Watershed Science Centre. Trent University. Symons … · Watershed Science Centre. Trent University. Symons Campus . ... pathogens, chemicals of emerging concern ... Science Centre
Post on 18-Jul-2018
214 Views
Preview:
Transcript
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: gbalch@trentu.ca 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
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
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: gbalch@trentu.ca
Bateman, Rhonda
Source Water Protection Planning Coordinator
Sault St. Marie Region Conservation Authority
Sault St. Marie
Tel: 705-946-8530 x202
Email: rbateman@ssmrca.ca
Boyd, Duncan
Supervisor, Surface Water Unit
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Etobicoke
Tel: 416-235-6221
Email: Duncan.Boyd@ene.gov.on.ca
Collins, Leslie
Watershed Science Centre
Trent University
Peterborough
Tel: 705-748-1011 x7943
Email: lcollins@trentu.ca
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’andrea@toronto.ca
Ginsburg, Jessica
Special Projects Council
Canadian Environmental Law Association
Toronto
Tel: 416-960-2284 x226
Email: jginsburg@cela.ca
Goel, Pradeep
Senior Surface Water Scientist, Nutrient Management
Ground Water and Stream Water Monitoring Unit
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Etobicoke
Tel: 416-235-6060
Email: Pradeep.Goel@ene.gov.on.ca
Greer, Don
Source Water Protection Manager
Otonabee Region Conservation Authority
Peterborough
Tel: 705-745-5791
Email: dgreer@ontonabee.com
27
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
Hall, Kevin
Civil Engineering
Queen’s University
Kingston
Tel: 613-533-2127
Email: hallk@civil.queensu.ca
Howard, Chris (absent)
Process Engineer
Water & Wastewater Engineering
Public Works Department
Regional Municipality of Niagara
Thorold
Tel: 905-328-1635
Email: chris.howard@regional.niagara.on.ca
Howell, Todd
Great Lakes Ecologist
Surface Water Unit
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Etobicoke
Tel: 416-235-6225
Email: howellto@ene.gov.on.ca
Langan, John
Environmental Project Manager
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
London
Tel: 519-645-2007
Email: jlangan@stantec.com
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
Email: brian@hurongeo.com
Melzer, Rachel
Projects & Planning Advisor, Great Lakes
Source Protection Planning
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Toronto
Tel: 416-326-5107
Email: Rachel.Melzer@ene.gov.on.ca
Metcalfe, Chris
Watershed Science Centre, Director &
Professor, Environmental and Resource Studies
Environmental & Resource Studies
Trent University
Peterborough
Tel: 705-748-1011 x7272
Email: cmetcalfe@trentu.ca
Miller. Sarah
Coordinator & Research
Canadian Environmental Law Association
Toronto
Tel: 416-960-2284 x213
Email: millers@LAO.on.ca
29
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
Moore, Laurence
Project Director
Ontario Water Works Research Consortium
Tel: 905-274-7669 x234
Email: LMoore@ocwa.com
Oldenburg, Kurt
Fisheries Ecology Supervisor
Lake Erie Management Unit
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Port Dover
Tel: 519-538-3082
Email: kurt.oldenburg@mnr.gov.on.ca
Schmidt, Bastian
Watershed Science Centre
Trent University
Peterborough
Tel: 705-748-1011 x7940
Email: bastianschmidt@trentu.ca
Smith, Don
Source Water Protection Manager
Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority
Hanover
Tel: 519-376-3076 x245
Email: d.smith@greysauble.on.ca
30
WSC 2006:.SWP-Theme I (Proceedings of Sept 14th, 2006 Workshop)
31
Stainton, Ryan
Watershed Science Centre
Trent University
Peterborough
Tel: 705-748-1011 x7942
Email: ryanstainton@trentu.ca
Weselan, Ann Marie
Program Coordinator
Source Protection Approvals
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Toronto
Tel: 416-314-1873
Email: AnnMarie.Weselan@ene.gov.on.ca
Yerubandi, Ram
Research Scientist
Aquatic Ecosystem Management
Research Branch
National Waters Research Institute
Environment Canada
Burlington
Tel: 905-336-4785
Email: ram.yerubandi@ec.gc.ca
top related