downwellling, first flush phenomenon – storm water retention pond design

specifications) and thus influence IPZ delineation.

• Greater understanding is needed regarding waterborne pathogens within source

waters that go beyond the monitoring of indicator organisms which can poorly

reflects the actual risks. Source waters surrounding drinking water intakes are

generally poorly characterized for human pathogens, with relatively less being

known regarding the identification of pathogen sources, transport and associated

spatial / temporal trends. This information would allow managers to better

identify the risks associated with human pathogens such as pathogen presence &

absence, survival & transport distances and treatment plant efficiencies which in

turn may influence IPZ boundary delineations.

• Further studies are needed to better identify and characterize threats to drinking

water quality from non-point sources (e.g., agricultural runoff, impervious urban

surfaces, non-channeled storm water runoff, storm water retention ponds, aging

urban infrastructure, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), wildlife,

etc.)

• More studies are needed to assess human health affects associated with chronic

exposure to chemical contaminants (and associated metabolites) of emerging

21


concern, such as personal care products, pharmaceuticals and industrial

compounds (e.g. nonylphenol surfactants, brominated flame retardants,

fluorinated organics). Work should also be undertaken to address human health

risks associated with exposure to multiple compounds to determine if the effects

of mixtures are additive, synergistic or antagonistic.

• A cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken to determine the most effective

approaches needed to mitigate various threats. For example, what is the cost

associated with elimination of a chemical of concern at the source of production

versus the cost to eliminate that chemical during treatment of the raw drinking

water in preparation for human consumption or the cost-benefit of reducing

contamination from point sources (.e.g. municipal wastewater treatment plants)

relative to contamination from non-point sources? Although raised by some

participants as an important consideration in source water protection, this need is

not directly related to IPZ delineation.

• Communication with USA researchers and policy advisors should be established

to address common interests regarding the protection of raw drinking water

supplies within the Great Lakes basin. A mechanism is required to inform each

other of source drinking water concerns, initiatives, and where appropriate, to

foster exchanges of information, integration of Canadian and USA data, and

research collaboration.

4.4 Identification of potential research partners and sources of funding

The WSC is in the process of identifying research groups currently investigating factors

influencing the delineation of IPZs. Appropriate groups will be contacted to determine

their interest and ability to form research partnerships to collectively address mutual areas

of interests and to leverage research efforts and financial resources.

4.5 Concluding Remarks

The focus group session advanced the discussions of the IPZ research theme (i.e. Theme

22

WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop) 1) identified at the February, 2006 workshop. Much of the discussion within this focus

group session was directed towards the identification of research needs as they pertain to

IPZ delineation which included a preliminary overview of the merits and limitation of

various approaches to boundary delineation (e.g., computer model versus best

professional judgment). Participants, however, expressed that IPZ delineation should also

consider factors beyond hydrodynamic processes (which are heavily reliant on the time-

of-travel approach as the guiding principle for boundary delineation). Other factors

identified by the participants which should be considered during IPZ delineation include

the influence of a changing climate on wet weather flow and hydrodynamic processes

(timing and duration of thermal bars, wind sheer effects on currents, etc.), better

characterization of water quality discharged into the nearshore zone from un-monitored

tributaries, and a better assessment of the cumulative effects to water quality and drinking

water safety arising from the interaction of physical (e.g., temperature), chemical (e.g.,

nutrients) and biological (e.g., harmful algal blooms) impacts.

Over the next few months, these research needs will be refined through consultation with

WSC partner agencies, government researchers, environmental consultants and through

an investigation of the primary literature. Discussions also identified key research

projects and the personnel that are presently involved in studies that can provide insight

into the current state of knowledge and the most critical research gaps. These contacts

and data sources provide a solid base from which the WSC can proceed with refining the

research needs, and make recommendations for the pooling of resources and leveraging

of funding.

23


5.0 Appendices

5.1 Description of the Watershed Science Centre and role in source water protection

The Watershed Science Centre (WSC) was established as a research centre at Trent

University on July 1, 1998 as an institutional partnership between Trent University, Sir

Sandford Fleming College, and the Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). The WSC

has been operating as a collaborative research centre that conducts research, training and

knowledge transfer in all aspects of watershed management. The WSC was created to

capitalize on the expertise in watershed science at Trent University, the capacity for

training in resource management and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) at

Fleming, and the focus on resource management and policy development at OMNR. The

Partners established the WSC to achieve a greater collective capacity for research and

training, and foster collaboration with other government agencies, academic institutions,

non-government organizations, and the private sector. Since its establishment, the WSC

has been successful at conducting watershed sciences research programs, developing and

delivering short courses, organizing symposia and workshops, and developing data bases

that are available to the OMNR and other agencies.

In 2006, there were several changes to the mandate, scope and funding arrangements for

the WSC. The Ontario Ministry of Environment (OMOE) was added as a full Partner

within the Centre. The OMOE and OMNR negotiated a change to the mandate of the

Centre, whereby the WSC will focus a large proportion of its activities to Source Water

Protection (SWP). The OMNR, Source Water Protection program is in the third year of a

partnership program to support the proposed Clean Water Act, 2005. OMNR is a

supporting ministry to the OMOE, who leads the source water protection agenda. One

priority area is applied science, which will play a critical role in defining the techniques,

needs and strategies under the proposed Clean Water Act, 2005. Applied science is

needed to meet knowledge gaps, direct and inform longer term planning, policy and

24

WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop) implementation of SWP. The WSC will address the science-based needs of the SWP

program by identifying research priorities, and administering and / or conducting research

projects aimed at addressing those needs on a watershed-scale basis.

5.2 Four themes identified in February 2006 workshop

Four themes were recommended as priority areas for Source Water Protection as

outcomes of a workshop held in February 2006 among SWP practitioners. These themes

were:

o Theme 1: Intake protection zones – vulnerability, threats, processes and

management

o Theme 2: Land use impacts on watershed level SWP

o Theme 3: Watershed scale risk mitigation techniques

o Theme 4: Water quantity management

Focus group sessions for each of the four themes were held in the fall of 2006 to further

refine discussions in all four thematic areas in an attempt to better focus the research

needs.

25


5.3 List of September 14th, 2006 workshop participants and affiliations

Balch, Gordon

Watershed Science Centre

Trent University

Peterborough

Tel: 705-748-1011 x7071

Email: [email protected]

Bateman, Rhonda

Source Water Protection Planning Coordinator

Sault St. Marie Region Conservation Authority

Sault St. Marie

Tel: 705-946-8530 x202


Boyd, Duncan

Supervisor, Surface Water Unit

Ontario Ministry of the Environment

Etobicoke

Tel: 416-235-6221


Collins, Leslie


Trent University

Peterborough

Tel: 705-748-1011 x7943


26





WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop) D’Andrea, Michael

Director, Water Infrastructure Management

City of Toronto

Toronto, ON

Tel: 416-397-4631

Email: micheal_d’[email protected]

Ginsburg, Jessica

Special Projects Council

Canadian Environmental Law Association

Toronto

Tel: 416-960-2284 x226


Goel, Pradeep

Senior Surface Water Scientist, Nutrient Management

Ground Water and Stream Water Monitoring Unit


Etobicoke

Tel: 416-235-6060


Greer, Don

Source Water Protection Manager

Otonabee Region Conservation Authority

Peterborough

Tel: 705-745-5791


27





Hall, Kevin

Civil Engineering

Queen’s University

Kingston

Tel: 613-533-2127


Howard, Chris (absent)

Process Engineer

Water & Wastewater Engineering

Public Works Department

Regional Municipality of Niagara

Thorold

Tel: 905-328-1635


Howell, Todd

Great Lakes Ecologist

Surface Water Unit


Etobicoke

Tel: 416-235-6225


Langan, John

Environmental Project Manager

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

London

Tel: 519-645-2007


28





WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop) Luinstra, Brian

Hydrogeologist

Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority

Hanover

Tel: 519-376-3076 x250


Melzer, Rachel

Projects & Planning Advisor, Great Lakes

Source Protection Planning


Toronto

Tel: 416-326-5107


Metcalfe, Chris

Watershed Science Centre, Director &

Professor, Environmental and Resource Studies

Environmental & Resource Studies

Trent University

Peterborough

Tel: 705-748-1011 x7272


Miller. Sarah

Coordinator & Research

Canadian Environmental Law Association

Toronto

Tel: 416-960-2284 x213


29






Moore, Laurence

Project Director

Ontario Water Works Research Consortium

Tel: 905-274-7669 x234


Oldenburg, Kurt

Fisheries Ecology Supervisor

Lake Erie Management Unit

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Port Dover

Tel: 519-538-3082


Schmidt, Bastian


Trent University

Peterborough

Tel: 705-748-1011 x7940


Smith, Don

Source Water Protection Manager

Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority

Hanover

Tel: 519-376-3076 x245


30






31

Stainton, Ryan


Trent University

Peterborough

Tel: 705-748-1011 x7942


Weselan, Ann Marie

Program Coordinator

Source Protection Approvals


Toronto

Tel: 416-314-1873


Yerubandi, Ram

Research Scientist

Aquatic Ecosystem Management

Research Branch

National Waters Research Institute

Environment Canada

Burlington

Tel: 905-336-4785




Watershed Science Centre. Trent University. Symons … · Watershed Science Centre. Trent...

Documents

Transcript of Watershed Science Centre. Trent University. Symons … · Watershed Science Centre. Trent...