Water Resources Protection Master Plan
advertisement
GUIDING SOURCE WATER PROTECTION WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION MASTER PLAN Manure Storage Winter Cover Crops Wellhead Protection Fencing/Buffer Strips JANUARY 2008 Acknowledgements This report was funded by the Ontario Ministry of Environment’s Municipal Groundwater Study Initiatives and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The completion of the Water Resources Protection Master Plan required the work of many persons over a number of years. Specific mention is provided to: Ian MacDonald and Tiffany Svensson of Water and Earth Science Associates Limited, the Region’s consultants on the project; Eric Hodgins and Tammy Middleton, the Region’s project managers for the project; and the members of the Water Resources Protection Liaison Committee that reviewed, provided input, and helped develop this Master Plan. WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since 1993, the Region has been implementing a Water Resources Protection Strategy (WRPS) to minimize the risk of historic, existing and future land uses on municipal water supplies. In 2003, the Region was awarded funding from the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) Municipal Groundwater Study Initiative which provided funds for a number of tasks including an update of the Water Resources Protection Master Plan (the “Master Plan”). The purpose of the Master Plan update was to develop a municipal water protection implementation plan that build on previous initiatives undertaken by the Region as well as to incorporate new initiatives and policies developed by the Province of Ontario in the wake of the Walkerton Inquiry, including the Clean Water Act and related regulations. This report presents the Master Plan that will guide source protection activities for the Region from 2007 though 2016. The Master Plan will be implemented in two phases: activities and programs in the interim period up to 2012 and prior to completion of the watershed-based Source Protection Plan (SPP) required under the Clean Water Act; and those following integration of this Master Plan with the SPP. For the latter phase, the risk- mitigation programs identified in the Master Plan will be used as the primary basis for risk reduction anticipated to be required in the SPP. The intent of this report is to provide in a single document, an overview of both the status and the proposed technical and policy or program initiatives needed to protect municipal drinking-water supplies. Background and Context The Region has successfully implemented a number of programs to implement source water protection for its water supply system. These include: the Rural Water Quality Program which provides financial incentives to farmers to improve water quality; an amendment to the official plan to designate well head protection areas and implement limited restrictions on no n-residential development; the Business Water Quality Program (2001 to 2005) that provided financial incentives to businesses to prevent spills; and development of a Winter Road Maintenance Policy that among other things committed the Region and local municipalities to reducing salt use on roads. These programs together with on-going, water-quality and water-level monitoring programs, and review of development applications and contaminated sites comprise the Region’s existing protection activities. Over the past few years, the MOE has undertaken a number of initiatives on source water protectio n including development of the Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Water Act, the MOE will institute new processes, technical standards, and guidance to develop watershed-based source protection plans for municipal drinking-water supplies across Ontario. The Grand River Conservation Authority will be involved in coordinating an independent Source Protection Committee to develop a Technical Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan for Lake Erie Source Protection Region. The Clean Water Act will require that municipalities assess their water supplies from both water quantity (water budget and water quantity risk assessment) and water quality (vulnerable area delineation, threat identification and water quality risk assessment) perspectives. Accordingly, the Master Plan will need to merge and integrate with watershed-based source protection over the next several years and steps are identified to ensure this occurs. Executive Summary Water Quantity As the original WRPS focused primarily on quality, the Region’s approach to managing water quantity at the source was less well defined and has been developed iteratively through various watershed studies, project environmental assessments, assessments of water pumping and groundwater modeling. The outcome of various water budgets are provided as follows: • The MOE performed percent water-use calculations for all tertiary watersheds in southern and central Ontario identifying the Upper Grand watershed, which includes the Region as a medium- use watershed with between 25% and 30% of the water resources allocated. • Based on groundwater monitoring conducted by the Region since 1994, the long continuous pumping of deep aquifers has resulted in stable water levels throughout the Region with the possible exception of recent decreases in water levels around the Parkway wells in Kitchener due to higher pumping in 2004/2005, and declines in water levels during the late 1990s in north east Cambridge where several new wells were commissioned. • The Long Term Water Supply strategy identified tha t more than 100,000 m3 /day of water was available from local water resources, which suggests there is more than adequate available water to meet the 23,000 m3 /day of new groundwater supplies that were identified to be needed in the strategy. Recently, a preliminary watershed-scale or “Tier 2” water budget assessment undertaken by the GRCA, in accordance with MOE guidance modules under the Clean Water Act, has indicated that much of the central portion of the Grand River Watershed will be identified as potentially moderate to high stress. This area includes most of the Region’s water supply wells for the integrated urban system supplying Cambridge, Elmira, Kitchener, New Hamburg and Waterloo. Notwithstanding that the Region’s on- going monitoring indicates that stable water levels exist in most areas, it is likely that the Region will be required under the CWA to undertake Tier 3 (Local Area) assessments for each of these wells to ensure they are sustainable. Vulnerable Area Delineation Watershed-based source protection will require the Region to delineate a number of vulnerable areas, many of which have already been completed as follows: • Page ii Well Head Protection Areas (WHPAs) were delineated in 2000, as part of the amendment to the Regional Official Policies Plan, using a multiple-component process including: undertaking three-dimension computer modeling for specific geographic areas, delineating well capture zones (land area contributing water supplies to the wells), creating capture zone envelopes or WHPAs, and developing a semi-quantitative indexing method to classify these areas into sensitivity categories. Notwithstanding the above, additional work will be needed to meet the anticipated standards for source protection including: delineation of additiona l time of travel capture zones and new risk management zones; delineation of protection zones for new wells; collection of additional hydrogeologic data; and undertaking advanced modeling techniques. Executive Summary • In 2007, protection zones for the Region’s Hidden Valley intake in Kitchener was delineated following MOE guidance procedures. Some additional investigation is needed improve delineation of these protection areas. • Areas where the groundwater is intrinsically vulnerability to contamination (e.g. sandy soils and shallow water table) were delineated in 2006 based on MOE guidance modules. This mapping will be updated following improvements to groundwater models. • The recharge area of the Waterloo Moraine was delineated in the early 2000s due to its important role in contributing to the Region’s drinking- water system. Other significant recharge areas may be delineated through the watershed-based source protection process. Delineation of the vulnerable areas in the Region is presented in Figure E1. As required under the Clean Water Act and related regulations, the protection zones will be ranked and/or scored and will be used in conjunction with an assessment of threats to identify and rank risks to municipal drinkingwater supplies. Threats The initial WRPS implementation plan included undertaking a reconnaissance survey of sites that pose a potential threat to water supplies. Over the implementation of the WRPS, the survey has been built into an inventory and has been continually improved by adding additional data and refining the relative ranking of the threats. Using this database, the number of different threats within each WHPA was compiled to assist in understanding the scope of threats near supply wells, to help prioritize which threats pose the greatest concern at individual well fields, and to guide development of risk- mitigation options. This assessment is similar to what is expected to be conducted as part of a watershed-based source protection Tier 1 Assessment, i.e. using existing information. MOE guidance modules require that more detailed information be collected for some properties, i.e. a Tier 2 assessment, where there is uncertainty in the Tier 1 information. The results of the assessment undertaken as part of the Master Plan confirmed staff’s opinion that a Tier 1 assessment will not accurately reflect the number of businesses in the protection areas where chemical, fuel, and waste storage activities occur and that considerable additional effort will be needed to gather specific information for these threats to be able to conduct the water-quality risk assessment. The MOE is currently devising additional guidance materials to link land uses to chemicals which is critical to understanding the scope of additional work and potential threats to municipal water supplies. A threat assessment has not been undertaken for the Hidden Valley surface water intake and will be undertaken as part of a MOE- funded study to be undertaken in 2007 and 2008. Identification and Prioritization of Risk-Reduction Measures The initial objectives of the WRPS were developed primarily to protect the water quality of the municipal supplies. And while these objectives have provided appropriate guidance, they did not explicitly recognize the importance of protecting the quantity of water resources. To ensure that the Page iii Executive Summary Master Plan includes both water quality and quantity, the objectives of the WRPS were modified to the following: • • • limit water quality risks to water resources from historic or existing land-use practices; minimize water quality and quantity risks to water resources from future land uses and activities; and minimize the impact of the Region’s water taking on the environment and private supplies. Several principles upon which risk-mitigation activities would be selected were also similarly modified from the original WRPS. Detailed threat-evaluation and risk-mitigation approaches for a number of threat categories were developed to provide input into the development of the Master Plan. All the steps taken through this process were documented in a series of background reports that were discussed with members of the Water Resources Protection Liaison Committee. Development of the Master Plan focused primarily on municipal well head protection and was coordinated to the extent possible with the MOE’s ongoing development of watershed-based source protection legislation. For surface water intakes, the MOE guidance identifying the purpose of the intake protection zones is relatively recent and steps needed to protect this intake are still evolving. Additional direction is needed from the MOE to guide evaluation of risk and risk reduction measures for recharge areas and naturally vulnerable areas. Detailed risk-reduction options were developed and ranked for 20 threat groups that ranked as moderate or high threat to municipal wells. Risk reduction options for each category included: use of the Planning Act; use of federal, provincial or municipal regulations; land acquisition; upgrades to municipal infrastructure; implementing beneficial management practices; undertaking monitoring and studies; and undertaking education programs. Based on the risk-reduction ranking, risk reduction measures were proposed for each WHPA, including where additional information on well vulnerability or threats might be needed prior to implementing the risk-reduction program or policy. Tables E2 and E3 present summaries of proposed risk- mitigation measures for each threat category to address existing and future threats to groundwater. Table E4 presents proposed measures for protection of the surface water intake. As areas closest to the supply wells have higher vulnerability scores, these areas have a greater number of proposed risk- management options and tend to include more regulatory tools than for areas further from the wells. The large number of programs identified through the Master Plan indicates that priorities must be set to ensure implementation. However, identifying which will take priority is challenging in part because the province will require the Region to prioritize risk-mitigation of threats and/or threat categories on a parcel basis following provincial regulations and rules, many of which have not been fully developed. Ultimately the setting of priorities will be influenced by the regulations and the staff /financial resources to meet the combined work load of the regulations and existing programs. Based on this direction, the following principles for setting priorities are proposed for the Plan: • Page iv As an interim measure, undertake tasks to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act and for continuation of current programs and new initiatives developed through the current Master Plan update; and Executive Summary • Following approval of the SPP by the Minister, implement the plan addressing both future and existing threats focusing first on threats that pose the highest risk to municipal drinking water supplies followed by programs for lower-risk threats Table E4 presents a list of tasks and interim schedule to guide source water protection activities in the Region over the next five to ten years and until the Master Plan is fully integrated with watershedbased source protection. The tasks identified in Table E5 include both technical and risk-reduction or “implementation” components. And while there is still some uncertainty on how priorities will be established through the Clean Water Act, several priorities for implementation can be set based on staff’s current understanding of the Clean Water Act and existing water supply issues. These priorities are as follows. • Implement risk-reduction measures for significant risks identified in the Assessment Report as required by the Clean Water Act. This will include determining whether to use the Clean Water Act Part IV provisions for Significant Risks and/or to develop additional spill prevention requirements as part of the Region’s Sewer-Use By Law. • Continue implementing current initiatives including: the Rural Water Quality Program; salt reduction programs; microbial contamination control programs for wells under the influence of surface water; and commenting on development applications and contaminated sites. • Implement new priority initiatives including: nitrate reduction strategies for well K26 in Wilmot; policies in the current ROP update for microbial contamination control programs, salt assessment guidelines, and aggregate extraction study guidelines; and land acquisition and easement policies for the 100 m zone around wells, the 200 m zone for the Hidden Valley intake, and within Well Head Protection Sensitivity Area 1. Page v Executive Summary Page vi Executive Summary FIGURE E1: Vulnerable Areas Page vii Executive Summary Page viii Executive Summary Table E2: Proposed Risk-Mitigation Measures for Existing Threats to Municipal Wells Threat Category Protection Area GUDI/ 100 m WPSA 1 WPSA2 2yr 10yr WPSA3 2yr 10yr WPSA 4 Region Wide Contaminated Sites Brownfield redevelopment incentives program - - - - - - - ü Septic Systems Provide comments on site reports Installation of sentry wells or off-site monitoring wells (1) Education – response to site information requests Faulty system inspection (I)/education (E) Strategic mitigation Municipal maintenance and upgrade program Incentives for private maintenance and upgrades üI þ ü ü ü ü þI þ ü þ ü ü üE û þ û ü þ üE û û û þ þ û û þ û þ þ û û û û û û û û û û û û ü û û û û Municipal/Regional road agency reduction programs - - - - - - - ü Municipal/Regional road agency Sensitive Area management plans Education/awareness program Develop pilot sites and encourage private property salt reduction plans Regional/ municipal property salt management BMPs - ü - ü - ü - ü - ü - û - û ü - - - - - - - ü - - - - - - - ü Strategic land purchase and/or easement (1) ü þ þ û û û û û Incentive Program (existing RWQP) Enhanced incentives/education for nutrient management planning Sentry Well monitoring program ü ü þ ü þ ü û û û ü û û û û ü û û Strategic land purchase and/or easement (1) ü þ þ û û û û û Require sites have Nutrient Management Plans prior to application by Region contractor Prohibit application ü ü ü þ ü þ û û ü ü þ û þ û û û Strategic land purchase and/or easement (1) - þ þ û û û û û Incentive program (existing RWQP) Sentry Well monitoring program - ü ü û ü û û ü û Develop monitoring and/or research program to clarify problem - ü ü ü ü ü û û Inspection/licensing (I)/education (E) program (2) - þI üE þI üE û û Sewers and Pipes Winter Maintenance Agriculture Nutrient Application Biosolids Application Agriculture Chemical application: Impervious cover increase Fuel Storage and Handling üI Page ix Executive Summary Education program for provincial agency for upgrades , monitoring and inspection Incentives for non-targeted training program Chemical Storage and Handling - ü ü û ü û û û - - - - - - - ü - üI þI üE þI üE û û - - - - - - - ü ü ü(3) üI þI üE þI üE û û Review/Provide Comments on new CofA applications Incentives for training program Municipal by-law restricting chemicals (4) Apply BMPs to Region contracts/facilities Targeting monitoring Contractor storage BMPS (refer to chemical handling and storage) ü - ü þ - þ þ - þ û - þ û - þ û - û û - û ü ü ü û - Incentives for training program - - - - - - - ü Apply BMPs to Region contracts/facilities - - þ üE þ üE û û Incentives for training program Assessment and/or improvement of de-icing facilities - - ü ü ü ü û ü û Strategic land purchase and/or easement (1) ü þ þ û û û û û Incentive program (existing RWQP) Enhanced incentives/education for nutrient management planning ü ü þ û û û û ü û Education: encourage adoption of guidelines for existing sites - - - - - - - ü Incentives for training program - - - - - - - ü Implement protocol for monitoring well surveying ü ü ü ü ü ü û û Incentive program Farmers – existing RWQP and federal programs Non-farm incentive program ü ü ü ü ü ü û ü û Inspection/licensing (I)/education (E) program (2) Incentives for training program Apply BMPs to Region contracts/facilities Waste Storage and Handling Lawn Chemicals Golf Course Turf Care Airport Deicing and Refueling Livestock Management Aggregate Extraction Well Decommissioning Inspection/licensing (I)/education (E) program (2) Notes: Table nomenclature: - not applicable; üpart of program; ûnot part of program; þ for vulnerable areas defined by new groundwater modeling technique 1. Specifics of program would be based on outcome of more detailed assessments. 2. Program dependant on provincial licensing program and availability of new authority from the province. 3. Program in this area focuses on pathogenic wastes. 4. Scope of program would be limited to program proposed by Public Health. Page x Executive Summary Table E3: Proposed Risk-Mitigation Measures for Future Threats to Municipal Wells Threat Category Contaminated sites Septic systems Pipelines and sewers Deicing Salt Water quantity Gasoline storage Chemical storage Waste storage Lawn fertilizers Golf courses Aggregate extraction Private and monitoring wells Details Update development application review protocol Prevent new construction and require additional study prior to installation Require monitoring of commu nal systems Prohibit new Develop servicing policies to require upgraded materials to reduce leakage Additional study requirements and BMPs Prohibit increased reduction in infiltration for wells identified with high water quantity risk Require studies to prevent reductions infiltration for other wells Prohibition for regulated bulk fuel, retail and accessory use of gasoline Additional study requirements, BMPs, and monitoring Prohibition of “worst” land uses especially those using chlorinated solvents Additional study requirements, BMPs, and monitoring Prohibitions on worst land uses (1) Additional study requirements, BMPs, and monitoring BMPs for lawn fertilizers near sensitive features Prohibitions Additional study requirements, BMPs and monitoring Prohibitions New Region study guidelines Require survey and proper decommissioning Prohibition in serviced areas GUDI/ 100 m WPSA1 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr WPSA 4 Region Wide ü ü ü ü - ü ü þ ü ü þ þ þ - - ü û û û û û û û û û û - ü û û û û û û û û û û û û - û û û û û û û û û û û WPSA2 þ þ ü WPSA3 ü þ ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü þ ü ü ü - ü þ ü ü ü ü ü þ þ ü ü - ü þ ü ü ü ü ü ü þ ü ü ü þ þ ü - - - - - - ü ü ü þ ü þ û û û û û û û û û û û û û - - - ü - - - - ü - - - - ü û û ü þ - û û þ þ þ û û û û Notes: Table nomenclature: - not applicable; üpart of program; ûnot part of program; þ for vulnerable areas defined by new groundwater modeling technique 1. Program in this area focuses on pathogenic wastes. Page xi Executive Summary Table E4: Proposed Risk-Mitigation Measures for the Mannheim Surface Water Intake IPZ-1 IPZ-2 TWCA Continue to invest in improvements to GRCA’s surface water model (GAWSER) - - ü Amend the ROP to include measures to control urban runoff quality including retrofitting of existing controls - - ü Storm water quality control measures for Highway 8 bridge and other crossings - ü - Require BMPs under Sewer-Use by law for selected industries with high potential for spills ü ü - Spill forecasting model and/or early-warning monitoring system ü ü û Policies/Programs To Address Threat Notes: TWCA – Total Water Contribution Area of the intake Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable Page xii Executive Summary Table E5: Schedule of Water Resources Protection Master Plan Tasks Initiative/Task Clean Water Act Finalized Clean Water Act CWA Regulation Review Source Protection Committee Terms of Reference Characterization Report Assessment Report Plan Development Plan Reporting Plan Review 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 x x x x x x x x x x Technical - Water Quantity Groundwater Monitoring Program Review New Supply Well Investigation Tier 2 Watershed Scale Water Budget Tier 3 Local Area Assessment Technical - Vulnerability Revise Groundwater Flow Model Well Surveys and Abandonment Intake Protection Area Delineation Raw Water Characterization Develop Intake Monitoring Program Monitoring Program Assessment Technical - Threat Assessment Tier 1 Assessment (Groundwater) Tier 1 Assessment (Surface Water) Tier 2 Pilot Program Tier 2 Threat Assessment Well Field "Issues" Assessments x x Middleton (TCE/1,4-dioxane) Page xiii Executive Summary Initiative/Task p St Agatha (Nitrate) 2006 2007 H4 (Nitrate) K50s (Nitrate) Medium Priority Salt-Impacted Wells G5 (VOCs and Salt Assessment) Risk Mitigation Programs and Policies Finalize WRPS Update Plan Interim Significant-Risk Threats Actions WRPS Current Programs RWQP Road Salt Reduction Private Salt Education Microbial Contamination Control Plans WRPS Update Issues Initial Update of Regional Official Plan Aggregate Extraction Policies Well-Specific Nitrate Strategy Salt Impact Assessment Guidelines Clean Water Act Implementation Regional Official Plan Existing Significant-Risk Threats Existing Medium-Risk Threats Existing Low-Risk Threats Monitoring/Enforcement Notes: X – indicates completion of a report Page xiv x 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION MASTER PLAN Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 WRPS and Status of Current Priority Program Areas............................................................ 2 Municipal Groundwater Study Initiative Project................................................................... 4 Review of Other Jurisdictions and Legislative Changes in Ontario ........................................ 4 Watershed-Based Source Protection .................................................................................... 5 3.0 WATER QUANTITY AND BUDGET .................................................................................... 6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 MOE Water-Use Analysis .................................................................................................. 6 Sustainability of Current Pumping Based on Water Level Measurements............................... 7 Potential Future Water Supplies.......................................................................................... 9 2003 Region Water Use Assessment ..................................................................................10 Integration with Watershed-Based Source Protection ..........................................................10 4.0 DELINEATION OF VULNERABLE AREAS ...................................................................... 11 4.1 Well Head Protection Areas...............................................................................................11 4.1.1 Capture Zone Delineation ..........................................................................................12 4.1.3 Sensitivity Assessment..............................................................................................13 4.1.4 Current Status of Mapping.........................................................................................13 4.1.5 Integration with Source Protection .............................................................................15 4.2 Surface Water Intake Protection Areas...............................................................................16 4.3 Intrinsic Susceptibility Index Mapping ...............................................................................17 4.4 Recharge Area Mapping ....................................................................................................17 5.0 THREAT IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................................ 18 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.0 Threat Inventory Database.................................................................................................19 Other Threat Databases.....................................................................................................20 Compilation of Threats in Well Head Protection Areas........................................................20 Compilation of Threats in Surface Water Intake Protection Areas ........................................22 Water Quality Monitoring .................................................................................................22 Integration with Watershed Based Source Protection...........................................................23 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS........................................... 24 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Expansion of Objectives and Implementation Principles......................................................24 Threat Category Ranking...................................................................................................25 Existing Risk-Reduction Program Evaluation .....................................................................26 Selection of Implementation Options..................................................................................26 Risk Management Program Ranking ..................................................................................27 7.0 RISK REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND TOOLS ................................................................. 28 7.1 7.2 7.3 Potential Risk Mitigation Measures for Wells .....................................................................28 Potential Risk Mitigation Measures for Surface Water Intakes.............................................28 Prioritizing Program Implementation .................................................................................29 7.3.1 Technical Assessments..............................................................................................30 7.3.2 Source Water Protection Implementation....................................................................32 8.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 34 WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION MASTER PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION Municipal water supply for the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Region) is provided by an integrated system of groundwater and surface water supplies to main urban areas and a series of smaller wells servicing parts of several smaller communities. Approximately 75% of the water supply is provided by groundwater; the remaining 25% is provided by surface water from the Grand River. The long term sustainability of the current water supply system depends on the quantity and quality of recharge received by the aquifers, and the quantity and quality of flows in the Grand River. There are nume rous potential threats to surface water and groundwater associated with historic, current and future land- uses and activities. Since 1993, the Region has been implementing a Water Resources Protection Strategy (WRPS) to minimize the risk of historic, existing and future land uses on municipal water supplies. In 2003, the Region in partnership with the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA), was awarded funding from the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) Operation Clean Water Municipal Groundwater Study Initiative. One of the main components of the study was to develop a new ten-year Water Resources Protection Master Plan (Master Plan”). The purpose of the Master Plan update was to develop an implementation plan that built on previous initiatives undertaken by the Region as well as to incorporate new initiatives and policies developed by the Province of Ontario in the wake of the Walkerton Inquiry, including the Clean Water Act and related regulations. As part of the development of the Master Plan, several background papers were prepared and discussed with the Region’s multi-stakeholder Water Resources Protection Liaison Committee. This report presents the Master Plan that will guide source protection activities for the Region from 2007 though 2016. The Master Plan will be implemented in two phases: activities and programs in the interim period up to 2012 and prior to completion of the watershed-based Source Protection Plan (SPP) required under the Clean Water Act; and those following integration of this Master Plan with the SPP. For the latter phase, the risk- mitigation programs identified in the Master Plan will be used as the primary basis for risk reduction anticipated to be required in the SPP. The document provides an overview of both the status current initiative and proposed technical and policy or program initiatives needed to protect the Region’s municipal drinking- water supplies. As much of the existing work implementing the WRPS is documented in numerous reports, this report only provides an overview of many of the technical components and directs the reader to appropriate references for greater detail. Section 2 of this report provides background information on the WRPS and a summary of status of current WRPS programs. The next three sections provide descriptions of technical components of the Master Plan including water budget (Section 3), delineation of vulnerable groundwater and surface water areas (Section 4) and identification of threats to water resources (Section 5). Section 6 describes the process undertaken to develop risk reduction programs for a number of threats including modification to several principles guiding implementation. Section 7 presents the priorities, proposed tasks to be implemented and a schedule for implementing the Master Plan. Page 1 Water Resources Protection Master Plan 2.0 BACKGROUND Since the development of the WRPS in 1994, the Region has implemented a number of programs to protect its water supplies. At the same time source protection has evolved both locally and internationally. This section provides a summary of several key programs, studies and legislative changes that will influence the development of the Plan. 2.1 WRPS and Status of Current Priority Program Areas In late 1989, the MOE detected nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), an industrial organic chemical, in several drinking- water wells in Elmira during routine analysis of the drinking-water system. In the several years following shut down of these wells, the Region undertook a number of initial steps to protect the water supply system including retaining consultants to assist in developing a strategy and work plan for source water protection (Golder Associates Ltd., 1992). The development of the strategy included consideration of the approach to source protection being implemented at the time in the United States and specific recommendations made to the Region by researchers at the University of Waterloo’s Centre for Groundwater Research. In February 1994, Regional Council approved a WRPS Implementation Plan (Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 1994) that established a ten-year program for groundwater and surface water management activities. The purpose of the plan was to: • • Limit the risk to water resources from historic or existing land- use practices, and Minimize the risk to water resources from future land uses. The implementation plan divided the projects and activities into eight categories or elements, several of which involved data management and monitoring that was to provide the framework necessary for developing effective protection programs. Appendix 1 provides a list of projects that were part of the original WRPS. While these framework components were necessary to initiate the plan, staff has since concluded that the following key steps were necessary and adequately express the scope of activities needed to protect water supply: • • • • Understanding and mapping sensitive areas contributing water to the municipal system Identifying and mapping potential sources of contamination in the supply; Developing and implementing policies and programs to manage land uses and activities; and Building awareness and educating the public about their water supplies. The Plan was updated periodically to reflect revised completion dates for some projects and to include new initiatives that arose during the implementation period. Several key specific milestones are discussed below. The Groundwater Protection Policy Options Discussion Paper (Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 1995) outlined potential sources of groundwater contamination, possible options for dealing with each type of problem, and provided an initial evaluation of advantages and disadvantages of each option. The document was used as the basis for informed discussion of groundwater protection Page 2 Water Resources Protection Master Plan options. Following discussions, priority was given to address sources of contamination with the highest potential for contaminating municipal groundwater supplies, and toward source types that could be dealt with in the most proactive manner using the Region’s current authority. Regional Council agreed that the three highest priority source types were: • • • Rural non-point sources (runoff/infiltration of nutrients from agricultural operations) Current urban point sources (spills/discharges from industrial/commercial operations) Future urban point sources (new industrial/commercial operations proposed in urban areas). Since that time, road deicing operations have been added to the list of priority threats because of the increasing levels of sodium and chloride observed in supply wells. The Groundwater Protection Areas Policy Discussion Paper (Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 1996) made recommendations for the delineation of groundwater protection areas to protect the quality of municipal groundwater supplies. These areas were to include “well head protection areas” (land area contributing water to the supply well) which would be delineated based on groundwater times of travel in the aquifer (two year and ten year) and “aquifer recharge protection areas” which would be delineated based on mapping of large-scale regional recharge features. Since 1998, the implementation of the strategy has been geared toward development of programs and policies to protect the resource. The status of the main components of the WRPS is presented in Table 1. The table identifies a number of initiatives that were completed and/or are on- going for each key step. Specifically, the following programs were designed to address the priority concern areas in municipal water supplies. • The Rural Water Quality Program was developed in 1998 to provide incentives to farmers for implementing projects to improve surface and groundwater quality and address the potential threat to water supplies from existing agriculture operations. The program is delivered by the GRCA and to date almost $3 million has been provided in incentives through this program. • An amendment to the Regional Official Policy Plan in 2000 (Amendment No. 12) established well head protection sensitivity areas around each municipal supply well and created restrictions on new non-residential development in these areas. This amendment, and the pilot program created by the province for a Development Permit System, was the key component to address the threat from new non-residential development. Work on the Development Permit System was discontinued in 2004 as several changes in the legislation were necessary to facilitate the use of this system for groundwater protection. • The Business Water Quality Program was developed in 2001 to provide incentives for businesses to implement practices to reduce the potential of spills to surface water, groundwater and sanitary sewers. This program, in combination with working with the Ministry of Environment to review and clean up contaminated sites, was designed to address the potential impacts from existing businesses handling hazardous chemicals. The BWQP was terminated in December 2005 primarily due to the high administration to grant funding ratio. • Regional Council approved a Winter Road Maintenance Policy and Procedures in 2003, which among other things created consistent standards for maintaining roads in the Region Page 3 Water Resources Protection Master Plan and provided a mechanism to introduce new training and equipment upgrades for reducing the impact of road salt on the Region’s municipal groundwater wells. Since then, Regional and area municipality road departments have been implementing numerous measures to reduce the use of salt. Water Services staff have now started to tackle the issue of private parking lot and sidewalk deicing activities and development of salt impact assessment guidelines for development applications. 2.2 Municipal Groundwater Study Initiative Project Since 2002, the MOE has been providing funds for municipal groundwater studies under the Municipal Groundwater Study Initiative. As the Region already had a number of the technical components of source protection completed during the implementation of the WRPS, the project focused on: updating previous work, filling data gaps, and formatting information according to MOE standards and guidelines; and developing the Master Plan presented in this document. The major components of the project are summarized in Appendix 2. 2.3 Review of Other Jurisdictions and Legislative Changes in Ontario A review of source protection in three Canadian and five international jurisdictions was undertaken to assess their progress since the WRPS was developed and to determine any approaches, tools, or insights worth considering in the Master Plan (Region, 2003). A summary of the threats for which source water protection programs were developed in each of these jurisdictions is presented in Table 2. In addition, several pieces of legislation that have been passed and/or are in the process of being finalized by the Province of Ontario will fundamentally change how source protection is implemented in Ontario were reviewed. The key outcomes of these reviews are summarized below. While risk-reduction programs for many threats were developed in these eight jurisdictions, none of the jurisdictions reviewed had developed source protection plans that addressed all threats. Oxford County had the most comprehensive approach to source protection. The approach, which has not been approved by County Council as of December 31, 2006, includes policies that build on the Region’s non-residential development policies as well as policies that apply to agricultural activities. These policies apply to both well head protection areas and to areas of “intrinsic” vulnerability to contamination (i.e. shallow aquifers overlain by sand, gravel or fractured rock). Implementation of these policies has been delayed as the County explores options to address the impact of the nonresidential development policies on existing land uses and recent provincial initiatives associated with the Clean Water Act. Development of these policies is being supported by the MOE and it is expected that these types of policies will be required or strongly encouraged in the provincial watershed-based source protection legislation (refer to Section 2.4). The Safe Drinking Water Act influenced source-water protection when it introduced a new category of water-supply facility, namely municipal wells that use groundwater under the direct influence (GUDI) of surface water. The MOE considers these water systems to be more vulnerable to microbial and pathogenic contamination and if GUDI with effective filtration requires development of microbial contamination control plans for areas within the 50-day and two- year time-of-travel (time it takes water to flow within the aquifer to the well) of GUDI wells. Protection of source water from microbial/pathogen contamination is a high priority for the MOE and future source protection Page 4 Water Resources Protection Master Plan programs will need to emphasize protection from this type of threat. Water Services staff submitted microbial contamination control plans for eight wells to the MOE in 2005 and initiated implementation. 2.4 Watershed-Based Source Protection The Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry (O’Connor, 2002) established the rationale for taking a watershed-based approach to source protection. Since the report was released, the MOE has created three committees (Framework, 2003; Technical Experts, 2004; Implementation, 2004) to help develop the watershed-based approach. Each of these committees completed their assignments and prepared reports with a series of recommendations. In addition, a draft Drinking Water Source Protection Act was released in June 2004 followed by the proposed Clean Water Act in December 2005 and subsequently came into fo rce on July 3, 2007. Updates on the status of this legislation and implications of advisory committee reports have been presented to Regional Council in 2004 (E04062), 2005 (E05-021/P05-012), and 2006 (E06-010). The content of the advisory committee reports and Clean Water Act are critical in understanding the approach that Ontario will take to developing watershed-based source protection legislation and how development of detailed action plans for protection of drinking-water will be created. The Clean Water Act identifies a watershed-based approach to development of the Source Protection Plans (SPP). A few of the key governance structures for development of these plans are summarized below. • • • For the purpose of developing SPPs and to facilitate the sharing of resources, expertise and coordination, the watersheds will be grouped into regions comprised of two or more watersheds. This area has been designated the Lake Erie Region which comprises the Grand River, Long Point, Catfish, and Kettle Creek watersheds. A Source Protection Board (SPB) will be established for each watershed to coordinate/review the work of a multi-stakeholder Source Protection Committee (SPC) and recommend the SPP to the MOE for approval. The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) has been designated the lead conservation authority for Lake Erie Region and it’s board will be the SPB. The SPC will coordinate development of a Terms of Reference that will specify the process for completing a number of technical assessments, the draft SPP, and local consultation process. Figure 1 presents a diagram summarizing the overall threat assessment framework for watershedbased source protection (MOE, 2004). This diagram illustrates a three-stage threat assessment process consisting of risk identification, risk assessment and risk management. In the risk identification stage, both a watershed characterization consisting of a water budget and delineation of vulnerable areas, and a threat inventory will be developed. In the risk assessment stage, the vulnerability of the drinking- water sources will be linked to the identified threats to determine the level of risk. The culmination of this stage is the preparation of an Assessment Report. In the risk management stage, risk mitigation measures will be identified in a SPP and implemented to reduce the risk to the drinking-water supplies. Where the risks are identified as significant (i.e. pose the most serious risks to drinking-water sources), mandatory activities will be required to mitigate the Page 5 Water Resources Protection Master Plan risks. While not presented in this diagram, a fourth or implementation stage will follow plan development. A number of draft guidance documents or modules have been developed by the MOE to assist in completing the tasks for this three-stage process. While the guidance documents are incomplete and there are no regulations on how the documents are to be followed, they do provide the framework for implementing watershed-based source protection. Reference to these guidance modules will be made throughout this report where appropriate. 3.0 WATER QUANTITY AND BUDGET Water budgets are an important tool to help understand where the water exists and how it moves through the watershed. Water budgeting can be undertaken at a number of scales and us ing a variety of methods depending on the purpose of the assessment. As the original WRPS focused on quality, the Region’s approach to managing water quantity at the source was less well defined and has been developed iteratively through various watershed studies, project environmental assessments, assessments of water pumping and groundwater modeling. The MOE’s guidance modules for water budgeting identifies the purpose and extent to which additional water-budget analysis will be undertaken for watershed-based source protection. This section presents an overview of some of the water budget analyses completed for the Region. Specifically, it will present: a water budget analysis undertaken at a watershed scale as part of Ontario’s Permit-To- Take-Water program; an assessment of water use from existing Region pumping; and an assessment of water use related to the Region’s projected future water taking. Finally, discussion of the nature and scope of assessments that may be required under the Clean Water Act will be presented. 3.1 MOE Water-Use Analysis In 2005, the MOE completed an analysis of water use in the main tertiary watersheds of the province in support of revisions to the regulations for water-taking permits (AquaResources Inc, 2005). The approach compared estimates of water demand versus the available volume of water supply. Demand was characterized using extraction values specified in existing Permits to Take Water (PTTWs). The available supply includes existing flow (estimated at the downstream end of each tertiary watershed) plus the amount currently being used (multiplied by consumptive demand factors), less a reserve amount required to sustain natural conditions. Using this approach, percent-use calculations were performed for all tertiary watersheds for both average-annual conditions and summer low- flow conditions. Figure 2 presents the map of southwestern Ontario showing water use for the summer low- flow conditions. It identifies the Upper Grand watershed, which includes Waterloo Region, as a medium- use watershed. A medium use watershed in low- flow conditions represents a watershed where 25% to 50% of the flow is allocated for use. Based on this conservative approach, between 25% and 30% of the supply has been allocated in the Re gion. A similar calculation for average annual use indicates that most watersheds in the province including the Upper Grand have less than five percent water allocation. It is important to note that there are a number of assumptions in this calculation including that the demand Page 6 Water Resources Protection Master Plan was based on values in the permits and not on actual water takings. Based on this assessment the MOE revised the permitting process and related regulations resulting in requirements for additional studies to be undertaken for any new water takings in medium- use and high- use watersheds and limitations on some water takings in high-use watersheds. 3.2 Sustainability of Current Pumping Based on Water Level Measurements The Region has undertaken an analysis of its municipal water taking as part of its groundwater monitoring program since 1999. This analysis is undertaken using two methods: comparing the amount of water estimated to recharge into the subsurface to the amount of water being pumped; and assessing water level trends for major aquifers. Together, these approaches provide a rough approximation of the water budget for the Region as a whole. A more detailed presentation of this information is provided as part of the Region’s groundwater monitoring program (Burnside, 2006). Table 3 presents a summary of the water balance for 2005. The results are presented for five groupings of subwatershed areas that contain supply wells, which are illustrated in Figure 3. Infiltration rates were supplied by the GRCA as calculated from the Guelph All- Weather SequentialEvents Runoff (GAWSER) model. Using this approach, the Region’s annual water taking of almost 48 million m3 /day represents approximately 20 percent of the total water being infiltrated in the Region. The analysis also indicates that a high percentage of infiltration was being used for water supply in the Mill Creek (approximately 53 percent) and Laurel-Schneider Creek (approximately 40 percent) groups. While these levels appear to be high, it is important to note that this percentage is likely high as this calculation method does not account for subsurface flow that crosses the arbitrary areas used in this analysis. Specifically, Laurel-Schneider creek areas does not account for the large volume of water infiltrating into deep aquifers through the Waterloo Moraine recharge area, the majority of which is located just to the west of the group, or the large bedrock recharge area of the Guelph-Amabel Formation and Paris Galt Moraines east of the Mill Creek area. On the other ha nd, the infiltration rates used in the calculation represent a combination of infiltration that moves into deep aquifers and that which flows through shallow aquifers ultimately discharging to local surface water features. All this water is not available for water taking. Finally, it is important to note that most of the water taken from municipal wells is returned to the hydrologic system through the wastewater treatment plants. The overall 20 percent water use provided in this analysis is comparable to the results of the tertiary-watershed scale analysis undertaken by the MOE. To assess trends in the water levels of major aquifers in the Region, the wells were grouped into five categories as follows: • • • • • Mannheim Aquifer – refers to the main unconfined and confined aquifer of the Waterloo Moraine that underlies the central and eastern portions of the moraine. Lower Moraine Aquifers – refers to the deeper overburden aquifers intersected by a number of wells on the eastern flanks of the moraine. Cambridge Lower Bedrock Aquifer – refers to the dolostone bedrock aquifer intersected by most supply wells in Cambridge. Local, Shallow Overburden Aquifers – refers to locations where wells intersect shallow, localized aquifers. Deep Overburden/Bedrock Aquifers – refers to locations where wells intersect deep aquifers not connected to the larger aquifers of Cambridge or the Waterloo Moraine. Page 7 Water Resources Protection Master Plan Figure 4 shows the distribution of each municipal supply well by the geologic aquifer intersected. Based on 2005 measurements, the shallow and deep aquifers of the Waterloo Moraine provide approximately 48% of the total volume of water pumped by the Region. For the Mannheim aquifer, the long continuous pumping of this aquifer has resulted in what appears to be steady state water levels in this aquifer. Historically, water levels in the deeper aquifers have also been stable. However, with the shut down of the Greenbrook well field in central Kitchener in 2004, water levels have rebounded (i.e. increased) in monitoring wells several kilometers from the well field. The only exception to this stable trend may be occurring at the Parkway wells in south Kitchener where increased pumping in 2004 and 2005 may be lowering water levels in the deeper overburden aquifer because of limited aquifer capacity and private water use in this area. For the Cambridge dolostone aquifer, water levels declined in eastern Cambridge in the middle 1990s in response to the commissioning of several new supply wells. This aquifer, because it has less storage than sand and gravel aquifers has also showed the impact of drought conditions between 1997 and 2000 reflecting its sensitivity to climate changes. However, these water level changes of generally less than 5 m are not considered to be significant given that the aquifer is extensive (approximately 200 m thick) and surface water features are largely buffered from impact by the overlying sediments. These declines have diminished somewhat in the last few years due to well plugging that has reduced the efficiency of the wells. In general, there has been little impact of pumping on the other aquifers of the Region due to the relatively low volume of water pumped from the smaller communal wells, the increased spacing of the wells, or the proximity to local recharge features such as the Grand River. The Region also operates one surface water intake approximately one kilometre downstream of where Highway 8 crosses the Grand River. The amount of water pumped at this location was designed to be proportional to the flow rate of the River with the lowest rate in the summer (73,000 m3 /day) corresponding to less than 10 percent of the summer low- flow conditions of the river. No impact is anticipated from this taking. The above assessment was undertaken based on the Region’s current groundwater monitoring program which is designed to address a number of regulatory and voluntary monitoring initiatives. In 2005, water levels were measured at 98 locations. Since water levels are measured at several depths for many of these locations, water levels were taken at a total of 220 points. This monitoring does not include extensive monitoring undertaken by several other organizations including the GRCA, individual municipal programs in support of development applicatio ns, the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network, or monitoring as part of individual Region projects. Maps showing locations of monitoring wells and a description of each well and its purpose are provided in Appendix 3. As part of each biennial monitoring report written for this program, additional locations for monitoring are recommended. In the 2005 report, an additional 45 locations, which represents a 48 percent increase in the monitoring network, were recommended for construction and/or monitoring. The Master Plan will include tasks to undertake this expansion over the next couple of years. Page 8 Water Resources Protection Master Plan 3.3 Potential Future Water Supplies In 2000, Regional Council approved the Long Term Water Supply strategy to supply municipal water to the Region until 2041. This strategy projects the Region’s water demand to be approximately 300,000 m3 /day and that additional supply capacity over the current 260,000 m3 /day (57 million imperial gallons per day) will be needed as follows: • • • • Add an additional 22,000 m3 /day capacity in 2006 through Phase I of Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR): Add an additional 22,000 m3 /day capacity by 2008 through ASR Phase II; Add an additional 14,000 to 22,000 m3 /day by 2018 through additional groundwater wells; and Construct a displacement pipeline to either Lake Huron or Erie by 2035. Phase 1 of the ASR was commissioned in 2006. The system consists of 4 injection/recovery wells and 2 additional recovery wells constructed on the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant property that inject into and withdraw water from the Mannheim aquifer. Water from the Hidden Valley intake at the Grand River is pumped to the plant where it is treated and then injected into the subsurface. As the amount of water injected is equal to the amount withdrawn, the operation of the ASR wells does not affect the water balance. As part of the development of options for supply, an assessment of existing supply wells and potential for additional groundwater extraction was undertaken (CH2 MHILL, 1994). This assessment involved compiling and interpreting various sources of geologic and hydrogeologic data including the MOE water well database and consultant reports to create maps identifying hydrogeologic properties such as aquifer thicknesses and susceptibility to contamination. This information and development of a simple Region-wide water budget was used to assess the potential for pumping additional water from existing wells and for locating new wells. A summary of the key components of this analysis is provided belo w. Areas of potential water supply were identified by overlaying maps of aquifer thickness and available drawdown. While both shallow and deep aquifers were considered, the ultimate selection of potential areas excluded shallow aquifers as these are more susceptible to contamination and extraction of water is more likely to interfere with surface water features. Figure 5 identifies areas where potential future water supplies could be developed in the lower aquifer and the bedrock. Areas in the lower overburden were identified where sand and gravel deposits were greater than 10 m thick and where a minimum available drawdown of 10 m. was present. Under these conditions, development of municipal wells with a minimum perennial yield of 2,275 m3 /day (0.5 million imperial gallons per day) was determined. The total amount of water available for each sand and gravel area was calculated based on an estimate of the area of recharge needed to balance the perennial yield. Assuming a recharge rate of 0.2 m/year, the resulting radius of influence is 1200 m. Therefore to ensure a balance of yield and recharge, well locations were selected at a minimum interval of 1200 m. within the sand and gravel areas. For the bedrock, a similar analysis was not undertaken as it is not possible to predict where fractures will be present to enable development of water supply wells. However, it is known that the bedrock on the western portion of the Region is of the Salina formation and is of poor water quality where as Page 9 Water Resources Protection Master Plan the bedrock on the eastern side consists of dolostone of the Guelph-Amabel formation which is known for its water supply capabilities between Georgian Bay and Lake Ontario. Given that the Cambridge area was already utilizing the bedrock, an assessment of the development of additional supplies for the bedrock was limited to Woolwich using similar yield and radius of influence considerations used above. The above approach resulted in the identification of 40 well sites that could be used for future supply in the deep overburden and an additional four sites in the bedrock. If developed, an additional 100,000 m3 /day (22 million imperial gallons per day) or approximately 30 percent of the current capacity could possibly be developed in the Region. This total volume (i.e. 360,000 m3 /day) represents less that 50% of the estimated water that infiltrates into the subsurface within the Region (725,000 m3 /day) as calculated with the simplified water balance. It is important to note that only approximately 23,000 m3 /day or 23 percent of the identified 100,000 m3 /day is identified for further pumping as part of the Long Term Water Strategy. 3.4 2003 Region Water Use Assessment An assessment of the water use in the Region was undertaken by the GRCA as part of the Municipal Groundwater Study Initiative project (GRCA, 2005). This assessment included a telephone survey of permitted water takers to establish the quantities of water being taken for non- municipal water users. The results of this assessment indicated that actual groundwater use was approximately 200,000 m3 /day in Waterloo Region in 2003. Municipal pumping accounted for 67% of this amount, whereas industrial uses represented approximately 15%. It is important to note that industrial quantities are only estimates as many of the permit holders stated they did not keep records. For industries that provided information to the survey, the amount of actual pumping was less than 47% of the quantities stated on the permit. The results of this survey indicate that an improved understanding of the water budget within the Region will require better information on non- municipal pumping. This may be achievable starting in 2007 as a result of changes to legislation that will require non- municipal permit holders to report their pumping volume to the MOE (municipalities started in 2006). It is important to note that the Region also implements an aggressive water conservation program established through the Water Efficiency Master Plan which was updated and expanded in 2006. The target, cumulative water savings projected to 2015 is over 14,000 m3 /day (3 million gallons per day). 3.5 Integration with Watershed-Based Source Protection The province’s guidance documents for watershed-based source protection include Guidance Module No. 7 – Water Budget and Water Quantity Risk Assessment (MOE, March 2007). As a water budget accounts for a number of hydrologic processes, many of which occur at watershed scale, the module recommends a step wise or tiered approach to developing the water budget with a greater degree of quantification and accuracy at each tier. The first two tiers would be at a watershed scale with Tier 1 using a simple assessment technique equivalent to those described above. A Tier 2 assessment would be a more technical approach that would undertaken for watersheds or subwatersheds where there is a complex setting and/or where there is substantive water-use pressure. These more detailed analyses would use more quantitative surface water and groundwater flow models in the analysis. The main Page 10 Water Resources Protection Master Plan purpose of both the Tier 1 and 2 assessments is to identify subwatersheds with moderate to high water use. Any municipal well or intake within these potentially stressed watersheds would be required to undertake a Tier 3 assessment. For each of these systems, a Tier 3 assessment will determine whether the water supply to this system is sustainable under current and future conditions. In contrast to the Tier I and Tier II assessments which are watershed scale, the Tier III assessment is to be completed for individual intakes and consider site specific physical characteristics of the water resources and intakes. Due to the extensive monitoring and sophisticated models developed to assess the Grand River, the GRCA chose to forgo the preliminary step and have initiated a Tier 2 water budget using linked surface water and groundwater flow models. Preliminary work on this assessment indicates that much of the central portion of the Grand River Watershed will be identified as potentially moderate to high stress areas. This includes most of the Region’s water supply wells for the integrated urban system supplying Cambridge, Elmira, Kitchener, New Hamburg and Waterloo. Accordingly, it is likely that the Region will be required to undertake Tier 3 assessments for each of these wells. While there is insufficient information in the guidance manual as to how a Tier 3 is to be conducted, it is certain that more detailed groundwater modeling will be required to support these assessments. The Region’s groundwater model is not scheduled for completion until 2008 indicating that the Tier 3 assessments will not be undertaken until after that time. 4.0 DELINEATION OF VULNERABLE AREAS The Region has been undertaking hydrogeologic studies to assist in the development of source protection planning since the early 1990s. These studies, in conjunction with watershed studies undertaken in partnership with the Grand River Conservation Authority and local municipalities, detailed assessments of individual well fields during infrastructure upgrades, University of Waterloo research projects, and on-going groundwater and surface water monitoring, provide the basis for delineation of vulnerable areas in the Region. Notwithstanding the above, guidance modules for watershed-based source protection will require additional vulnerable areas to be delineated and new methods considered to delineate these areas. This section describes the current approach used to delineate vulnerable areas and the status of current delineation projects. Descriptions of the well head protection areas, surface water intake areas, intrinsic vulnerability mapping, and significant recharge mapping are provided. A description of how this information is to be integrated with watershed-based source protection is also provided for each vulnerable area. 4.1 Well Head Protection Areas As a result of its reliance on groundwater wells, the Region focused historically on delineating well head protection areas (WHPA) around supply wells. In the original WRPS implementation plan, a well- field by well- field approach was proposed for delineating these areas. However, with advances in computing capacity and improvements in groundwater flow models, Regional-scale models were ultimately used to delineate these protection areas. Page 11 Water Resources Protection Master Plan The current delineation of WHPAs was completed in 2000 and was developed to support Regional Official Policy Plan Amendment No. 12 (Non-residential Development Policies to Protect Groundwater Resources). The process for completing this delineation included developing a number of numerical models for specific Regional or geographic areas, delineating well capture zones (land area contributing water supplies to the wells), creating capture zone envelopes or WHPAs, and developing a semi-quantitative indexing method to classify these areas into sensitivity categories for the purpose of screening development applications. Each of these processes is described further below. 4.1.1 Capture Zone Delineation The geographic areas covered by the numerical models used to delineate capture zones is presented in Figure 6. Table 4 presents a summary of some of the key technical information related to these modeling projects. Most of this modeling was undertaken using three-dimension groundwater flow models (Waterloo Moraine, Cambridge, and River Wells projects) with the exception of several of the smaller rural supply wells which were delineated using two-dimensional models. The underlying technical documents supporting this delineation can be found in Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. (2000), Duke Engineering and Services (Canada) Inc. (1998), Frontline Environmental Management Inc. (2000), Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. (1996) and Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. (1998). The primary method of capture zone delineation was reverse particle tracking where particles are released at the well and allowed to flow backward in time into the aquifer. In some cases forward particle tracking (particles released at the water table and tracked as they move toward the well) was employed to assist in the delineation. The delineation of capture zones was based on the horizontal time of travel (TOT) in the aquifer (i.e. the time it takes water to move horizontally through the aquifer to the well) projected up to ground surface. Capture zones were delineated using a two- year, ten-year and steady state or long term TOT. This delineation approach balances two conflicting components associated with delineating full threedimensional capture zones in groundwater. Specifically it overestimate the area of the capture zone compared to the actual time for water to move through the groundwater since it does not account for complete vertical flow through lower permeability materials nor the travel time in the unsaturated zone above the water table. Other the other hand, it takes into consideration that it is extremely difficult and/or cost prohibitive to reduce uncertainty in the geology/hydrogeology to the extent necessary to account for all the water pathways to the well. Accordingly, this approach is well suited for protection of drinking water supplies as it follows the precautionary principle. 4.1.2 Capture Zone Envelopes There is uncertainty inherent in numerical groundwater flow modeling since many assumptions are made and parameter values averaged to simulate the movement of groundwater. To account for this uncertainty, the Region delineated capture zones under a number of different hydrologic scenarios and then developed capture zone envelopes for the wells. For each scenario in the three dimensional models, the model was recalibrated to the unique values input into the model. For the twodimensional models, the models were not recalibrated. The envelopes were derived by examining the results of the modeling scenarios, and assigning a relative weighting (high, medium or low) to the Page 12 Water Resources Protection Master Plan results from each scenario based on whether the scenario had reasonable calibration measures and/or the amount of high quality data used to generate the capture zone for each well field. In the case of the Waterloo Moraine model, the Region worked with researches at the University Of Waterloo that had developed their own three-dimensional model and some new capture- zone modeling techniques in parallel with the model developed by the Region’s consultants. The results of the University’s modeling were considered in the development of capture-zone envelopes for wells in the Waterloo Moraine. Appendix 4 contains a Technical Working Paper that summarizes the results of the relative weighting applied to wells in the Waterloo Moraine. For the other models, the envelopes were created from the particle traces taken directly from the technical studies. It is also important to note that as new modeling activities have been completed, the capture zone envelopes are reassessed and greater reliance is placed on the results of the more recent work. Since 1999, the only additional modeling that has been undertaken to delineate capture zones was undertaken as part of the Alder Creek Groundwater Study (CH2MHILL, 2003). The development of capture zone envelopes is consistent with a conservative approach to delineation and supports the category-based threat assessment and policy direction taken by the Region throughout the development of the WRPS. 4.1.3 Sensitivity Assessment A semi-quantitative indexing method was used to classify WHPAs into categories of Well Head Protection Sensitivity Areas (WPSA). This ranking was based on the vulnerability of the groundwater to contamination, the length of time for groundwater to travel to the well i.e. TOT, and the importance of the well to the overall water supply strategy. The vulnerability of the groundwater to contamination was determined using a semi-quantitative indexing method (Foster and Hirata, 1988) and was based on a generalize aquifer setting i.e. confined verses unconfined within the tenyear TOT, soil type and depth to the water table. Well fields of greater importance were those that provided greater volumes of water to the supply system e.g. Mannheim and those for which there were no back- up supply e.g. most rural well fields. Four categories of sensitivity were developed with category one representing the highest sensitivity and four the lowest. A schematic process diagram for the vulnerability method and a summary of the individual components of the sensitivity method are provided in Appendix 5. The sensitivity of some wells was further reduced for several wells in Cambridge, Wilmot and Elmira where sufficient hydrogeologic information was available to ensure that the wells had a greater degree of protection and that land-use activities posed a lower risk. It is also important to note that the sensitivity rating is primarily directed at addressing threats from point sources of contamination because groundwater flow from outside the ten-year TOT could bring contamination from a continuous, non-point source to the supply well as sufficient concentrations to ultimately affect drinking water quality regardless of the vulnerability of the well within the ten- year TOT. 4.1.4 Current Status of Mapping Figures 7 through 13 present WPSAs for wells by municipality as approved by Regional Council in November 2000. As noted on these figures, the delineation of the Dunbar well field in Cambridge and the Strange Street well field in Kitchener were delineated with dashed lines to reflect that these were temporary lines since one or more of the wells had been recently decommissioned. In addition Page 13 Water Resources Protection Master Plan to these wells, since completion of the modeling the status of several additional wells has changed including: • • • • • • a new well (K19) drilled beside K18 at the Westmount Golf Course in Kitchener; four injection and two recovery wells constructed adjacent to the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant; decommissio ning of four wells in Linwood; replacement wells in Conestogo and New Dundee and an additional well in Ayr; two communal wells in St. Agatha where the Region has new supply responsibilities; and removal of W4 in Waterloo as ownership was transferred to University of Waterloo. Updated delineation for these wells is currently underway. The status of this work is discussed further in Section 7. In addition to changes in the well status, the Region completed the Alder Creek Groundwater Study (CH2MHILL, 2003), and reclassified some of its water supply wells as required by the MOE through the Safe Drinking Water Act. A discussion of each of these, and proposed changes to mapping, are provided below. The Alder Creek Groundwater Study was initiated to provide background groundwater information needed to support a watershed study, improve the capture zone delineation in the Mannheim East and West well fields, and assess whether the wells obtained groundwater under the direct influence (GUDI) of surface water. An improved groundwater flow model was developed through collection of additional hydrogeologic data and iteratively calibrating the model with the GRCA’s surface water hydrology model GAWSER. The initial rates were established for response units from a highly discretized GAWSER model for Alder Creek. In addition, higher recharge values were applied for closed basins that represent catchments without direct surface water outlets which create additional depression storage and increased infiltration to the water table. The revised two- year and ten- year TOT WHPAs for the Mannheim East and West wellfields are presented in Figure 14. The most noticeable difference in these WHPAs is their extension to the south east portion of K25/K29 due to the additional recharge from closed basins including closed basins in existing aggregate extraction areas. WHPAs for other wells in the Alder Creek watershed do not need to be revised based on the new modeling as the capture zones did not differ significantly from the previous versions. In response to the e-coli contamination of the Walkerton drinking-water system in 2000, the MOE introduced GUDI as a classification of water supply systems in addition to traditional groundwater and surface water classifications. Ontario Regulation 459/00 required the Region to complete Engineers Reports for their water supply systems. In response to these reports, the MOE required the Region to undertake studies for all wells suspected of being GUDI and if GUDI, establish whether the wells have effective in-situ filtration. From these studies, the following wells were designated GUDI with effective filtration: • • • • W10 in Waterloo; K22A and K23 in Mannheim (Mannheim West well field); K80, K81, K82 in Kitchener (Woolner well field); and G38 and G39 in Cambridge (Shades Mill well field). Page 14 Water Resources Protection Master Plan Following the classification of these wells, the Region was required to develop Microbial Contamination Control Plans for each well. As part of these plans and following the MOE process, microbial risk management zones were created by integrating the existing TOT capture zones and more advanced vulnerability mapping (refer to additional discussion of this mapping in section 4.3). Figure 15 presents the microbial risk management zones for each of these wells. This mapping will be used to assess microbial threats to the wells and will need to be officially added to the ROP. There are two other implications of this work. First, the sensitivity ranking for W10 will need to be changed from WPSA 2/3 to WPSA 1/2 to reflect the new classification of this well. The remaining wells are appropriately ranked. Second, these wells rely on the natural soil/geology surrounding the well and specifically the area within 100 m of the well to provide effective filtratio n for the water quality. This 100 m zone will need to be mapped and specific risk mitigation policies identified to protect this well- filtration zone for these wells. 4.1.5 Integration with Source Protection The MOE has developed draft Guidance Module 3 – Groundwater Vulnerability Analysis (MOE, October, 2006) to guide delineation and assessment of vulnerable areas. Over the next couple of years additional guidance and regulation is expected to be developed to ensure a consistent, provincewide approach. Ultimately, it is expected that the Region’s groundwater mapping will be completed in this manner. To this end, additional work will be needed to meet the anticipated standards for source protection in four categories: delineation of additional TOT capture zones and new risk management zones; delineation of protection zones for new wells; collection of additional hydrogeologic data, and undertaking advanced modeling techniques. Each of these is discussed below. The guidance modules indicate that WHPAs are to be delineated for different TOTs and that these TOTs are to be tied to risk management zones as follows: • • • • 100 m pathogen security zone; Two- year TOT pathogen protection zone; Five- year TOT DNAPL (dense non aqueous liquid) protection zone; Five- year and 25- year chemical protection zone. As stated previously, the Region’s current WHPAs are delineated with only the two-year and ten- year TOTs. As part of a project initiated in 2005, updates to the groundwater modeling are occurring and will include delineation of any new areas as part of this modeling project. The guidance modules also require the Region to identify and protect future water supply well areas. Ideally, a similar delineation technique as that for existing wells could be used for these wells once the wells have been tested and a permit to take water issued for the wells because a considerable amount of information is required to have confidence in the delineation. However, typically, permits are only obtained five to ten years in advance of use of the well for water supply. Further guidance from the MOE is required to understand how the delineation of future supply wells in the early stages of development are to be addressed in the source protection plan. Page 15 Water Resources Protection Master Plan For many of the Region’s well fields, delineation of capture zones was supported by detailed hydrogeologic information and as a result the delineation is considered to be more accurate than just relying on the MOE Water Well database. However, there are still uncertainties in the subsurface as hydrogeologic information is often not available on a property-by-property basis. While it would be cost prohibitive to gather site-specific hydrogeologic information, additional hydrogeologic data will likely be required to either better understand the vulnerability of the well to contamination or as possible future studies needed to assess threats as part of the watershed-based source protection legislation. For example, more technical information may be needed to understand the degree of impact of nitrate from agriculture sources before programs to manage land uses can be implemented. In addition, the Technical Experts Committee (TEC) to the MOE recommended improving the understanding of vulnerability of the well by calculating surface to well advection times (SWAT). SWAT refers to the time it takes water from the ground surface to reach the well including the time it takes to infiltrate through the unsaturated zone. Preliminary SWAT modeling has been completed for wells in Cambridge and Alder Creek. An example of the SWAT modeling is presented in Figure 16. It is important to note that the purpose of this modeling is not to replace the WHPA modeling but to inform the decision making process for risk mitigation and it is expected that the MOE will provide additional guidance on how this is to be accomplished. Additional SWAT modeling is to be undertaken as part of the above- mentioned groundwater modeling project. Once this delineation is complete, the vulnerability of each WHPA will be evaluated and scored. The vulnerability mapping will be developed by overlaying either the SWAT mapping or intrinsic susceptibility mapping, as presented below, with the scoring undertaken in accordance with MOE guidance modules. The scores will be adjusted to account for uncertainty in the technical information or approach used for delineation and vulnerability assessment, as required by the MOE guidance modules. 4.2 Surface Water Intake Protection Areas The need to formally protect surface water intakes in a manner akin to groundwater wells was first identified in the TEC report of December 2004. In the middle of 2005, draft guidance documents were produced that provided additional guidance on how to delineate the protection zones for InlandRiver type intakes such as the Region’s Hidden Valley intake in Kitchener. Based on this information, the Region was awarded a grant from the MOE to delineate the protection area. The primary goal of the study was the delineation of an Inland River Intake Protection Zones (IR IPZ) including zone 1 (200 m), zone 2 (two-hour in river response time plus river-bank set back distances), and the total water contribution area (TWCA). The vulnerability of and uncertainty in the zones will be calculated following procedures identified in MOE guidance manuals. The project will follow the most recent MOE guidance manuals. Figure 17 illustrates IPZ-1 and IPZ-2 for the Hidden Valley Intake (Stantec, 2007). IPZ-2 extends approximately 5.9 kilometres upstream of the intake as well as upstream along several creeks on both the east and west of the Grand River. To the west of the river, IPZ-2 includes portions of Hidden Valley Wetland Environmentally Sensitive Policy Area, several municipal drains and Idlewood Creek. To the east of the river, IPZ-2 includes portions of Freeport Creek and Randall Drains. These areas comprise a combination of residential, industrial and agricultural lands with the eastern portion anticipated to be developed for future employment growth. It is also important to note that with Page 16 Water Resources Protection Master Plan development, the extent of these areas will change to reflect moving from a natural drainage system to a controlled system using stormwater management facilities. The extent of retention in the stormwater management facilities will potentially affect travel time to the intake. Notwithstanding the delineation of the above zones, the design of the Hidden Valley intake and of the Mannheim Water Treatment plant itself included consideration of spill protection and treatment to address varying water quality conditions of a river-based municipal intake. Specifically, the raw water reservoirs adjacent to the intake provide 12 to 24 hour detention and diversion of raw water prior to conveyance to the treatment plant. This detent ion period allows for a retroactive testing and diversion of the raw water should a contaminant enter the system with delayed notification. While the MOE guidance modules do not formally allow for a reduction in the delineation of the protection zones, this detention capability should reduce the vulnerability of the intake to contamination and should be considered when identifying risk mitigation options. 4.3 Intrinsic Susceptibility Index Mapping One of the tasks in the Region’s Municipal Groundwater Study Initiative projects is to create a series of maps presenting different geologic and hydrogeologic surfaces including one for Intrinsic Susceptibility Index (ISI) mapping. ISI mapping is a semi-quantitative ranking technique used to map the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination based on soil type and depth to the water table. Accordingly, shallow sand/gravel or fractured rock aquifers exposed to the surface are scored high whereas deeper aquifers overlain by clay will score low. Figure 18 presents draft ISI mapping for the Region (GRCA). Within WHPAs, MOE guidance manuals require the use of ISI or SWAT mapping to generate the scoring needed for WHPA vulnerability assessments. The ISI mapping technique is more quantitative than the historical approach used by the Region in WHPAs as discussed in Section 4.1.3 since it assigns values to each well log and then extrapolates the information between boreholes. Conversely, this method does not recognize that most of the Region’s wells are deep and overlain by several aquifers and/or aquitards which are not considered in the standard ISI mapping approach. When this method is applied to WHPAs, more complex maps of vulnerability will be created with multiple areas of high, medium and low scoring present within each WHPA rather than the uniform sensitivity ranking used currently. The ISI mapping can also to be used outside of WHPAs to assist in the planning approval process to meet other watershed management and protection of private water supply goals. The extent to which this mapping is used outside of municipal intakes will be at the discretion of the municipality and GRCA. 4.4 Recharge Area Mapping Recharge through watershed-scale features provide important quantities of water to the subsurface, some of which can provide substantive quantities of water as base flow to the Grand River. Since quantity is important it follows that the quality of the recharging water could also affect the water quality in rivers. In addition to this core base-flow function, the Waterloo Moraine, and more Page 17 Water Resources Protection Master Plan specifically the recharge area of the moraine, provides valuable recharge quality and quantity to many of the Region’s water supply wells in Kitchener and Waterloo. The GRCA has identified that the recharge areas of both the Waterloo and Galt Moraines in the Region provide large quantities of water as base flow to the Grand River. Water infiltrating in these areas will flow large distances and take potentially tens to hundreds of years before discharging into the Grand River. Through development of watershed-based source protection plans, these areas will be formally delineated and it is likely that policies will be established to protect these areas. As the recharge area of the Waterloo Moraine plays an important role in contributing to the Region’s drinking-water system, further discussion of this feature and its role is provided below. The Waterloo Moraine is a large geologic feature that covers much of Kitchener, Waterloo, Wilmot and part of Wellesley and North Dumfries. The Moraine contains areas of sand and gravel deposited through glacial activity that make up a series of large aquifers which are used for water supply in the Region and provide discharge to the Grand River and its tributaries. Accordingly, the Moraine itself was delineated based on a combination of the presence of sand and gravel as identified through Ontario Geologic Survey Quaternary Geology mapping, and topographic information. Some of the aquifers and in particular the easterly flanks of the Moraine which underlie Kitchener and Waterloo, are covered by less permeable silt and till materials which limit the infiltration of rain water. The recharge area itself is mapped based on the presence of sand and gravel areas from quaternary geology maps and areas of elevated topography along the central core of the Moraine. Areas suspected to be discharging to streams along stream corridors were not included in the delineation of the recharge area, based on the change in slope of the topography, since these areas will likely be local discharge areas. Figure 19 presents the delineation of the Waterloo Moraine and Regional Recharge Area. Technically, delineation of areas that provide base flow to streams should be differentiated from areas that provide recharge to deep groundwater systems to ensure that appropriate protection policies are developed for these features. Notwithstanding that further delineation may be needed, protection of the Moraine will need to address both the water quantity and quality of infiltrating water with specific emphasis on the recharge area. Since in most cases the recharge areas are not directly adjacent to municipal intakes, few activities are likely to require mandatory risk management measures. Rather, protection is likely to focus on voluntary action, incentive programs and through targets established in watershed studies. Figure 20 illustrates the combined total vulnerable areas for the Region. As noted in this figure, these areas cover a considerable portion of the Region and in particular overlap with a significant portion of the current urban area. 5.0 THREAT IDENTIFICATION The initial WRPS implementation plan included undertaking a reconnaissance survey of sites that pose a threat to water supplies and undertaking detailed threat surveys for properties in individual wells. The reconnaissance survey was completed in 1996 and three detailed surveys were completed between 1997 and 1999. Over the implementation of the WRPS, the surveys have been built into an inventory and has been continually improved by adding additional data and refining the relative Page 18 Water Resources Protection Master Plan ranking of the threats. A major reworking of the inventory was completed as part of the Municipal Groundwater Study Initiative project. This section describes the Region’s Threat Inventory Database (TID), the information extracted to assist in determining priorities and program selection for the Plan, and how the TID will be integrated with the anticipated watershed-based process. 5.1 Threat Inventory Database The TID is a collection of information on urban land- use activities that have potential to affect the quality of surface and groundwater in the Region. The TID includes information on past and present industries, landfills, chemical and fuel storage sites, and other urban land-use activities throughout the Region of Waterloo, all ranked according to the level of potential threat each poses to surface and/or groundwater. A threat is defined as a past, present or future (proposed) activity or condition that is impacting or has the potential to impact a drinking-water source. The TID is designed as a reconnaissance-scale inventory (Region-wide) that brings together data from many available datasets. The TID focuses on urban, point-source features i.e. potential sources of water contamination which are discrete and identifiable such as a landfill or underground fuel storage tank (versus non-point sources which are dispersed, widespread sources of contaminants such as road runoff and pesticide applications). The design of the TID is largely derived from the Region’s reconnaissance- level survey of sites with environmental information, and potential present and historic sites that pose a threat to sources of surface water and groundwater (CH2M Gore and Storrie, 1996). The original urban point-source survey consisted primarily of provincial and municipal information that was available at the time in digital format. The original survey also included historical data for land uses prior to 1985 from two sources: a University of Waterloo graduate student database for Kitchener-Waterloo; and a similar survey undertaken by Historica Research Limited as part of the project for Cambridge and settlement areas of the Region. As part of the Municipal Groundwater Study Initiative project, the urban point inventory was updated to include newer information and to add additional sources of information. The range of different data sources currently within the TID is presented in Table 5. More details on each of the components of the TID is provided in the Urban Threat Inventory Database Final Report (Region, 2006). Each of the data points in the TID are ranked to provide a relative ranking of the threat to water resources. Threats are ranked as high, medium, lo w, or known. Threats ranked high generally designate the potential presence of substances which can cause serious drinking-water contamination at low concentrations or the potential presence of larger quantities of any contaminant. Threats ranked low designate little threat of significant soil or groundwater contamination. Known ranked threats refers to locations where the Region has information that indicates some soil and/or groundwater contamination exists or has existed at the property. Some threats (e.g. spills) are unranked as there is considerable variation in the scope and magnitude of these threats and additional work is needed to qualitatively assign ranks to these data. Page 19 Water Resources Protection Master Plan 5.2 Other Threat Databases The 1996 reconnaissance threat assessment also included development of a rural non-point inventory using agriculture census and soil susceptibility data. Census data was only available aggregated to a county or township level and included livestock density, fields receiving nutrients and pesticides, crop use and pasture areas. Assumptions were made to establish loading rates of nitrogen and pesticides to the ground based on the categories of land use in the census data. Soil susceptibility data included soil types, erosion potential, field to stream delivery ratios, and soil sensitivity rating. Combining these two data types produced maps that identified areas where nitrogen and pesticide loading could lead to surface and groundwater resource impacts. The areas were ranked as high and low sensitivity to contamination for both surface and groundwater resources. As part of the Municipal Groundwater Study Initiative project, a rural point-source inventory was developed to identify farms where livestock are housed and managed (Water and Earth Science Associates, 2004). This information was derived using agriculture census data, the Dairy farmers of Ontario, review of aerial photographs for the Region, and identification of farms with wells used for livestock watering. The data in this survey is not ranked. 5.3 Compilation of Threats in Well Head Protection Areas Information from each of the above data bases, as well as several other sources, was used to assess the number of different threats within each municipal WHPA including the following. • • • • The TID provided the number of high, medium and low ranked businesses as well as sites with environmental site information (e.g. known). GIS information was used to infer number of septic systems, pipelines, sewers, road lengths, impervious cover, application of lawn care chemicals, and location of aggregate extraction information. Census data and the rural point-source inventory were used to identify the extent of nutrient, agricultural chemical application, and livestock management facilities. Land-use coding applied by the Region for all properties within the Region was used to generate maps of general categories of land uses. The information in the databases in most cases did not directly correlate to the threat categories established for the Master Plan (refer to Section 6). Generally, the information was used to help assess the extent to which each threat is present at a well head by identifying the numbers of sites (e.g. properties likely to have septic systems) or land areas with a specific use (e.g. hectares of agricultural land in each well head area). For example, to assess the threat posed by chemical handling, it is possible to calculate the number of businesses with Standard Industrial Codes at a high, medium and low rank but no specific information is available on the type or quantity of chemicals used at individual properties. In addition, as the TID update project was not complete at the time of the assessment, only information up to 2005 (i.e. prior to the major update) was compiled for each well head protection area. Accordingly, this assessment should be considered as preliminary as more detailed information would be needed to confirm whether the threat actually exists. Descriptions of the data sources and procedures used to produce this summary for each threat category is provided in Appendix 6. A more thorough assessment is planned as part of the watershed-based source protection planning as discussed in Section 5.4. Page 20 Water Resources Protection Master Plan Tables 6 and 7 contain threat summarizes for each well field for the two-year and ten-year TOT capture zones, respectively. As can be seen from these tables, a large number of potential threats exist in the WHPAs, which is not surprising given the size (area) of many of the WHPAs. In total over 50,000 land parcels (individual assessment properties) are located within Sensitivity 1 through 3 WHPAs with a further 49,000 parcels in Sensitivity 4. Residential land uses account for approximately 90% of the parcels within well head protection areas. To assist in understanding the geographic distribution of various land uses within the Region, maps illustrating land-use codes in several categories such as farming, commercial or residential are presented in Appendix 7. A number of observations and conclusions can be drawn to assist in understanding the scope of threats near supply wells and to help prioritize which threats pose the greatest concern at individual well fields (refer to Tables 6 and 7 and figures of land-use coding in Appendix 7). In general, the magnitude of threat from road deicing activities, sewer pipelines, and lawn fertilizer application is closely related to the size of the WPSA with the threat decreasing in smaller well head areas. Also, while the number of threats in the 10-year TOT is considerably greater than in the 2-year TOT, this is more a reflection of the increased size and does not necessarily indicate a greater risk since the area has been classified as a lower sensitivity according to the Region’s process. The following specific observations are made with respect to the threat inventory within the 2- year TOT. • Major oil/gas pipelines are only present in the 2 year TOT of a couple of well fields (Willard and Waterloo North) and therefore the threat from existing pipelines will not take significant resources to reduce the risk from these sources. • Expressways and/or major highways overlap with several well fields including Peaking/Mannheim East, Middleton, Greenbrook, Wilmot Centre, Elgin Street, and Pinebush. Success of road salt reduction programs in these areas will be influenced by provincial road deicing operations as they are not obliged to participate in the Region’s road salt reduction initiatives. • The number of chemical, fuel, and waste storage threats does not accurately reflect the number of businesses in the protection area, which support Water Services opinion that the pre-2006 TID is inadequate to assess the threat from these potential sources. However, as mentioned above, Region staff has limited ability to gather additional information in this area without further legislation from the province. • Golf courses occur within WHPAs at only four well fields in the Region: at Conestogo in a WPSA1, at Strange Street and Foxboro Green in WPSA2, and at William Street in WPSA 3. The vulnerability to contamination is low at Foxboro Green and this golf course likely poses a low risk. The vulnerability at the other three sites is higher and some risk mitigation may be necessary, or should be encouraged, particularly in the higher sensitivity areas. • Significant potential exists for new aggregate extraction activities to become a threat in Mannheim West where there are 170 hectares of land available for extraction but no active pits. While typically, extraction uses small or negligible quantities of chemicals that might make this land use a threat They are included in the threat category as they represent a land use that my need to be managed in some manner to protect the quantity and quality of municipal water supplies. Page 21 Water Resources Protection Master Plan 5.4 Compilation of Threats in Surface Water Intake Protection Areas A threat inventory for the Hidden Valley surface water intake has not been formally completed as the delineation of this protection area was only completed late in 2006. However, conceptually many of the threats to surface water will be similar to that of groundwater although the nature of contamination and its impact could be substantially different. A summary of the main categories of surface water contamination sources was undertaken by Draper and Weatherby (1995) and include both point and non-point contamination. Point sources of contamination through spills will pose a similar threat as to groundwater but the risk to drinking water is of much shorter duration and could be mitigated by temporarily shutting down the intake. The largest categories of point-source threats for surface water are industrial spills by industrial and commercial land uses, and municipal waste-water treatment plant by passes. One specific potential source of contamination is Highway 8 where it crosses the Grand River less than one kilometer upstream of the intake. Non-point sources also pose an “issue” type threat that can only be mitigated by long-term, watershed-scale activities. Non-point sources include agricultural and residential fertilizer application. Natural processes such as erosion, which generate turbidity, can also contribute to long-term water quality issues. Mitigation of non-point sources will not be a direct outcome of the Clean Water Act as it is primarily focused on spills and generally surface water treatment as well as the specific treatment at the Region’s Hidden Valley intake is designed to address these water quality issues. 5.5 Water Quality Monitoring The Region undertakes regular water quality monitoring of its water supplies in accordance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking- water Act. As this act focuses primarily on the water entering the distribution system, the Region undertakes additional water quality monitoring as part of its source protection activities at select supply wells and in monitoring wells. This monitoring is used to: help monitor trends in the drinking-water system; provide additional information to understand groundwater flow within the Region; characterize the background groundwater quality; monitor trends within WHPAs and prior to pumping at the supply well; and monitor water quality between supply wells and known areas of groundwater contamination. The Region does not undertake additional water quality sampling of surface water features in part because this activity is undertaken by the GRCA. Figure 21 shows the location of monitoring wells that are sampled as part of the Region’s water quality monitoring. In 2006, a total of 46 locations were monitored at a quarterly to semi- annual frequency for basic inorganic parameters. In total this represents approximately 120 sampling points because most monitoring wells consist of multi- level sampling points. In addition to the basic parameters, several wells were also analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and/or pesticides depending on the purpose of the monitoring wells. Monitoring of source-water quality in the production wells is primarily for VOCs. Low levels of VOCs are present in several wells/well fields in Cambridge (Middleton, G5, G9), Kitchener (Parkway), and Waterloo (William Street) and monitoring of the supply wells for these compounds Page 22 Water Resources Protection Master Plan has been on- going for several years. In addition, Region staff undertakes additional analysis of wells where contaminated-site investigations are being undertaken near the supply wells. For instance, additional monitoring at an increased frequency is being conducted at P6 in Cambridge due to the presence of VOC impacted groundwater from a nearby industrial facility. Finally, periodic monitoring of production wells for “exotic” chemicals is undertaken when Region staff became aware of chemicals that have been identified in other jurisdictions as causing problems in groundwater supplies. Region staff undertook mo nitoring for MTBE and 1,4-dioxane in 2003 and 2004 as a result of these chemicals being identified in drinking-water systems in the United States. Regular or historic, contaminated-site based, and exotic chemical sampling at drinking-water supply wells is an important component of the Region’s source protection activities. It is important to note that the groundwater quality program described above does not include sampling that is undertaken as part of specific projects such as development of new wells, upgrades to wells and/or water supply infrastructure, nor as part of projects undertaken by external parties for site contamination investigations. In each of these cases, additional water quality monitoring, primarily in monitoring wells, is undertaken to provide scientific input into the project. Region staff also uses the information to achieve some of the objectives of its groundwater monitoring program. 5.6 Integration with Watershed Based Source Protection The MOE’s guidance modules for source-water protection include Guidance Module 5 – Threats Inventory and Issues Evaluation (MOE, October 2006). This module describes the process and sources of data to be used to identify threats within vulnerable areas around municipal drinking-water intakes. For each threat, a hazard rating will be assigned for the contaminant of concern identified with each threat and issue. The rating will be applied for both a chemical and pathogenic threat to be used in the hazard rating based on a ranking system to be supplied by the MOE. The hazard rating and the vulnerability scoring, as well as the identification of constructed preferential pathways, will be used in the water quality risk assessment process. The end result of this process will be the risk ranking of threats to the water supply and the identification of properties where risk mitigation is necessary. The gathering of information needed for the risk assessment will be in two tiers based on the degree of uncertainty associated with the risk ranking. Initially, information such as that in the TID and additional information on hazard scoring to be provided by the MOE would be used in the risk assessment. If the threat uncertainty is high and the threat is located in a highly vulnerable area, additional information on either the threat or the vulnerable area will likely need to be collected (i.e. Tier 2) prior to implementing risk management measures. To understand the scope and effort involved in gathering Tier 2 information, the Region received funding from the MOE to design and implement a municipal inspection pilot project for gathering more detailed technical information (Region, 2007). The project involved door-to-door collection of information for businesses in the Shades Mill well field in Cambridge that is anticipated to be needed for detailed risk analysis. Based on this project, it was estimated that it will take a minimum of one day of staff time to complete an inspection of a fairly simple business. As protection areas for municipal water intakes overlap significant portions of urban areas, Region staff is concerned that the effort required to collect Tier 2 information will be substantial. At this time, it is not clear whether the MOE will require a Tier 2 risk assessment to be undertaken prior to the development of the first Page 23 Water Resources Protection Master Plan SPP (anticipated to be in 2011/2012) or whether this information gathering can be undertaken in subsequent assessment periods. 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Since late 2003, Water Services staff and our consultant for the Municipal Groundwater Study Initiative project (Water and Earth Science Associates) have been working with the WRPLC to develop the new Plan. Because the MOE has been developing the watershed-based source protection legislation and advisory committee reports at about the same time, Water Services staff has coordinated development of the Plan so that it follows the provincial approach and hopefully would require minimal changes once the source protection legislation is finalized. Recommendations from the MOE Technical Experts Committee (TEC) on watershed based source protection provided sufficient information for Water Services staff to complete an assessment of threats and develop approaches to reduce the impact of specific threats in each well head protection area. These recommendations, as well as the guidance modules mentioned above, were considered in the development of the new Plan. The following sections provide an overview of the approach used in development of the Plan including changes to the WRPS objectives and implementation principles to evaluate threats, identify risk mitigation approaches for these threats, and how this program will be integrated with the provincial process. It is important to recognize that this approach was developed specifically to apply to municipal well head protection and a lesser degree to surface water intakes. For surface water intakes, the intake protection zones have only recently been delineated and the evaluation process described below was only undertaken to a limited extent as the degree to which risk reduction measures under the Clean Water Act are needed is still to be determined. For the other vulnerable areas (recharge areas, naturally vulnerable areas), additional direction is needed from the Province to guide evaluation of risk and risk reduction measures. It is anticipated that these components will be completed as part of the watershed-based source protection planning process, although this may not occur until subsequent assessment periods i.e. after 2012. 6.1 Expansion of Objectives and Implementation Principles The objectives of the WRPS, as presented in Section 2, were developed primarily to protect the water quality of the municipal supplies. And while these objectives have provided useful guidance, they did not explicitly recognize the importance of protecting the quantity of water resources. To ensure that the Master Plan includes both water quality and quantity, the objectives of the WRPS are modified as follows: • • • limit water quality risks to water resources from historic or existing land-use practices; minimize water quality and quantity risks to water resources from future land uses and activities; and minimize the impact of the Region’s water taking on the environment and private supplies. The original WRPS plan also included specific technical assessment tasks and several less well defined tasks for program implementation. In 1995, Regional Council approved three principles that were to provide the fundamental basis on which the Region should develop and implement Page 24 Water Resources Protection Master Plan groundwater protection programs and policies. Again, while these principles helped guide program development, experience in implementing the programs indicated that the principles could be expanded to provide better guidance. The following principles, which include and or build on the original 1995 principles, were used to guide program and policy development through the Master Plan. • • • • The Region’s approach to source protection should include a balance of cooperative/voluntary and regulatory measures. The Region’s approach should include a balance of programs to limit increased risk to the water supply and to decrease existing risk. The Region’s approach should seek to build on existing programs before creating new programs unless existing programs will not achieve the protection goal. The Region should use the following priorities to guide the development and implementation of regulatory groundwater protection programs: o measures that are within its current jurisdiction; o measures within Area Municipal or conservation authority jurisdiction; o measures within Provincial jurisdiction; o advocate to the Province the development of new regulations. • 6.2 The Region should utilize the precautionary principle in deciding on risk mitigation measures particularly where it may be impractical to gather sufficient technical information to confirm the vulnerability of the intake or where activities pose too great a threat to rely on engineering controls to mitigate risk. Threat Category Ranking The quantity and quality of water available for drinking- water is affected by land uses around the supply intake and in some cases by land uses at a considerable distance from the intake. Since not all land uses pose the same threat, it is necessary to prioritize which threats should be addressed first. A list of threats to municipal groundwater and surface water supplies and the associated activities and chemicals of concern is presented in Table 8. These categories of threats are a combination of land uses and activities on and/or associated with the land. While it is possible to break some these categories into smaller groups (e.g. chemical handling could be specific to dry cleaners or chemical manufactures, etc.), this degree of detail was considered to be sufficient to rank the threats and for development of risk mitigation programs. It is important to note that the term threat is used in the Master Plan in reference to a land use and/or activity and does not have the exact definition at that contained in the Clean Water Act. It does not distinguish between activities themselves or an increase in the vulnerability of the well created by excavation or creation of preferential pathways. As discussed above, the original WRPS prioritized which threats to address first based on a limited number of criteria. In an effort to be more objective, a greater range of criteria were selected to assist in developing priorities. Table 9 presents criteria that were used to rank the severity of the threat. For each criterion, a scoring mechanism was developed and the total score for each threat or tool was summed. Page 25 Water Resources Protection Master Plan During the course of development of the Master Plan, the threat ranking procedure and scoring was the most controversial and generated the most discussion with the WRPLC. This occurred for a number of reasons including: • • • there is no absolute link between a land use and whether the chemical that formed the basis for the ranking was used ubiquitously by that land use; there are many additional factors that contribute to whether the chemical will ultimately make it into the water resource; and the range of possible scoring for each criteria could be greater than the simplified formula range used in the calculations. In the end and after several attempts to rank the threats differently, it was decided to use the ranking in only a qualitative manner as the relative combined factors divided into high, medium and low categories was the extent to which the threat ranking could be defended. In general, threats with higher rankings were considered to pose a higher risk to the water supplies. The ranking did not differentiate between those activities that were a primary and those that might be a secondary use for the specific threat category. Detailed descriptions of the scoring of each threat and qualitative ranking of each threat category are presented in Appendix 8. 6.3 Existing Risk-Reduction Program Evaluation To assist in identifying the potential risk posed by each threat, a summary of the effectiveness of existing risk- mitigation programs was undertaken. Existing programs were identified and determined to be either in place or partially in place to address the threat under consideration. Each existing program was identified with a program name, the agency responsible for implementation and any concerns the Project Team identified as occurring with the program. Based on this brief evaluation, the program was then qualitatively ranked as having a Low, Medium or High level of effectiveness. This qualitative assessment is based on the program’s ability to reduce the threat risk and specifically the concerns identified in Table 8 in order to adequately protect the water available for drinking. Details on the effectiveness ranking are presented in Appendix 9. 6.4 Selection of Implementation Options To reduce the scope of the more detailed assessment and in recognition of the low relative threat to the water supply, evaluation of risk-reduction options was only undertaken for the High and Medium threats to groundwater supplies. For each threat a number of options were generated with options generally falling within one of the following categories. • • • Planning: use of the Planning Act and related regulations to trigger requirements for upgrades or studies with applications for official plan amendments, zone changes, site plan approval, and/or applications for building permits; Regulations: federal or provincial regulations and/or municipal by laws to regulate activities or land uses; Land purchase and/or easements on private property to control land uses; Page 26 Water Resources Protection Master Plan • • • • Municipal Infrastructure: actions or programs undertaken by the Region or local municipalities such as moving the well, end-of-pipe treatment, or additional municipal inspection/enforcement activities; Beneficial Management Practices (BMP): infrastructure and procedural activities that individuals/businesses can implement to reduce risk and include both voluntary adoption, and education or financial incentives; Monitoring and Studies: property owners would be required or encouraged to monitor or study potential threats so as to ensure there is no impact to the environment; and Education: broad scale awareness programs such as spill-prevention workshops, fact sheets, and/or presentations to sectors or associations. Specific implementation options were considered for each threat based on a balance between the existence of a program to address the threat, its effectiveness and the Region’s authority to implement the option under consideration. The following also provides some additional clarification as to how options were selected or not selected. • • • • • Options were not developed for every above-noted category for each threat. Some options were eliminated for practical reasons (e.g. cost is prohibitive) or because the risk would not be sufficiently reduced by the option under consideration. Land purchase and/or easements are options available for most threats: the elimination of this option is only noted where it is cost prohibitive to achieve reduction of risk. Some form of municipal infrastructure program could be implemented for most threats. Options that involved moving a well were not considered practical and would only be considered if no other option were available and the risk was very high e.g. known contaminated site. The BMP implementation option refers to the implementation of voluntary best management practices as established by the industry and agencies associated with the threat under consideration. Where the program has been identified as being effective and there are new regulations currently under consideration, identifying additional management approaches was not undertaken as the impact of these new regulations may sufficiently reduce the risk. In addition, following the initial development of the option category, the options were tailored to each of the threat categories to ensure there was sufficient detail to understand the scope of the riskreduction tool. 6.5 Risk Management Program Ranking The development of the ranking for risk- management programs was undertaken in a similar manner to that of threats. First, a number of criteria were developed to guage effectiveness of each risk reduction tool, and then the tools/programs were grouped into good/better/best categories to better reflect the underlying “relative” scoring mechanism. Table 10 presents criteria that were used to rank possible implementation tools that could mitigate the threat. Descriptions of the scoring mechanism are provided in Appendix 10. Tools or programs with higher rankings were considered to be preferable to be implemented as the ranking implied a higher degree of effectiveness at mitigating the risk. Page 27 Water Resources Protection Master Plan 7.0 RISK REDUCTION PROGRAMS AND TOOLS As identified in Section 6, a comprehensive process was undertaken to identify and prioritize risk mitigation programs for a number of threat categories. Using this process, the threat and vulnerability information described above, and in recognition of future requirements on the Region to implement watershed-based source protection, the Master Plan was developed. The section presents the result of the prioritization process and identifies specific tasks to be undertaken to ensure continued protection of water sources in the Region. 7.1 Potential Risk Mitigation Measures for Wells A number of approaches to reducing the risk to municipal water supplies were identified for each threat following the methods summarized above. In some instances, insufficient information on the nature of the threat or the vulnerability of the well was available to either quantify the risk or to develop and implement risk reduction programs. In most of these instances, additional data collection will likely be required to understand whether the threat poses a real risk to the water supply and develop risk reduction programs in part because the Region and local municipalities have limited ability to require risk reduction on existing properties. Tables 11 and 12 present summaries of proposed risk- mitigation measures for each threat category to address existing and future threats to groundwater. Detailed measures for each threat category for each well head protection area are presented in Appendix 11. The list of proposed measures closely follows the list of principles for program implementation described in Section 6.1 including balance between education, voluntary, and mandatory programs, programs to protect the source from both current and future land uses, and measures building on existing programs. Appendix 11 also identifies where additional hydrogeologic and/or threat inventory information will be needed prior to implementing risk mitigation programs. In general, additional information will be needed in the following areas: • • • 7.2 Updates to the TID to gathe r general information on the threat. More detailed threat assessments to establish whether the threat could potentially pose a risk to water supplies. For example, the total number of septic systems has been estimated for the number of developed lots in rural areas and those that do not have communal or municipal sewage systems but here is no information about private septic systems within the city urban areas. Site specific surveys in highly vulnerable areas to gather additional information including whether systems actually exist on a property, its location within a property, and maintenance status of the system. For example, such an inventory was undertaken as part of the development of Microbial Contamination Control Programs for GUDI wells. Potential Risk Mitigation Measures for Surface Water Intakes Table 13 presents a summary of proposed risk mitigation measures for protection of the surface water intake. Like the approach used for groundwater, additional refinement of the intake protection zone and information on threats will be necessary prior to implementing risk-reduction measures. Unlike Page 28 Water Resources Protection Master Plan that for groundwater, the list of mitigation measures is not based on threat categories for a number of reasons including that: • • • there is only one intake so the risk reduction measures can be tailored to the intake; the Mannheim Water Treatment Plant is designed to treat a wide range of raw water quality fluctuations that are typical of a river-based water source; and the Hidden Valley intake is less “vulnerable’ to contamination than other Region intakes due to the ability to monitor and isolate the raw water reservoir. It is important to note that most of the risk mitigation strategies proposed in Table 13 were initially noted in Review of Surface Water Quality Protection Measures (Draper and Weatherby, 1995). Several of these measures are on-going (e.g. support for the Grand River Simulation Model which is currently being used to assist in updating the Waste Water Master Plan). However, several other recommendations from the report were not included in Table 13 as they fall outside the scope of work envisioned for the Clean Water Act. These include the recommendation to develop a rural water quality program to address non-point loadings from agriculture, which the Region has been implementing since 1998. As indicated for protection of groundwater, additional initiatives may be developed for protection of surface water following more detailed threat inventories for this intake, additional guidance from the MOE and input from the future Lake Erie Source Protection Committee. 7.3 Prioritizing Program Implementation As presented in Section 2, priorities for program implementation in the initial WRPS were given to address sources of contamination with the highest potential for contaminating municipal groundwater supplies, and toward source types that can be dealt with in the most proactive manner using the Region’s current authority. This approach is consistent with an “issues’ based approach that is identified as one of the two approaches to risk assessment in the Clean Water Act and associated guidance modules. The initial WRPS did not include a parcel-based threat inventory, in part to reflect the lack of municipal tools to gather the necessary data and implement programs. With the introduction of the Clean Water Act, the province will require the Region to prioritize risk mitigation of threats and/or threat categories on a parcel basis following provincial regulations and rules. Once the Assessment Report is completed, the Region will need to develop risk-mitigation programs to tackle parcel-based risks to the supply sources. At the same time, the Region has several existing programs and has identified additional threats and mitigation strategies for on-going issues that should be implemented to protect municipal drinking-water supplies. Ultimately the setting of priorities will be influenced by the regulations and the staff /financial resources to meet the combined work load of the regulatio ns and existing programs. Based on this direction, the following principles for setting priorities in the Master Plan are recommended: • • As an interim measure, undertake tasks to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act and for continuation of current programs and new initiatives developed through the current Master Plan update; and Following approval of the SPP by the Minister, implement the plan addressing both future and existing threats focusing first on threats that pose the highest risk to municipal drinking water supplies followed by programs for lower-risk threats Page 29 Water Resources Protection Master Plan Table 14 presents a list of tasks and an interim schedule to guide source water protection activities in the Region over the next five to ten years. A description of these tasks for both the technical and implementation components of the Plan are provided below. 7.3.1 Technical Assessments For the purpose of setting priorities and to assist in identifying the nature and scope of activities that need to be undertaken to implement the Plan, the following timing has been assumed relative to the key steps of the Clean Water Act. • • • Terms of Reference for the Lake Erie Source Protection Committee completed and approved by winter of 2008 Assessment Report completed and approved by 2009 SPP completed and approved by 2012 Accordingly, the priority between now and late 2008 will be to undertake tasks aimed at completing the technical components needed for the Assessment Report. A description of each of the tasks identified in the technical assessment section of Table 14 is provided below. • Water Services staff is currently updating its groundwater flow model. This modeling will be used to revise WHPAs, undertake SWAT analysis, and provide input into the Tier 3 water budget assessments. Outcomes from this model will include identifying areas where more hydrogeologic information is needed to be able to rely on the capture zone assessments developed with these advanced methods. This modeling is anticipated to be completed by early 2008. • Using the revised groundwater flow model, intrinsic susceptibility mapping will be updated to take advantage of the new conceptual model. • A comprehensive re-evaluation of the existing groundwater monitoring program will be undertaken every two years to incorporate previous monitoring results and any additional technical information gathered in previous years. • A constructed preferential pathway assessment will be undertaken to identify private supply wells, monitoring wells and other constructed features that could increase the vulnerability of groundwater resources to contamination. A proposal to undertake this assessment was submitted to the MOE in December 2006 and this work was awarded funding in February 2007. • Water Services staff initiate hydrogeologic and/or water quality assessments of wells as “issues” are identified in the wells. These studies have been currently initiated for Middleton (organic chemicals) and K26 (nitrate). The need to conduct a study has been identified for H4 (nitrate) and G5 (organic chemicals) in Cambridge, St. Agatha (nitrate) and the K50s (nitrate) in Wilmot, and for several other wells identified as medium priority wells for further assessment to determine whether further winter deicing risk- mitigation activities are Page 30 Water Resources Protection Master Plan necessary. Other wells may be added to the list as identified through the threat assessment process of the Clean Water Act. • Additional groundwater supply wells are proposed as part of the Region’s Long Term Water Strategy. A project to locate several of these wells is expected to be completed in 2008. Depending on the outcome of this project, projects to identify additional wells through additional exploration and testing will be undertaken. Due to the lengthy Environmental Assessment and permitting process for new water supply wells, these projects will be spaced at two-year intervals. • Water Services staff is working with the GRCA who are undertaking additional surface water assessments to support the protection of the Region’s surface water intake including a raw water quality characterization and identification of issues for the Hidden Valley Intake. These are expected to be completed in early 2008. • The Region will be undertaking a Tier 1 threat inventory within the Surface Water Intake protection zones as part of the most recent MOE- funded study. • Using the information from the intake protection zone delineation, and other assessments and threats inventories, an early- warning system will be developed for the Hidden Valley intake. This program will be linked to existing shut down procedures for the intake. • It is expected that the Region will be required to undertake Tier 3 Water-Quantity Risk Assessments for some of its supply wells. This work will be initiated in late 2007 and is expected to be completed in 2009. • Delineation of significant recharge areas of the Region is required to be undertaken as part of the Clean Water Act. It is expected that this project will be undertaken jointly with the GRCA. • Water Services is in the process of updating the threats inventory using existing data sources available to the Region. It is anticipated that additional sources of data will need to be obtained to have enough information to conduct a Tier 1 risk assessment for both surface water and groundwater municipal intakes (as established in the regulations or rules). Additional guidance from the province will be required to complete this assessment. • It is anticipated that Tier 2 threat inventories will be required for many businesses within well head and surface water intake protection zones. Specifically, more detailed information will be needed for some threats that can’t be assessed using existing data and/or that have a high uncertainty (as defined in the regulations). Clean Water Act regulations may require that Tier 2 Threat Assessments be conducted for some threats as part of the first Assessment Report. The timing and scope of this project is not currently known. • Expansion of the water level monitoring program will be undertaken to fulfill the increasing expectations to ensure that adequate monitoring of water resources is occurring. Where possible construction of additional monitoring wells will be undertaken as part of other Page 31 Water Resources Protection Master Plan planned projects. Specific projects to install a number of these wells will occur over the next couple of years. 7.3.2 Source Water Protection Implementation A number of risk reduction initiatives are proposed in this Master Plan some of which should and can be implemented immediately. This section will present these higher priority programs. However within a three to five year period, this Master Plan will be integrated with the Lake Erie Region SPP. As much of the focus over the next few years will be on fulfilling the technical requirements of the Clean Water Act, there are limited staff resources to implement all the programs identified in the Master Plan. In addition, the MOE has not finalized regulations related to the assessment report, the SPP, and risk-ranking formulas. Therefore, there is limited value in prioritizing all the programs proposed in the Master Plan until further guidance from the MOE is obtained. Notwithstanding the above, once the technical assessment is complete following the provincial process, it is likely that the risk mitigation measures will fall into similar categories and approaches to those identified in this Master Plan. In this sense, the risk mitigation and data collection programs presented in this report will become the “base” plan, and the watershed-based SPP will provide the context to modify the approaches and set priorities. For example, the Clean Water Act appears to be focused on addressing significant risks, and in particular those associated with business chemical handling and those related to pathogens. Outside of this focus, decisions to mitigate risk will be primarily left to the Region and/or be implemented through other regulatory instruments such as the Safe Drinking Water Act. Accordingly, priorities and specific timelines for implementation of many of the risk- mitigation initiatives proposed in Tables 11 through 13 and to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act will be developed concurrent with the development of the SPP. It is also important to note that implementation of SPP initiatives will need to encompass risk mitigation activities for both future and existing threats. For future threats, it is envisioned that the ROP and local municipal official plans will need to be brought into conformity with the SPP shortly after its completion and that the timing for this activity will be specified in regulation. For existing threats, it is envisioned that measures to reduce the risk from significant threats will need to be implemented first prior to medium and low-risk threats. It is hoped that the risk-mitigation measured needed to be implemented as part of the Clean Water Act will align with the options identified in this report. The following tasks are presented for implementing risk mitigation measures over the next few years to protect the Region’s municipal drinking-water intakes. Interim Action for Significant Risks The Clean Water Act contains provisions to require interim action for significant threats that are identified in the Assessment Report. As the MOE has not provided guidance on the risk assessment process and the threshold above which a threat will be considered significant, the scope of these activities and the mitigation required to reduce the risk to an acceptable level is unknown. However, it may be necessary to develop tools and resources required to implement the Part IV risk assessment provisions that could be used to mitigate these significant threats. This could involve the administrative components required to establish the Risk Assessment Official, enforcement and “notice” protocols that may be necessary to mitigate these threats prior to completion of the Lake Page 32 Water Resources Protection Master Plan Erie Region SPP. Projects to mitigate these significant risks will be undertaken in 2009 and 2010 with the timing dependant on completion of appropriate regulations. As an alternative to the above, Region staff should also evaluate the BMP provisions of the SewerUse By- law, particularly for surface water where direct discharges to the storm and sanitary sewers are more likely to affect surface-water intakes than groundwater wells. This approach could also be used for moderate ranked threats and provide another tool to ensure these threats do not become significant. Current Initiatives The Region is currently implementing a number of programs to address the primary threats identified in the original WRPS. These include: the Rural Water Quality Program, on- going efforts in road and private salt reduction, implementing Microbial Contamination Control Programs for GUDI wells, review of reports and commenting to the MOE on contamination sites in well head protection areas, review of development applications, conducting watershed studies in conjunction with the GRCA, and education/awareness activities. These programs continue to contribute to protecting source water and should be continued during the transition from the Master Plan to the SPP. New Priority Initiatives Part of the Municipal Groundwater Study Initiative project included tasks to assess threats from specific “issues” and provide technical information on which to develop risk- mitigation strategies as necessary. These included the following: • Development of assessment protocols and their implementation at K26 near Mannheim in Wilmot has resulted in a mitigation approach for wells where nitrate from agricultural activities are affecting water quality. The strategy includes both technical aspects to gather information and a specific approach to mitigate risks. For K26 near Mannheim, it is proposed that a combination of strategic land management and financial incentives to encourage development of nutrient management plans be implemented to reduce nitrate levels. Other well fields with high nitrate levels (e.g. St. Agatha) will require additional hydrogeologic and threat evaluation prior to determining the next steps to reduce nitrate impacts in this area. • As part of other projects and/or in response to issues identified in the development process, Water Services staff developed draft policies and programs for aggregate extraction, Microbial Contamination Control Plans for four well fields where the groundwater is under direct influence (GUDI) of surface water, and protocols for assessing salt impacts from new development and private properties. All of these issues should be recognized in the Regional Officia l Plan (ROP) and should be included in the current update which is anticipated to be completed in 2008. As part of the update specific consultation will be undertaken with stakeholders for each of the issues identified above. In addition, some additional minor amendments and/or place-holder type policies to address some of the program recommendations in this report may also be included in the current update. • Land securement through direct purchase and/or dedication through development will be an important component of risk mitigation to protect drinking- water supplies. This is particularly important for the 100 m zone for wells and the 200 m zone for surface water intakes and to address the threat from microbial sources. Land acquisition should be prioritized for these zones for GUDI wells and Well Protection Sensitivity Area 1. Page 33 Water Resources Protection Master Plan 8.0 REFERENCES AquaResource Inc. A Method For Assessing Water Use In Ontario Watersheds. May 2005. CH2M Gore & Storrie Ltd. Final Report Long-Term Water Strategy GW-1 Additional Groundwater. May 1997. CH2M Gore & Storrie Ltd. Reconnaissance Survey of Potential Contaminated Sites in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. April 1996. CH2MHILL Canada Ltd. Alder Creek Groundwater Study Final Report. March 2003. Draper and Weatherby. Review of Surface Water Quality Protection Measures. July 1995 Duke Engineering & Services (Canada) Inc. Cambridge Capture Zone Modelling Project – Final Report. November 1998. Foster, S., and Hirata, R. Groundwater Pollution Risk Assessment – a methodology using available data. May 1988. Frontline Environmental Management Inc. Flow and Capture Zone Modelling of the River Wells, Kitchener, Ontario. February 2000. Golder & Associates Ltd. Water Resources Protection Strategy. May 1992 Grand River Conservation Authority. An assessment of Groundwater Use in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Draft). May 2005 O’Connor, The Honourable Dennis R. Part Two Report of the Walkerton Inquiry (2002) Ministry of Environment. A Threats Assessment Framework. Technical Experts Committee Report to the Minister of the Environment. November 2004. Ministry of Environment. Guidance Module No. 3 – Groundwater Vulnerability Analysis (Draft). October 2006. Ministry of Environment. Guidance Module 5 – Threats Inventory and Issues Evaluation (Draft). October 2006 Ministry of Environment. Guidance Module No. 7 – Water Budget and Water Quantity Risk Assessment (Draft). March 2007. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Water Resources Protection Strategy Implementation Plan. February 1994 Page 34 Water Resources Protection Master Plan Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Groundwater Protection Policy Options Discussion Paper. February 1995 Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Groundwater Protection Areas Policy Discussion Paper. September 1996. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Regional Official Policy Plan Amendment No. 12 (Nonresidential Development Policies to Protect Groundwater Resources). November 2000. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Background Report No. 1: Status Assessment of Water Resources Protection Strategy. October 2003. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Background Report No. 3: Selected Case Studies on Municipal Water Supply Protection Approaches – Draft. December 2003. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Background Report No. 2: Assessment of Aggregate Resources and Groundwater Protection – February 2004. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Background Report No. 4: Process for Prioritizing Threats and Management Tools for the Water Resources Protection Strategy – Draft. April 2004. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Background Report No. 5: Development Principles for Aggregate Policies for Water Supply Protection – Draft. May 2004. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Prioritizing Management Tools for the Water Resources Protection Strategy Part 1: Identification of Program Options – Draft. June 2004. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Background Report No. 6: Aggregate Policies and Study Guidelines for Water Supply Protection – Draft. October 2004. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Prioritizing Management Tools for the Water Resources Protection Strategy Part 2: Assessment and Prioritization of Program Options for High and Medium Threats – Draft. December 2004. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Management Tools Part 3: Prioritizing Management Tools for the Water Resources Protection Strategy. February 2006. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Urban Threat Inventory Database Final Report. December, 2006. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Municipal Inspection Pilot Project Final Report. March 2007. R.J. Burnside and Associates Ltd. 2005 Groundwater Monitoring Report Region of Waterloo. June 2006 Stantec Consulting Ltd. Intake Protection Zones Delineation Study Grand River Hidden Valley Intake City of Kitchener. January 2007. Page 35 Water Resources Protection Master Plan Water and Earth Science Associates Ltd. Rural Non-Point Source Contamination Inventory – Preliminary Draft. June 2004. Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. Preliminary Delineation of Well Field Capture Zones. November 1996. Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. Preliminary Delineation of Well Field Capture Zones – Update May 1998. Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. Delineation of Well Field Capture Zones Within the Waterloo Moraine. September 2000. Page 36 TABLES TABLES................................................................................................................................................... 37 TABLE 1: Status of Water Resources Protection Strategy Components ........................................................ 38 TABLE 2: Summary of Threats Addressed in Other Jurisdictions ................................................................. 40 TABLE 3: Water Balance Summary from 2005 Groundwater Monitoring Program ....................................... 42 TABLE 4 Key Technical Information For Groundwater Flow Models ......................................................... 43 TABLE 5: Urban Threat Inventory Database Components ........................................................................... 44 TABLE 6: Summary of Threat by Wellfield (2 Year Time of Travel) ........................................................... 45 TABLE 7: Summary of Threat by Wellfield (10 Year Time of Travel).......................................................... 49 TABLE 8: Threats and Associated Activities and Chemicals of Concern....................................................... 52 TABLE 9: Criteria Used to Rank Severity of the Threat............................................................................... 53 TABLE 10: Criteria Used to Rank Possible Implementation Tools for Threat Mitigation ............................... 54 TABLE 11: Proposed Risk-Mitigation Measures for Existing Threats to Municipal Wells.............................. 55 TABLE 12: Proposed Risk-Mitigation Measures for Future Threats to Municipal Wells ................................ 57 TABLE 13: Proposed Risk-Mitigation Measures for the Mannheim Surface Water Intake............................. 58 TABLE 14: Schedule of Water Resources Protection Master Plan Tasks....................................................... 59 T-37 TABLE 1: Status of Water Resources Protection Strategy Components Initiative Technical Studies Modelling/mapping Monitoring Status Continuous improvement Ongoing since 1994 Threats Inventory Reconnaissance Completed 1995 Inventory of Potential Contaminated Sites Detailed Well Head Pilot programs for two Assessments areas in 1996 and 1998 Microbial Threats For Completed 2005 Wells Under Influence of Surface Water Program Implementation Non-Residential ROPP Amendment No. Development Policies 12 approved November, 2000. Development Permit System Assessment of Existing Regulations For Source Protection Initiative stopped in 2004. Completed in 1997. Business Water Quality Program Completion December 2005 Business Education Ongoing Rural Water Quality Program Ongoing T-38 Comments/Issues • Preliminary well head protection areas mapped in 1998 • Comprehensive mapping completed in 2000 to support ROPP Amendment No. 12 • Groundwater modeling update project commenced in 2005 • Monitoring of water quality in supply wells beyond that required by legislation • Consultants contracted to undertake monitoring well water level and quality program • On going tracking of contaminated sites and sites cleaned up to provincial standards • Commenced updating inventory in 2003 • Useful information gathered but did not have legal tools to take action. • Required by Ministry of Environment • Only applies to official plan amendments • Full policies not implemented due to concerns with potential impact on economic development, private properties and availability of development permit system. • Granted approval by province in 2001 to design and implement a system • Outside legal council completed a through review • Concluded that Region/municipalities have few to no legal tools to require existing businesses to implement source protection • Program implemented 2001 through 2005 • Early termination due to lower than anticipated participation and high delivery to grant ratio • Best Management Practices for 55 business sectors developed in 1998 • Pilot business awareness campaign in 1999 • Annual spills prevention course since 2002 • Initiated in 1998 with $3 million committed by Regional Council to end of 2007 • $2 million provided in cost share grants to farmers to end of 2005 Initiative Nutrient Management By Law Road Salt Reduction Status On hold Ongoing Private Property Salt Reduction Initiated in 2005 Education Ongoing Development and Contaminated Site Reviews Ongoing Comments/Issues • Recent changes to Nutrient Management Act likely to over ride any municipal by law • Region/municipal approval of Winter Road Maintenance policies and procedures in 2002 • 27% reduction in salt application from 2002/03 to 2005/06 • Developing assessment protocols for new subdivision development applications • Pilot projects to be implemented on two water services facilities and one private commercial facility in 2005/06 • Designing an accreditation program for contractors and multiple -unit properties • Installation of road signs • Waterloo Wellington Children’s Groundwater Festival • General awareness through Environews, website, brochures, presentations to community groups, etc. • Water quality/quantity (stormwater, land use and salt assessments • Comments to MOE on contaminated sites • Comments on external CofAs, Permits to Take Water, Aggregate Licences to appropriate agency T-39 Western Australia San Marcos Texas Cape Cod Massachusetts Dayton Ohio Pekin Illinois New Brunswick Oxford County Oak Ridges TABLE 2: Summary of Threats Addressed in Other Jurisdictions USTs (Urban and rural) Septic systems (urban and rural) Biosolids applications sites Industrial/commercial land uses and activities Airport deicing and refueling operations Spills (urban and rural) n n n n n n n n n Non-residential development (Siting road salt (road design, stormwater ponds), grading, hazardous chemical use/generators, construction, primary use vs. secondary use) n n n n Landfills (Siting and operating) n n Aggregate/mining operations (Siting, operations, rehabilitated land use) n n Golf courses (Siting, fertilizer/chemical use) n n Stormwater runoff (Parking lots, roads, trucks transportation depots) n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n 1 n n n n n n n n RA WHPA RA WHPA n n n n n n Pipelines/sewers T-40 n n n n n Known contaminated sites RA n n n n Cemeteries WHPA n n n n n Residential development (Siting, road salt (road design, stormwater ponds), grading, construction, septic systems) Lawn care (pesticides) RA n n n n n Improperly decommissioned wells Road salt WHPA n n RA n n WHPA RA WHPA RA RA Nutrient management n n WHPA Livestock management (2) WHPA (1) Groundwater Threat n n n Western Australia San Marcos Texas Cape Cod Massachusetts Dayton Ohio Pekin Illinois New Brunswick Oak Ridges Oxford County n n Clear cutting n n n WWTP effluent Water Taking Threat Aquifer over pumping n n n n n RA WHPA RA WHPA WHPA RA RA n n n n n n n n n Impervious cover n Cumulative impact assessment WHPA interference n n Surface Water Threat Only Erosion (natural and construction) n WHPA n RA n WHPA WHPA n RA RA RA n WHPA Chemical storage (2) WHPA (1) Groundwater Threat n n n n n n n Notes: 1 - Well Head Protection Area 2 - Recharge Area T-41 TABLE 3: Water Balance Summary from 2005 Groundwater Monitoring Program Water-shed Grouping Mill Creek Group Nith River Group Laurel/ Schneider Creek Group Speed River Group Conestogo River Group Well Fields & Wells Clemens Mill (P11, P17, G17, G18, G6) Shades Mill (G7, G8, G38, G39) Middleton (G2, G14, G3, G1, G1A) Branchton Meadows (BM1, BM2) Wells G6, G4, G9, G15 Wellesley (WY1, WY5) Foxboro Green (FG1, FG2, FG4) Wilmot Centre (K50/K51) St. Agatha (SA1, SA2) Roseville (R5, R6) New Hamburg (NH3) New Dundee (ND4, ND5) Mannheim West (K22A, K23, K24, K26) Peaking (K91, K92) Erb Street (W7, W8) Strange Street (K10A, K13, K18) Erb Street (W6, W6A) William St. (W1B, W1C, W2, W3) Waterloo N.(W5, W10) Mannheim ASR (ASR1) Lancaster (K41, K42) Mannheim East (K21, K25, K29) Peaking (K93, K94) River (K70, K71, K72, K73, K74, K75, K80, K81, K82) Greenbrook (K1, K2, K4B, K5A, K8) Parkway (K31, K32, K33) Strasburg (K34, K36) Hespeler (H3, H4, H5) Pinebush (P9, P15, P10, G5, G16) Maryhill (MH1, MH2, MH3, MH4) West Montrose (WM1, WM2, WM3, WM4) Conestoga (C3, C4, C5, C6) Linwood (L1A, L2) St. Clements (SC2, SC3) Heidelberg (H1, H2) All Areas of the Region T-42 Infiltration (m3 /year) Pumping (m3 /year) Surplus Water (m3 /year) Percent Water Use 27,019,914 14,228,002 12,791,912 52.66% 81,805,390 14,427,700 67,377,690 17.6% 39,396,340 15,859,678 23,536,662 40.3% 24,289,240 3,135,702 21,153,538 12.9% 63,922,130 314,169 63,607,961 0.5% 236,433,014 47,965,251 188,467,763 20.3% TABLE 4 Key Technical Information For Groundwater Flow Models MODEL Parameter Waterloo Moraine Cambridge River Wells Small Systems FLOWPATH or USEPA WHPA–2D November 1996 or May 1998 Flowpath: Ayr, Linwood Numeric Code WATFLOW – 3D MODFLOW – 3D MODFLOW – 3D Year Completed Municipal Wells September 2000 November 1999 February 2000 IUS – Kitchener, Waterloo, and Wimot: St. Agatha, New Dundee, St. Clements, Roseville, Wellesley, Heidelberg, Foxboro Green 750 km2 IUS – Cambridge: Branchton Meadows Woolner, Forwell and Pompeii 243 km2 296 km2 12 overburden (100 m) and 1 bedrock layer 564 ground water and 11 creek base flow measurements 4 overburden (40 m) and 10 bedrock (140 m) 74 ground water and 10 creek base flow measurements 3 overburden (100 m) and 1 bedrock Pumping Rates for Capture Zone Calculations 2016 rates for 78 wells 2016 rates for 32 wells Sensitivity and Uncerta inty 5 fully calibrated scenarios including 2 from parallel model developed by UofW researchers 6 fully calibrated scenarios Other UofW model had 30 layers, finer grid spacing, and used contaminant transport approach for defining capture zones Porosity estimates supported by local scale dualporosity modeling (SWIFT II) and 1D matrix diffusion modeling Model Area Layering Calibration Points Groundwater levels from 151 wells and Grand River for two 4month pumping tests (transient and steady state) Maximum sustainable pumping rates for 9 wells determined from model Transient modeling used to improve calibration. 6 parameters varied for sensitivity Model designed to address unique geologic setting of infiltration wells adjacent to the Grand River WHPA: West Montrose, Maryhill, Conestogo, New Hamburg Specific to wells: 30 to 50 km2 for flowpath verses 8 to 20 km2 for WHPA Uniform recharge rate to single water supply aquifer Specific to wells: 10 to 15 MOE wells for flowpath (not applicable for WHPA method) 1993 water use rates: 1988 maximum rates for West Montrose as calculated by consultant Specific to wells: 8 to 16 parameter sensitivity variations for Flowpath verses 33 variations for WHPA - T-43 TABLE 5: Urban Threat Inventory Database Components Table Name Cemeteries Description Cemeteries tracked by the Region Certificates of Approval – Waste Disposal Dun & Bradstreet Business Listing Inventory of Historical Land Uses EPA s. 27 – Waste Disposal sites Landfills Ontario Waste Generator Pesticides Retail Fuel Storage Tanks Salvage Yards Private licensed data set primarily for marketing purposes Historical land uses prior to 1985 including historical maps, fire insurance maps, business directories, etc. MOE inventory of past waste disposal sites and file information Generators of waste regulated through O.Reg. 347 Sites/operators with permits to apply designated pesticides to water Technical Standards and Safety Authority list of storage and dispensing facilities Licensed salvage yards Environmental Incident Reports Sewer Use By law Surcharge Agreements Spill reports Environmental Site Information Listing List of locations where information regarding soil or groundwater contamination has been provided to Water Services staff Sites with Records of Site Conditions that have been provided to the Region Region and local municipal transportation yards Major oil and gas transmission lines Records of Site Condition Transportation Yards Gas and Oil Pipelines Facilities with agreements to discharge elevated levels to the sanitary sewer Storm Water Management Ponds Location of ponds Waste Water Treatment Plants Location of plants T-44 Source Region of Waterloo Planning, Housing and Community Services, 2006 Ministry of Environment, 2006 Dun and Bradstreet – 1993 and 2003 Mason and Mulamootil, 1994 Historica Research Limited 1994 MOE, 1991; Gartner Lee Ltd., 1980 MOE – Inventories for years 19861992, 2000 and 2004 MOE, 2006 TSSA – 1993 and 2003 Region of Waterloo Licensing and Regulatory Services – 2006 Region of Waterloo Environmental Enforcement Services – 2000 to 2003 Region of Waterloo Environmental Enforcement Services – 2005 and 2006 Water Services – 2006 Miscellaneous Region of Waterloo Transportation Division – 2006 Region of Waterloo Planning, Housing and Community Services, 2006 City of Waterloo – 2006 Region of Waterloo Design and Construction Division (Roads) – 2006 Region of Waterloo Planning, Housing and Community Services, 2006 TABLE 6: Summary of Threat by Wellfield (2 Year Time of Travel) 2 YEAR TOT Wellfield Zone Sensitivity Area Total Hectares in Sensitivity Area Number of Properties with Property Code as Agriculture Hectares with Property Code as Agriculture K80, K81, K82 2 1 56 8 121 K70, K71, K72, K73, K74, K75 SC2, SC3 WM1, WM2 K26, K24, K22A, K23 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 171 11 4 372 3 0 0 12 53 0 0 323 K21, K25, K29, K91 to K94 2 1 518 10 82 G38, G39 G7 G8 G1, G1A, G2, G3,G14 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 18 35 97 659 0 0 0 0 W1B, W1C, W2, W3 W5 W4 W10 K1, K2, K4B, K5A, K8 K11,K13, K10A K18 K31, K32, K33 K34, K36 L1A, L2, L3, L5, L6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 122 215 57 99 318 15 81 484 297 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 HD1 2 2 40 2 HD2 2 2 21 0 WY1, WY5 2 2 37 1 0 MH1, MH2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.34 4 17 59 33 25 43 32 21 24 63 133 129 2 2 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 8 0 0 0 0 30 121 0 0 Municipality Wells Sensitivity Area 1 Woolner Pompeii and Forwell St. Clements West Montrose Mannheim West Peaking Mannheim East City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo (50%) / City of Cambridge (50%) City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo (50%) / City of Cambridge (50%) Township of Wellesley Township of Woolwich Township of Wilmot Township of Wilmot (10%)/ City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo (90%) Shades Mill City of Cambridge Middleton* Sensitivity Area 2 William Street City of Cambridge Waterloo North City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo Greenbrook City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo Strange St. City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo Parkway Strasburg Linwood Mary Hill City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo Township of Wellesley Township of Wellesley (50%) / Township of Woolwich (50%) Township of Woolwich Township of Wellesley (70%) / Township of Wilmot (30%) Township of Woolwich Foxboro Green Township of Wilmot FG1, FG2, FG4 New Hamburg New Dundee Township of Wilmot Township of Wilmot Hespeler City of Cambridge NH3 ND2, ND3, ND4 H3 H4 H5 Dunbar Rd. City of Cambridge P6 Blair Rd. Elgin St. Willard* Roseville Branchton Meadows Ayr (preliminary 2 year capture zone WHPA) Sensitivity Area 3 Elmira City of Cambridge City of Cambridge City of Cambridge Township of North Dumfries Township of North Dumfries G4 G9 G15 R5, R6 BM1, BM2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 A1, A2 2 2 17 1 0 Township of Wilmot St. Agatha Wilmot Centre Fountain St. Township of Wilmot Township of Wilmot City of Cambridge Clemens Mills City of Cambridge E10 W6A, W6B W7, W8 STA4, STA3 K50, K51 P16 G6 G17 G18 G16 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 100 136 204 11 423 10 28 74 46 26 6 10 6 2 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 Erb St. C2, C5 C3,C4 G5 P9, P15 P10 P11, P17 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 103 59 36 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Heidelberg Wellesley City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo Township of North Dumfries Township of Woolwich 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sensitivity Area Mixed Conestogo Township of Woolwich Pinebush City of Cambridge 0 NOTES: Bold italics denotes a rural well field Merged cells means data only available for combined WHPA Impervious cover nomenclature: urban high (UH), industrial high (IH), Commercial high (CH), rural high (RH), Medium (M) and Low (L) * These WHPA used the Nort h Dumfries Township Census values for the agricultural calculations Category 1 includes all Expressway/Highways, all Freeways, all Ramps and all Service Areas Category 2 includes all Collectors and all Local/Street > or = to 4 lanes (Rural wellfields have the length of Collectors highlighted in green) Category 3 includes all Local/Street < 4 lanes ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiving commercial fertilizer ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiving manure T-45 2 YEAR TOT Threats Wellfield Number of Sites with Environmental Data Pipelines and Sewers (km) Septic Systems Number of Agricultural Properties Number of Rural Residences Outside Rural Community Number of Rural Residences Inside Rural Community 8 3 0 0 12 17 0 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 1 Number of Rural Communal Systems Total Rural Private Systems Pipelines (km) 0 0 67 7 116 25 3 67 7 134 0 0 0 0 0 10 37 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 71 Parkway Strasburg Linwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 9 16 10 4 9 29 1 5 16 11 Heidelberg 2 0 95 97 Wellesley Mary Hill 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 2 0 0 0 3 38 0 0 4 0 0 1 3 8 15 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 6 10 6 2 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 18 6 11 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 0 3 0 0 Sensitivity Area 1 Woolner Pompeii and Forwell St. Clements West Montrose Mannheim West Peaking Mannheim East Shades Mill Middleton* Sensitivity Area 2 William Street 11 4 Waterloo North Greenbrook 7 Strange St. 4 Foxboro Green New Hamburg New Dundee Hespeler Dunbar Rd. Blair Rd. Elgin St. Willard* Roseville Branchton Meadows Ayr (preliminary 2 year capture zone WHPA) Sensitivity Area 3 Elmira Erb St. St. Agatha Wilmot Centre Fountain St. Clemens Mills 1C 1C Sewers (km) Road and Private Property Deicing Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 0 0 0 0 0 679 0 0 0 4486 0 1499 1065 284 1138 4582 4443 17588 0 0 0 456 0 131 625 10967 376 266 736 59575 0 0 0 0 3132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1954 4297 1378 1586 5814 298 838 9874 1292 213 0 103 1238 0 13572 6113 2136 7406 23188 318 3940 6471 9770 0 1306 929 1612 100 1 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 623 0 0 869 1105 2144 604 2804 2947 308 2 0 0 1732 5 8 1 0 1132 0 0 0 778 2354 235 59 0 4561 5290 734 275 132 0 0 174 0 0 1206 1 0 752 0 1 2 7 4 2 0 1599 0 0 0 0 0 330 1448 666 589 1115 0 0 100 0 0 1193 5945 3940 2087 0 0 0 0 69 292 300 1982 2348 Sensitivity Area Mixed Conestogo Pinebush 2 0 0 0 0 4 NOTES: Bold italics denotes a rural well field Merged cells means data only available for combined WHPA Impervious cover nomenclature: urban high (UH), industrial high (IH), Commercial high (CH), rural high (RH), Medium (M) and Low (L) * These WHPA used the North Dumfries Township Census values for the agricultural calculations Category 1 includes all Expressway/Highways, all Freeways, all Ramps and all Serv ice Areas Category 2 includes all Collectors and all Local/Street > or = to 4 lanes (Rural wellfields have the length of Collectors highlighted in green) Category 3 includes all Local/Street < 4 lanes ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiv ing commercial fertilizer ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiving manure T-46 2 YEAR TOT Wellfield Sensitivity Area 1 Woolner Pompeii and Forwell St. Clements West Montrose Mannheim West Peaking Mannheim East Shades Mill Middleton* Sensitivity Area 2 William Street Waterloo North Greenbrook Strange St. Parkway Strasburg Linwood Heidelberg Wellesley Mary Hill Foxboro Green New Hamburg New Dundee Hespeler Dunbar Rd. Blair Rd. Elgin St. Willard* Roseville Branchton Meadows Ayr (preliminary 2 year capture zone WHPA) Sensitivity Area 3 Elmira Erb St. St. Agatha Wilmot Centre Fountain St. Clemens Mills Nutrient Application Hectares of Hectares of WHPA WHPA Receiving Receiving Commercial Manure *** Fertilizer ** Threats Agricultural Chemical Application Hectares Receiving Herbicides Hectares Receiving Insecticides Hectares Receiving Fungicides Impervious Covers 87 38 0 0 209 22 9 0 0 98 84.7 37.3 0.0 0.0 178.7 15.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 24.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.4 M IH RH RH L 53 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 63.6 17.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 M M M L UH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 29 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 UH M CH UH UH 0.0 0.0 0.0 UH 33.8 120.9 9.9 35.3 See 10 Year Values 0.0 0.0 IH M RH 0 0 See 10 Year Values L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 See 10 Year Values 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fuel Storage and Handling 0.0 0.0 2H, 2M, 11L 0.0 0.0 0.0 See 10 Year Values See 10 Year Values 1M 1H, 1L 3M, 2L 14H, 17M, 86L 3M, 4H 3M 2H, 5M, 57L 2M, 6L 1L 1H, 1M, 10L 1H, 7M, 17L 10M, 5L 3M 3M, 1L 3M, 1L 2M, 22L 1M, 1L 13H, 13M, 65L 1H, 1L 5H, 30M, 1L 4L RH RH L RH L UH UH RH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 UH 15.9 17.9 34.0 0.0 5.3 6.0 6.6 0.0 See 10 Year Values 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 M M M RH RH 0.0 0.5 See 10 Year Values 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 L L L M L UH 0.0 0.0 0.0 UH 0.0 0.0 0.0 M RH 0.0 0.0 0.0 UH See 10 Year Values 1L 3H, 2M, 3L RH See 10 Year Values 0.0 Waste Product Storage and Handling 2M 1M See 10 Year Values Chemical Storage and Handling 2L 1L 2H, 1M, 6L Sensitivity Area Mixed Conestogo Pinebush 1M, 2L 1H, 2M 1H, 3M 3M, 1L NOTES: Bold italics denotes a rural well field Merged cells means data only available for combined WHPA Impervious cover nomenclature: urban high (UH), industrial high (IH), Commercial high (CH), rural high (RH), Medium (M) and Low (L) * These WHPA used the North Dumfries Township Census values for the agricultural calculations Category 1 includes all Expressway/Highways, all Freeways, all Ramps and all Serv ice Areas Category 2 includes all Collectors and all Local/Street > or = to 4 lanes (Rural wellfields have the length of Collectors highlighted in green) Category 3 includes all Local/Street < 4 lanes ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiv ing commercial fertilizer ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiving manure T-47 2 YEAR TOT Threats Wellfield Application of Lawn Chemicals (Ha) Sensitivity Area 1 Woolner Pompeii and Forwell St. Clements West Montrose Mannheim West Peaking Mannheim East 164 Shades Mill 22 Middleton* Sensitivity Area 2 William Street 340 Waterloo North 106 Greenbrook 154 Strange St. 80 Parkway Strasburg Linwood 125 110 Golf Course Turf Care 25 7 9 40 56 1 Heidelberg Wellesley Mary Hill 1 Foxboro Green New Hamburg New Dundee Hespeler 73 Dunbar Rd. 12 Blair Rd. Elgin St. Willar d* Roseville Branchton Meadows Ayr (preliminary 2 year capture zone WHPA) Sensitivity Area 3 Elmira 44 58 48 Livestock Management/ Manure Storage (Number of Livestock Operations) 3 0 0 0 3 112.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 167.57 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 336.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.58 2.42 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 1 3 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 20.40 0.00 84.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 Erb St. St. Agatha Wilmot Cen tre Fountain St. Clemens Mills Aggregate Extraction Estimated Hectares Number of Potential Aggregate Aggregate Resource in WHPA Operations in WHPA Sensitivity Area Mixed Conestogo 1 3 Pine Bush 3 1 NOTES: Bold italics denotes a rural well field Merged cells means data only available for combined WHPA Impervious cover nomenclature: urban high (UH), industrial high (IH), Commercial high (CH), rural high (RH), Medium (M) and Low (L) * These WHPA used the North Dumfries Township Census values for the agricultural calculations Category 1 includes all Expressway/Highways, all Freeways, all Ramps and all Service Areas Category 2 includes all Collectors and all Local/Street > or = to 4 lanes (Rural wellfields have the length of Collectors highlighted in green) Category 3 includes all Local/Street < 4 lanes ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiving commercial fertilizer ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiving manure T-48 TABLE 7: Summary of Threat by Wellfield (10 Year Time of Travel) 10 YEAR TOT Wellfield Sensitivity Area 2 St. Clements Linwood Zone Sensitivity Area Total Hectares in Sensitivity Area Number of Properties with Property Code as Agriculture SC2, SC3 L1A, L2, L3, L5, L6 10 10 2 2 9 39 0 1 HD1, HD2 10 2 93 6 WY1, WY5 10 2 115 4 10 ? 10 10 10 2 ? 2 2 2 16 1 10 8 1 0 0 0 Municipality Wells West Montrose St. Jacobs Township of Wellesley Township of Wellesley Township of Wellesley (60%) / Township of Woolwich (40%) Township of Wellesley (70%) / Township of Wilmot (30%) Township of Woolwich Township of Woolwich Conestogo Township of Woolwich Mary Hill Mannheim West/ Peaking Mannheim East Foxboro Green New Hamburg New Dundee Township of Woolwich WM1, WM2 ? C2, C5 C3,C4 MH1, MH2 Township of Wilmot (50%)/ City of Kitchener (50%) K26, K24, K22A, K23, K21, K25, K29, K91 to K94 10 2 702 20 Township of Wilmot Township of Wilmot Township of Wilmot FG1, FG2, FG4 NH3 ND2, ND3, ND4 City of Cambridge (Township of North Dumfries) G1, G1A, G2, G3,G14 Roseville Lloyd Brown Branchton Meadows Ayr Township of North Dumfries Township of North Dumfries Township of North Dumfries Township of North Dumfries 97 220 33 20 74 153 564 5 Shades Mill City of Cambridge Elgin St. Sensitivity Area 3 William Street City of Cambridge R5, R6 LB1, LB2 BM1, BM2 A1, A2 G38, G39 G7 G7 G8 G9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 5 4 Middleton* 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 ? 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 3 77 19 91 312 65 228 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 Waterloo North City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo Greenbrook Lancaster City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo 0 0 0 1 0 City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo Parkway Strasburg Elmira Erb St. St. Agatha Baden Wilmot Centre City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo Township of Woolwich Township of Wilmot Township of Wilmot Township of Wilmot Township of Wilmot 42 65 383 281 408 624 23 0 0 3 10 15 18 5 Hespeler City of Cambridge Fountain St. City of Cambridge Clemens Mills City of Cambridge Dunbar Rd. City of Cambridge P6 Blair Rd. City of Cambridge City of Cambridge (Township of North Dumfries) G4 3 3 3 3 3 ? 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ? 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 160 260 50 116 437 Strange St. 10 10 10 10 10 ? 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 ? 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 499 35 43 35 30 45 112 36 12 46 47 80 28 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 G15 10 3 285 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 485 56 96 416 355 123 168 54 65 Heidelberg Wellesley Willard* City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo W1B, W1C, W2, W3 W5 W4 W10 K1, K2, K4B, K5A, K8 ? K11,K13, K10A K11,K13, K18 K31, K32, K33 K34, K36 E10 W6A, W6B, W7, W8 STA4, STA3 ? K50, K51 H3 H4 H5 P16 G6 G17 G18 G16 1 0 Sensitivity Area Mixed Woolner City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo (40%) / City of Cambridge (60%) Pompeii and Forwell City of Kitchener/ City of Waterloo (40%) / City of Cambridge (60%) Pine Bush City of Cambridge K80, K81, K82 K70, K71, K72, K73, K74, K75 G5 P9, P15 P10 P11, P17 21 9 0 0 3 0 NOTES: Bold italics denotes a rural well field Merged cells means data only available for combined WHPA Impervious cover nomenclature: urban high (UH), industrial high (IH), Commercial high (CH), rural high (RH), Medium (M) and Low (L) * These WHPA used the North Dumfries Township Census values for the agricultural calculations Category 1 includes all Expressway/Highways, all Freeways, all Ramps and all Service Areas Category 2 includes all Collectors and all Local/Street > or = to 4 lanes (Rural wellfields have the length of Collectors highlighted in green) Category 3 includes all Local/Street < 4 lanes ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiving commercial fertilizer ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiving manure T-49 10 YEAR TOT Threats 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 724 0 5148 4165 73 0 13 85 31 5 0 14 95 35 3 0 0 0 8 4 2 8 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 551 0 46 0.12 67 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12653 247 116 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 14 117 3 5 11 1 0 0 0 14 1990 0 68672 20 0 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 898 1720 0 2016 3936 308 3126 1487 4 64730 0 0 129 209 0 69 101 93 0 0 0 0 0 32 47 31 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 809 418 136 0 1300 0 0 114 0 2 7 0 906 1315 2513 767 4852 1 63 0 0 0 0 118 0 21 0 0 0 0 30 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 20 11 1 11 41 11 0 0 16274 6688 171 8707 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 2505 33269 0 0 3 10 15 18 5 0 0 0 16 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 26 19 21 8 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 44 0 15 4 30 7 3349 4219 715 2785 1119 0 0 0 1330 104 0 0 0 2835 1449 6533 3618 4976 1045 0.01 12252 2225 23275 3083 5566 0 52 0 0 0 0 1 102 399 745 14 0 0 0 0 0 25 207 349 6 28 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 20 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1553 0 0 0 136 0 0 0 0 2278 632 840 398 1101 52 911 0 0 0 3271 3016 39 28 2295 7219 2406 705 6 0 2814 3276 5 3 102 180 628 1812 4244 914 797 18 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 35 374 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 21 10 0 31 0 0 1010 2 143 1 9 0 150 159 0 22 0 7653 14385 3 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 3107 3244 1682 96 0 0 46 0 28 0 0 0 24 0 0 11 0 7 0 0 0 2 7 2 1C 0 Strange St. Parkway Strasburg Elmira Erb St. St. Agatha Baden Wilmot Centre Hespeler Fountain St. Clemens Mills 2 Blair Rd. Willard* Sensitivity Area Mixed Woolner Pine Bush 80 1 4 4 0 1 2 8 2 1 NOTES: Bold italics denotes a rural well field Merged cells means data only available for combined WHPA Impervious cover nomenclature: urban high (UH), industrial high (IH), Commercial high (CH), rural high (RH), Medium (M) and Low (L) * These WHPA used the North Dumfries Township Census values for the agricultural calculations Category 1 includes all Expressway/Highways, all Freeways, all Ramps and all Service Areas Category 2 includes all Collectors and all Local/Street > or = to 4 lanes (Rural wellfields have the length of Collectors highlighted in green) Category 3 includes all Local/Street < 4 lanes ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiving commercial fertilizer ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiving manure T-50 Category 3 172 206 1057 2064 417 Sewers (km) Category 2 0 0 0 0 0 Lancaster Pompeii and Forwell Hectares of WHPA Receiving Manure *** 0 0 0 0 0 Waterloo North Dunbar Rd. Nutrient Application Hectares of WHPA Receiving Commercial Fertilizer ** 25 1 98 2 6 Shades Mill Greenbrook 0 1 6 2 1 Number of Rural Communal Systems Road and Private Property Deicing 25 0 92 0 5 Roseville Lloyd Brown Branchton Meadows Ayr Elgin St. Sensitivity Area 3 William Street Number of Rural Residence Inside Rural Community Pipelines (km) Conestogo Middleton* Number of Agricultural Properties Number of Rural Residence Outside Rural Community Total Rural Private Systems Sensitivity Area 2 St. Clements Linwood Heidelberg Wellesley West Montrose St. Jacobs Mary Hill Mannheim West/ Peaking Mannheim East Foxboro Green New Hamburg New Dundee Pipelines and Sewers (km) Category 1 Wellfield Number of Sites with Environmen tal Data Septic Systems 10 YEAR TOT Threats Agricultural Chemical Application Impervio us Covers Fuel Storage and Handling Chemical Storage and Handling Waste Product Storage and Handling Applicati on of Lawn Chemical s (Ha) Golf Course Turf Care Livestock Management/ Manure Storage (Number of Livestock Operations) Hectares Receiving Herbicides Hectares Receiving Insecticides Hectares Receiving Fungicides 0.0 13.8 110.5 34.1 5.5 0.0 1.2 7.5 2.9 0.4 0.0 0.6 4.7 1.5 0.3 RH L M RH L 4 13 64 76 6 0 1 2 2 2 Conestogo 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 Mary Hill Mannheim West/ Peaking Mannheim East Foxboro Green New Hamburg New Dundee 0.0 0.0 0.0 M M RH 258.0 0.0 59.2 86.5 59.2 0.0 8.2 11.9 7.6 0.0 4.4 6.5 L M L Middleton* 90.3 17.7 2.2 UH 0.0 0.0 0.0 RH 0.6 61.2 0.1 12.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 141.2 47.1 0.0 M L UH L UH M M 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wellfield Sensitivity Area 2 St. Clements Linwood Heidelberg Wellesley West Montrose St. Jacobs Roseville Lloyd Brown Branchton Meadows Ayr Shades Mill Elgin St. Sensitivity Area 3 William Street Waterloo North Greenbrook M 2H, 16L 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.96 0.00 10.39 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 4 315.92 0 1 1 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 253.76 4.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0.00 11.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 237 0.00 0 81 0.00 0.00 0 0 19.13 0.00 0.00 155.99 0.00 0 0 0 4 0 49.88 0.00 0.00 19.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 156.68 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.00 0.00 14.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 214 0 102 7 4M, 1L 19H, 17M, 81L 1H, 28M, 11L 1 486 7 0 0 0 0 0 48 5L 3M, 2L 1M 1H, 1M, 6L 2L 42 UH M CH UH 1H 1M 9M, 40L 2H, 5L 2H, 3M, 2L 75 0.0 UH 1M, 2L 0.0 UH 1H, 5L 12H, 20M, 75L 2L 2H, 1M, 12L 3L 1L 2H, 32M, 1L 2M 3M 1H, 4L 1L 0 1 1 5L 2H, 4M, 2L 1H, 1M, 35L Aggregate Extraction Estimated Hectares Current Potential Aggregate Aggregate Operations Resource in WHPA in WHPA 0 0 0 Lancaster Strange St. Parkway Strasburg Elmira Erb St. St. Agatha Baden Wilmot Centre 1.7 113.8 403.2 638.5 11.4 0.5 33.2 32.2 88.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 18.7 47.7 0.9 UH M M L L 683.4 94.2 51.1 21.6 7.2 0.0 Fountain St. 0.2 0.1 0.0 L UH UH RH UH Clemens Mills 4.3 1.4 0.0 UH Dunbar Rd. Hespeler 0.0 0.0 0.0 UH Blair Rd. Willard* Sensitivity Area Mixed 4.3 84.7 1.4 16.6 0.0 2.1 UH M Woolner 90.4 13.8 0.0 M Pompeii and Forwell 43.5 6.7 0.0 UH 1H, 4M 70 33.1 11.0 0.0 UH 8 31 69 0 1 18 223 1M 11H, 8M, 37L 14M, 1L 1M 9H, 9M, 31L 6M 1M, 6L 1L 2M, 1L 1H 1M, 1L 1M 4H, 5M, 19L 3L 6H, 4M, 24L 17H, 13M, 41L 1H, 1M, 4L 2M, 1L 4 132 1H, 8M 1H, 2M, 1L 1M 3 5 7 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 1M,1L Pine Bush 117 61 44 71 6 15 3 NOTES: Bold italics denotes a rural well field Merged cells means data only available for combined WHPA Impervious cover nomenclature: urban high (UH), industrial high (IH), Commercial high (CH), rural high (RH), Medium (M) and Low (L) * These WHPA used the North Dumfries Township Census values for the agricultural calculations Category 1 includes all Expressway/Highways, all Freeways, all Ramps and all Service Areas Category 2 includes all Collectors and all Local/Street > or = to 4 lanes (Rural wellfields have the length of Collectors highlighted in green) Category 3 includes all Local/Street < 4 lanes ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiving commercial fertilizer ** Based on Township percentage of land in crops receiving manure T-51 TABLE 8: Threats and Associated Activities and Chemicals of Concern Potential Threat Known contamination sources Fuel storage and handling Chemical storage and handling Activity of Concern Existing contamination that may or may not have reached a municipal well USTs or ASTs - secondary containment, maintenance, spills Secondary containment, maintenance, spills Septic systems Design, location, maintenance, cumulative impacts Well abandonment Landfills Conduit for contamination Waste transfer and disposal Waste transfer stations, storage at industrial sites, transportation, secondary Waste product storage and handling containment, maintenance Application of lawn care chemicals Storage, application to large areas, application to many private lots Pipelines/sewers Leaks or releases to surface water Cemeteries Subsurface leaching, lawn care Golf course turf care Chemical storage, lawn care Grading/excavating (roads, development) Erosion, changes to runoff, infiltration reduction Stormwater management ponds Maintenance Road deicing Application of salt Airport deicing and refuelling Spills, stormwater, deicing application Livestock management Manure storage Field activities - crop rotation, nutrient management, crop type and Nutrient application pasture/grazing Biosolids application Nutrient management, application procedures and timing Agricultural chemical application Use of pesticides and herbicides Aggregate extraction Spills, increased vulnerability, rehabilitated land use compatibility Woodlot/tree removal Increased infiltration, increased erosion, reduced nutrient uptake Erosion (natural and construction) Flooding, bank instability Waste water discharges Spills, assimilative capacity Water taking (PTTW) Permitted water supplies, interference, change WHPA, ecological impact Transient water taking Same as PTTW but not permanent, change protection area Impervious cover (development) Reduces recharge Water injection Water quality degradation, reduction in water available Closed loop water circulation system Spill/leaks of circulation fluids, conduits for contamination T-52 Chemical of Concern Synthetic organic compounds (SOCs), metals SOCs SOCs Nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus), microbial (bacteria, viruses, pathogens), SOCs, pharmaceuticals Nutrients, microbial, metals, SOCs Nutrients, microbial, metals, SOCs SOCs Nutrients, microbial, metals, SOCs Nutrients, microbial, SOC Nutrients, microbial, SOCs Sodium, chloride, sediment Sodium, chloride, SOCs Nutrients, microbial Nutrients, microbial Nutrients, microbial, metals, pharmaceuticals SOCs SOCs, metals, nutrients, microbial Sediment, nutrients Sediment SOCs, metals, nutrients, microbial SOCs, nutrients, microbial TABLE 9: Criteria Used to Rank Severity of the Threat Criteria Threats* Quantity of Impact Description Summary The amount of water that is impacted or could potentially be impacted by the threat. Health Impact Potential health impact associated with a threat and usually the main chemical that is associated with the threat – pathogens/bacteria, synthetic organic compounds, chronic concern with low-health related Ontario Drinking Water Standard, chronic concern with moderate-health related Ontario Drinking Water Standard, aesthetic concern. Probability of Release/ Measure of the ability of the threat to have an impact on water supply – how the Getting to Water threat/chemical is introduced to water resources and to some degree, the quantity Resources of release e.g. applied directly, spills, etc. Nature of Source Source of the threat – point, non-point or corridor. Uncertainty Known information gaps associated with the location of the threat, the route or travel path to the water supply, and the chemical properties associated with the threat. * separate assessments for surface water and groundwater T-53 TABLE 10: Criteria Used to Rank Possible Implementation Tools for Threat Mitigation Risk Management Programs/Tools Method Availability Technical viability. The method is available for immediate implementation. Implementation Authority The level of government that has the authority to implement the tool – Region, City/Township or Province. Short-Term Effectiveness Does the tool reduce the risk to the water supply over the short term? Short term is not defined as a specific time unit as it could vary depending on the methods or the threat under consideration. Long-Term Effectiveness Does the tool reduce the risk to the water supply over the long term? Short term is not defined as a specific time unit as it could vary depending on the methods or the threat under consideration. Municipal Cost Capital cost to the Region or City/Township to implement the tool. Staff Resources The extent of the Region or City/Township staff resources required to implement the tool. Landowner Costs Capital and/or operational/maintenance costs that would be the responsibility of the landowner. Public Acceptance The public’s level of acceptance of the method as determined from consumer research, public open houses, Water Resources Protection Liaison Committee, and any other public contact point. Flexibility The ability of the implementation method to be adapted to changes to the threat either up or down. Adaptation could also be influenced by modifications/adjustments to the tool, related methods, priorities or policies. Proactiveness The degree to which the method avoids an impact at the drinking water intake. Whether the method is considered reactionary, precautionary or prohibitive. T-54 TABLE 11: Proposed Risk-Mitigation Measures for Existing Threats to Municipal Wells Threat Category Protection Area GUDI/ 100 m WPSA 1 WPSA2 2yr 10yr WPSA3 2yr 10yr WPSA 4 Region Wide Contaminated Sites Brownfield redevelopment incentives program - - - - - - - ü Septic Systems Provide comments on site reports Installation of sentry wells or off-site monitoring wells (1) Education – response to site information requests Faulty system inspection (I)/education (E) Strategic mitigation Municipal maintenance and upgrade program Incentives for private maintenance and upgrades üI þ ü ü ü ü þI þ ü þ ü ü üE û þ û ü þ üE û û û þ þ û û þ û þ þ û û û û û û û û û û û û ü û û û û Municipal/Regional road agency reduction programs - - - - - - - ü Municipal/Regional road agency Sensitive Area management plans Education/awareness program Develop pilot sites and encourage private property salt reduction plans Regional/ municipal property salt management BMPs - ü - ü - ü - ü - ü - û - û ü - - - - - - - ü - - - - - - - ü Strategic land purchase and/or easement (1) ü þ þ û û û û û Incentive Program (existing RWQP) Enhanced incentives/education for nutrient management planning Sentry Well monitoring program ü ü þ ü þ ü û û û ü û û û û ü û û Strategic land purchase and/or easement (1) ü þ þ û û û û û Require sites have Nutrient Management Plans prior to application by Region contractor Prohibit application ü ü ü þ ü þ û û ü ü þ û þ û û û Strategic land purchase and/or easement (1) - þ þ û û û û û Incentive program (existing RWQP) Sentry Well monitoring program - ü ü û ü û û ü û Develop monitoring and/or research program to clarify problem - ü ü ü ü ü û û Inspection/licensing (I)/education (E) program (2) - þI üE þI üE û û Sewers and Pipes Winter Maintenance Agriculture Nutrient Application Biosolids Application Agriculture Chemical application: Impervious cover increase Fuel Storage and Handling üI T-55 Education program for provincial agency for upgrades , monitoring and inspection Incentives for non-targeted training program Chemical Storage and Handling - ü ü û ü û û û - - - - - - - ü - üI þI üE þI üE û û - - - - - - - ü ü ü(3) üI þI üE þI üE û û Review/Provide Comments on new CofA applications Incentives for training program Municipal by-law restricting chemicals (4) Apply BMPs to Region contracts/facilities Targeting monitoring Contractor storage BMPS (refer to chemical handling and storage) ü - ü þ - þ þ - þ û - þ û - þ û - û û - û ü ü ü û - Incentives for training program - - - - - - - ü Apply BMPs to Region contracts/facilities - - þ üE þ üE û û Incentives for training program Assessment and/or improvement of de-icing facilities - - ü ü ü ü û ü û Strategic land purchase and/or easement (1) ü þ þ û û û û û Incentive program (existing RWQP) Enhanced incentives/education for nutrient management planning ü ü þ û û û û ü û Education: encourage adoption of guidelines for existing sites - - - - - - - ü Incentives for training program - - - - - - - ü Implement protocol for monitoring well surveying ü ü ü ü ü ü û û Incentive program Farmers – existing RWQP and federal programs Non-farm incentive program ü ü ü ü ü ü û ü û Inspection/licensing (I)/education (E) program (2) Incentives for training program Apply BMPs to Region contracts/facilities Waste Storage and Handling Lawn Chemicals Golf Course Turf Care Airport Deicing and Refueling Livestock Management Aggregate Extraction Well Decommissioning Inspection/licensing (I)/education (E) program (2) Notes: Table nomenclature: - not applicable; üpart of program; ûnot part of program; þ for vulnerable areas defined by new groundwater modeling technique 1. Specifics of program would be based on outcome of more detailed assessments. 2. Program dependant on provincial licensing program and availability of new authority from the province. 3. Program in this area focuses on pathogenic wastes. 4. Scope of program would be limited to program proposed by Public Health. T-56 TABLE 12: Proposed Risk-Mitigation Measures for Future Threats to Municipal Wells Threat Category Contaminated sites Septic systems Pipelines and sewers Deicing Salt Water quantity Gasoline storage Chemical storage Waste storage Lawn fertilizers Golf courses Aggregate extraction Private and monitoring wells Details Update development application review protocol Prevent new construction and require additional study prior to installation Require monitoring of communal systems Prohibit new Develop servicing policies to require upgraded materials to reduce leakage Additional study requirements and BMPs Prohibit increased reduction in infiltration for wells identified with high water quantity risk Require studies to prevent reductions infiltration for other wells Prohibition for regulated bulk fuel, retail and accessory use of gasoline Additional study requirements, BMPs, and monitoring Prohibition of “worst” land uses especially those using chlorinated solvents Additional study requirements, BMPs, and monitoring Prohibitions on worst land uses (1) Additional study requirements, BMPs, and monitoring BMPs for lawn fertilizers near sensitive features Prohibitions Additional study requirements, BMPs and monitoring Prohibitions New Region study guidelines Require survey and proper decommissioning Prohibition in serviced areas GUDI/ 100 m WPSA1 2yr 10yr 2yr ü ü ü ü - ü ü þ ü ü þ þ þ û û û û û û - ü - WPSA2 þ þ ü WPSA 4 Region Wide - - ü û û û û û û û û û û û û û û û û û û û û û û û û û û û WPSA3 10yr ü þ ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü þ ü ü ü - ü þ ü ü ü ü ü þ þ ü ü - ü þ ü ü ü ü ü ü þ ü ü ü þ þ ü - - - - - - ü ü ü þ ü þ û û û û û û û û û û û û û - - - ü - - - - ü - - - - ü û û ü þ - û û þ þ þ û û û û Notes: Table nomenclature: - not applicable; üpart of program; ûnot part of program; þ for vulnerable areas defined by new groundwater modeling technique 1. Program in this area focuses on pathogenic wastes. T-57 TABLE 13: Proposed Risk-Mitigation Measures for the Mannheim Surface Water Intake IPZ-1 IPZ-2 TWCA Continue to invest in improvements to GRCA’s surface water model (GAWSER) - - ü Amend the ROP to include measures to control urban runoff quality including retrofitting of existing controls - - ü Storm water quality control measures for Highway 8 bridge and other crossings - ü - Require BMPs under Sewer-Use by law for selected industries with high potential for spills ü ü - Spill forecasting model and/or early-warning monitoring system ü ü û Policies/Programs To Address Threat Notes: TWCA – Total Water Contribution Area of the intake Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable T-58 TABLE 14: Schedule of Water Resources Protection Master Plan Tasks Initiative/Task Clean Water Act Finalized Clean Water Act CWA Regulation Review Source Protection Committee Terms of Reference Characterization Report Assessment Report Plan Development Plan Reporting Plan Review 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 x x x x x x x x x x Technical - Water Quantity Groundwater Monitoring Program Review New Supply Well Investigation Tier 2 Watershed Scale Water Budget Tier 3 Local Area Assessment Technical - Vulnerability Revise Groundwater Flow Model Well Surveys and Abandonment Intake Protection Area Delineation Raw Water Characterization Develop Intake Monitoring Program Monitoring Program Assessment Technical - Threat Assessment Tier 1 Assessment (Groundwater) Tier 1 Assessment (Surface Water) Tier 2 Pilot Program Tier 2 Threat Assessment Well Field "Issues" Assessments x x Middleton (TCE/1,4-dioxane) St Agatha (Nitrate) T-59 Initiative/Task 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 H4 (Nitrate) K50s (Nitrate) Medium Priority Salt-Impacted Wells G5 (VOCs and Salt Assessment) Risk Mitigation Programs and Policies Finalize WRPS Update Plan Interim Significant-Risk Threats Actions x WRPS Current Programs RWQP Road Salt Reduction Private Salt Education Microbial Contamination Control Plans WRPS Update Issues Initial Update of Regional Official Plan Aggregate Extraction Policies Well-Specific Nitrate Strategy Salt Impact Assessment Guidelines Clean Water Act Implementation Regional Official Plan Existing Significant-Risk Threats Existing Medium-Risk Threats Existing Low-Risk Threats Monitoring/Enforcement Notes: X – indicates completion of a report T-60 FIGURES FIGURE 1: Proposed Watershed-based Risk Assessment Process................................................................. 63 FIGURE 2: Water Use – Summer Low Flow Conditions (MOE, 2004) ......................................................... 64 FIGURE 3: Preliminary Waterloo Region Water Balance from Groundwater Monitoring Program................. 65 FIGURE 4: Distribution of Supply Wells by Aquifer Group......................................................................... 66 FIGURE 5: Location of Potential Future Water Supplies.............................................................................. 67 FIGURE 6: Areas Contributing to Current Groundwater Flow Models .......................................................... 68 FIGURE 8: Well Head Protection Areas for North Dumfries........................................................................ 70 FIGURE 9: Well Head Protection Areas for Kitchener................................................................................. 71 FIGURE 10: Well Head Protection Areas for Waterloo................................................................................ 72 FIGURE 11: Well Head Protection Areas for Wellesley............................................................................... 73 FIGURE 12: Well Head Protection Areas for Wilmot .................................................................................. 74 FIGURE 13: Well Head Protection Areas for Woolwich.............................................................................. 75 FIGURE 14: Proposed Revised Well Head Protection Areas for Mannheim East and West Wellfields. ........... 76 FIGURE 15: Microbial Risk Management Zones for the Four GUDI Wells................................................... 77 FIGURE 16: Example of Capture Zone Envelopes versus SWAT Modeling.................................................. 79 FIGURE 17: Delineation of Hidden Valley Intake Protection Zone............................................................... 80 FIGURE 18: Draft ISI Mapping for Waterloo Region .................................................................................. 81 FIGURE 19: Delineation of the Waterloo Moraine and Regional Recharge Area ........................................... 82 FIGURE 20: Total Vulnerable Areas.......................................................................................................... 83 FIGURE 21: Groundwater Quality Monitoring Locations in 2006 ................................................................ 84 F-61 FIGURE 1: Proposed Watershed-based Risk Assessment Process (MOE, 2004) RISK ANALYSIS (Entire watershed) THREATS INVENTORY RISK CATEGORY Collection of additional information, and reanalysis where needed THREATS OF PROVINCIAL CONCERN OTHER THREATS IDENTIFIED (WHPA, IPZ, Other Vulnerable Areas) (Entire Watershed) Threats Assessment ISSUES IDENTIFICATION (Entire Watershed) RISK ANALYSIS Vulnerability Assessment NEGLIGIBLE RISK* – no further action required Significant Risks Moderate Risks Low Risks Progress by 2008 RISK MANAGEMENT & PRIORITY SETTING RISK ASSESSMENT RISK IDENTIFICATION WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION MANDATORY RISK REDUCTION RISKS TO BE MANAGED RM ACTION : SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE RISK RM ACTION: DO NOT PERMIT RISK TO INCREASE & REDUCE RISK WHERE FEASIBLE RM Actions must significantly reduce the risk posed to drinking water Risks need to be ‘actively managed” to ensure that they do not become “Significant risks” RISKS TO BE MONITORED RM ACTION; PREVENT DEGRADATION AND REDUCE RISK WHERE FEASIBLE Risks not requiring mitigation are monitored *Threats of Provincial Concern can not be discarded as Negligible Risk F-63 FIGURE 2: Water Use – Summer Low Flow Conditions (MOE, 2004) F-64 FIGURE 3: Preliminary Waterloo Region Water Balance from Groundwater Monitoring Program F-65 FIGURE 4: Distribution of Supply Wells by Aquifer Group F-66 FIGURE 5: Location of Potential Future Water Supplies F-67 FIGURE 6: Areas Contributing to Current Groundwater Flow Models F-68 FIGURE 7: Well Head Protection Areas for Cambridge F-69 FIGURE 8: Well Head Protection Areas for North Dumfries F-70 FIGURE 9: Well Head Protection Areas for Kitchener F-71 FIGURE 10: Well Head Protection Areas for Waterloo F-72 FIGURE 11: Well Head Protection Areas for Wellesley F-73 FIGURE 12: Well Head Protection Areas for Wilmot F-74 FIGURE 13: Well Head Protection Areas for Woolwich F-75 FIGURE 14: Proposed Revised Well Head Protection Areas for Mannheim East and West Wellfields. F-76 FIGURE 15: Microbial Risk Management Zones for the Four GUDI Wells a) Mannheim Microbial Risk b) Shades Mill Microbial Risk F 77 c) Well W10 Microbial Risk d) Woolner Microbial Risk F-78 FIGURE 16: Example of Capture Zone Envelopes versus SWAT Modeling F 79 FIGURE 17: Delineation of Hidden Valley Intake Protection Zone F-80 FIGURE 18: Draft ISI Mapping for Waterloo Region F-81 FIGURE 19: Delineation of the Waterloo Moraine and Regional Recharge Area F-82 FIGURE 20: Total Vulnerable Areas F-83 FIGURE 21: Groundwater Quality Monitoring Locations in 2006 F-84 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: Original WRP Implementation Schedule.................................................................. 87 APPENDIX 2: Components of Region of Waterloo – MOE Municipal Groundwater Study........... 89 APPENDIX 3: Monitoring Well Location Maps............................................................................... 90 APPENDIX 4: Technical Working Paper in Support of Capture Zone Envelopes ......................... 100 APPENDIX 5: Well Sensitivity Scoring and Schematic Illustration of Vulnerability Method ...... 110 APPENDIX 6: Description of Procedures Used to Compile Well-specific Threat Inventories ...... 113 APPENDIX 7: Distribution of Land Uses by Region Property Code ............................................. 117 APPENDIX 8: Detailed Description of Criteria Used to Score Threats ......................................... 140 APPENDIX 9: Rationale and Description of the Implementation Options for Specific Threats .... 145 APPENDIX 10: Description of Criteria Used to Score Risk-Mitigation Tools .............................. 153 APPENDIX 11: Risk Mitigation Approaches for High and Medium Threats ................................ 159 A 85 APPENDIX 1: Original WRP Implementation Schedule A 87 A 88 APPENDIX 2: Components of Region of Waterloo – MOE Municipal Groundwater Study Aquifer/Component Regional Scale Groundwater Mapping and Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment Groundwater Use Inventory and Assessment Region-scale Inventory of Potential Contamination Sources Cedar Creek Subwatershed Groundwater Study Lead Agency GRCA GRCA Region Region Comments Build on GRCA’s completed work, update/change to MOE format Supplement GRCA/Region data by contacting permitted water takers Update previous inventory completed in 1995 Technical component, fill data gaps and feed into pilot assessment Wellhead Scale Update rural well capture zones Detailed Inventory of Rural Potential Contaminant Sources in Key Areas, Nutrient Impact Assessment Monitoring Well Assessment and Inventory in Key Areas Nutrient Impacts Detailed Groundwater Monitoring and Assessment Protection Program Design Aggregate Extraction Assessment – Cedar Creek Pilot Study 2003-2013 Water Resource Protection Implementation Plan Region Minor updating. 25-year capture zones mapped for 7 rural wellfields GRCA Assessment for Mannheim West, St. Agatha and New Dundee Wellfields Region For Elmira, Waterloo, Cambridge and Kitchener well areas Region For K26 well in Mannheim Region Region Develop a “pilot” assessment for potential province-wide application Update Implementation Plan, build on the existing RMOW Water Resource Protection Strategy, public consultation A 89 APPENDIX 3: Monitoring Well Location Maps A 90 A 91 A 92 A 93 A 94 A 95 A 96 TABLE B-4 2007 MONITORING NETWORK SUMMARY Region of Waterloo – Groundwater Level Monitoring Program Method Well Field Well ID OBJ # Issues (see notes) Recommended Core of Monitoring Program MOEE # Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (based on 2003 Report) WELL FIELDS IN CAMBRIDGE Blair Road Clemens Mill Dunbar Road Elgin Street Fountain Street Hespeler Middleton Pine Bush Road Shade's Mills Willard OW5ABCDEF-95 C2 LWL OW3AB-92 OW4A-92 OW4BC-92 OW5BF-94 OW6ABCD-94 OW6ABCDEF-95 OW8ABCDEFG-95 TW4-76 OW1ABCDEF-95 OW2ABCDEF-95 OW1ABC-92 OW2ABC-92 OW104ABCD-90 BH1ABC-93 BH2AAB-93 BH2BAB-93 BH4ABCD-94 BH6-94 OW1A-92 OW1BC-92 OW1SW-92 OW3ABCDEFGH-95 OW3A-94 (TW3-94) SM1-02 SM3ABC-93 OW1-87 √ 1000332 1000936 1000935 1000388 1000389 1000390 9200572 6507562 1000333 1000335 6504495 1000328 1000329 9200047 9200048 9070064 6507566 6507565 6507564 1000354 9200473 1000383 1000382 9200050 1000330 1000322 9201548 9200458 1000381 6507937 9200704 9200703 114930 114955 114954 9200572 6507562 6507941 6507939 6504495 6507946 6507948 9200047 9200048 9070064 6507566 6507565 6507564 6507610 6507611 114932 114990 9200050 6507943 6507732 6509624 9200458 9200630 M M M M E E E M M E M M M M M E M M M M M E E E M M M M M MW1AB-03 MW2AB-03 BM1AB-02 9201422 9203299 9201544 9201422 9203299 6509626 E M M OW9ABCDEFGH-95 RV2AB-95 1000336 1000461 6507915 9200652 M M √ √ 1000450 9201546 9201547 9201545 6504515 9200359 9202689 9200641 11842 11841 11822 6504515 9200359 31818 M M M M M M M √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ WELL FIELDS IN NORTH DUMFRIES Ayr Branchton Meadows Lloyd Brown Roseville √ √ √ √ √ √ √ WELL FIELDS IN WOOLWICH Conestogo Elmira Maryhill Heights CG2AB-95 CG3AB-02 CG4AB-02 CP1AB-02 WH6-76 CH59AB-90 MW1AB-05 √ √ √ √ A 97 West Montrose MW2AB-05 OW1-04 WM4-1-98 9202690 9201365 9201407 31819 9201365 M M M 6501661 1000569 1000578 1000451 1000933 1000934 9200454 6500325 6500330 9200385 1000983 9201363 6505792 6505793 6501805 6501809 6501406 6500300 1000429 1000436 6504779 9200064 6504223 9200075 6504950 6507298 9200521 1000326 1000312 1000430 1000431 1000433 6507301 6504873 6501661 6507810 6507811 9200642 9200701 9200702 9200454 6500325 6500330 9200385 9200716 6509422 6505792 6505793 6501805 6501809 6501406 6500300 6508000 6508007 6504779 9200064 6504223 9200075 6504950 6507298 9200521 6507679 6507716 6508001 6508002 6508004 6507301 6504873 M M M M E M E M M M E E E E E E M M E M M M M M M E M E M E M E E M 9202618 9202619 9202620 9201414 9203377 6503654 9200502 9202636 9030011 9200051 9030069 9202618 9202619 9202620 9201414 M M M M M M E M M M E 6503003 9150022 9200984 6502373 6502375 9201415 6503003 9150022 9200984 6502373 6502375 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ WELL FIELDS IN KITCHENER Forwell Greenbrook Mannheim East Parkway Pompeii Strange Street Strasburg Woolner OW39-66 OW9ABC-95 OW10ABC-95 BH1AB-90 GB1ABC-96 GB1AB-97 M4AB-94 OW1-65 OW4-65 OW1-76 ASR-OW2B-96 OW1AB-03 OW2-85 OW3-85 OW16-60 OW23-65 OW46-49 OW6-60 PK1ABCD-95 PK8AB-96 OW8-78 OW1-82 (TW10) OW3-74 OW4B-46 OW4-79 WM-OW6ABC-92 WM1ABCD-94 BBB1ABCDEFG-94 OW29-94 PK2ABCD-95 PK3-95 PK5ABC-96 WM-OW2ABC-92 OW12-78 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ WELL FIELDS IN WATERLOO Waterloo North William Street MW1 MW2 MW3 MWWN1A-02 MWWN1B-06 TW7-71 WM-OW5ABC-93 OW5A-87 OW5B-86 OW10ABC-87 OW13AB-87 6503654 9200502 9202636 9030011 9200051 9030069 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ WELL FIELDS IN WILMOT Baden Erb Street OW2-69 LC9A-91 ** LC9BC-91 ** OW7A-57 OW7B-57 OW322AB-02 M E M/E M M M √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ A 98 OW332-02 WM-OW4ABC-92 WM3AB-93 WM4ABC-93 WM8ABC-93 AC1AB-01 OW3-61 OW8-61 TW1-70 TW3-69 TW7-67 TW11-69 WM-OW3AB-92 WM20AB-93 WM2ABCD-94 AC3AB-01 AC1AB-03 NDOW1-03 NDOW2AB-03 TW1-94 TW3-94 TW5AB-95 TW6AB-95 MWSTA1AB-02 WM2ABC-93 H4-SB3R- PIEZO † H4-SB4-PIEZO † H4-SB5-PIEZO † H4-SB6-PIEZO † H5-S3-SPRING † H5-SB5-POND (Staff Gauge) † H5-SB5R- PIEZO † HL-SB2-PIEZO † BP8-1-98 † MW205 † OW9-67 OW17-67 OW8AB-99 UW5-91 † WM14ABC-93 † WM21-93 ** WCW1DS-98 † WCW2DS-98 † Mannheim West New Dundee New Hamburg St. Agatha Wilmot Centre † Notes: 9201416 6507299 9200500 9200501 9200505 9201033 6502172 6502125 6503201 6503134 6502165 6503136 6507310 9200517 9200522 9201032 9201300 9201304 9201305 1000366 1000365 1000308 1000311 9201417 9200499 9201411 1000919 1000924 1000921 9201418 9201421 9201412 1000926 1000447 1000745 6502143 6502188 1000996 6507207 9200511 9200518 1000912 1000913 6507299 9200500 9200501 9200505 6509074 6502172 6502125 6503201 6503134 6502165 6503136 6507310 9200517 9200522 6509073 6509355 6507720 6507725 6507834 6507928 9200499 9200687 9200692 9200689 9200694 6507722 9200673 6502143 6502188 6508600 6507207 9200511 9200518 6508397 6508396 M E M M M M M E M E M M E M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M E M E E M E E E M √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ** = Wells monitored electronically by the GRCA for the MOE as part of the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network † = Additional monitoring as part of the Wilmot Centre Monitoring Program Method of E = Electronic water level monitoring with a pressure transducer and datalogger system Measure: M = Manual water level monitoring conducted monthly Issues: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) confirm that the aquifers can sustain the present rate of withdrawal establish reference points to corroborate impacts on private wells and wetlands monitor changes in water levels over time and drought conditions provide calibration points for future computer models provide insight to refine conceptual geologic and groundwater flow models monitor production well efficiency meet political or regulatory requirements A 99 APPENDIX 4: Technical Working Paper in Support of Capture Zone Envelopes in the Waterloo Moraine Delineation of Capture Zones in the Waterloo Moraine Technical Working Paper Original Date: December 16, 1999 Alder Creek Modelling Update: January 9, 2004 A 100 INTRODUCTION This document describes the process and results of developing capture zone envelopes for wells located in the Waterloo Moraine. These envelopes were derived by examining the results of several numerical models. Since each model has unique assumptions, interpretations and in some cases, multiple capture zone delineation methods or scenarios, a compilation of individual particle traces was used to develop envelopes. For each individual well field, relative weights were assigned to the various results depending on the strengths and weaknesses of each numerical model. Professiona l judgement was used to incorporate the weighted results into WHPA envelopes for each well field. A discussion of the models themselves and a description of the weighting and results for each well field are provided. The intent of this working paper is that as new capture zone modelling is completed, this paper will be revised accordingly. This new modelling will be considered as an additional simulation and will be considered together with previous modelling results in order to update capture zone envelope delineations. MODEL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS The capture zone envelopes for the wells were initially developed using two numerical models; one developed by Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. and a second developed by the University of Waterloo. Both these models utilized information from two previous models (Parkway and Wilmot Subdomain models) and some consideration of the capture zones from these models were included n the assessment. Capture zone envelopes were delineated co-operatively by Region staff (T. Middleton and E. Hodgins) and Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. staff (P. Martin and A. Merry), in November 1999. An additional subdomain model was created for the Alder Creek Watershed Study by CH2MHill et. al. (2003) and capture zone envelopes for Mannhe im East, Mannheim West, Erb Street, and New Dundee were modified by E. Hodgins in January 2004. Details on the various numerical models used are as follows: • The Waterloo Moraine Models (“WMM”) created by Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. (November 1999). These are three separate, calibrated models each using the threedimensional finite element code WATFLOW. Each model used 13 layers of elements with approximately 80,000 elements per layer. The code incorporates saturated/unsaturated flow and uses a “recharge spreading layer” to apply recharge. Capture zones were delineated using WATRAC, initially identified as the Frind Method, a new particle tracking method developed by Dr. Emil Frind which utilizes a local mass balance to determine the pathway for water particles traveling upgradient from a production well. • The University of Waterloo model (UW) created by Dr. Frind and associates (November 1999). This is a calibrated model using the three-dimensional finite element code WATFLOW. The model used 30 layers of elements, and has a finer grid through the central portion of the moraine where the most productive supply wells are located. Approximately 1,335,000 nodes, approximately 44,500 nodes per layer. The code incorporates saturated/unsaturated flow and uses a “recharge spreading layer” to apply A 101 recharge. Capture zones were delineated using particle tracking by the WATRAC or Frind method (“UW-Frind”), and also using a newly developed method based on an advection-dispersion contaminant transport solution using LaPlace Transform- Galerkin methods (“UW-LTG”). The model was expanded from the Greenbrook Subdomain Model, created by Dr. Emil Frind and associates (December 1998). • The Parkway subdomain model, created by Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. (October 1998). This is a calibrated model using the three-dimensional finite element code WATFLOW. The model used 13 layers of elements with approximately 11000 elements per layer. The code incorporates saturated flow and uses a “recharge spreading layer” to apply recharge. Capture zones were delineated using particle tracking by the WTC-TRAC method. • The Wilmot subdomain model, created by Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. (1999). This is a calibrated model using the three-dimensional finite element code FEFLOW. The model used 15 layers of elements, and a finely discretized grid (to facilitate some transport modelling). The stratigraphic layers were only simulated from the water table to the base of aquitard 2. The code incorporates saturated flow and recharge is an input parameter. Capture zones were delineated using the FEFLOW particle tracking routine. (This work is briefly documented in the WHI report of April 1999.) • The Alder Creek subdomain model, created by CH2MHill and S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc. (2003). This is a calibrated model using the three-dimensional finite difference code MODFLOW-2000. The model used 4 layers to represent the shallowest two aquifers and two aquitards in the area of the creek with approximately 138,000 cells per layer. The model was calibrated iteratively with the Grand River Conservation Authority’s surface water hydrology model, GAWSER. The GAWSER model identified preliminary recharge rates which were used as input into the MODFLOW model. Refinements to the spatial distribution of recharge were reiterated back to the GAWSER model. Capture zones were delineated using the MODPATH particle tracking code. Capture zones were delineated using increased pumping rates for K21, K23 and K25/K29 to match those used in the Waterloo Moraine model (S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, February 2004). CAPTURE ZONE ENVELOPE RESULTS General comments The WMM provides more reliable results for much of the modeled area compared to the UW model. This is because the WMM is based on the most up-to-date and scrutinized geologic and hydrogeologic data set, and is the best documented of the models. This model has an excellent calibration (match) to groundwater levels throughout the modeled domain. However, a weakness of this model is a poor calibration to recharge in certain areas near the moraine axis, where Aquifer 1 is essentially unconfined. This includes the areas near the Wilmot, Mannheim East, Mannheim West, and Erb Street well fields. In these areas, the recharge to Aquifer 1 is unrealistically high. The reason for this is apparently a combination of insufficient accuracy in surface topography and inaccurate hydraulic conductivity values in the recharge spreading layer. This apparently allows water to be diverted from surface flows into Aquifer 1 in some areas. In addition, near the Mannheim well fields, the influence of Alder Creek (simulated as constanthead nodes) appears to be too great, with an unrealistically high volume of water recharging the aquifer from the creek. A 102 The UW model also has an excellent calibration to water levels over the modelled domain. However, this model provides more realistic results for the areas near the Mannheim East, Mannheim West, and Erb Street well fields. The different conceptual model used in the UW model (a combination of more layers and different hydraulic conductivity values in some layers) results in more realistic recharge rates to Aquifer 1 near the core of the moraine. A weakness of the UW model is that it is based on a less complete geologic data set for the areas near the Parkway and Wilmot well fields. Also, the UW model does not account for the influence of several private industrial wells pumping from the bedrock in areas of the Parkway and the Strange Street well fields. The UW model may have used a calibration data set which was less accurate in the Strange Street and Parkway well field areas. The UW model used two different numerical methods to delineate capture zones, the Frind particle track method and the LTG transport method. In most instances, the Frind particle tracks were considered the more reliable method because: in areas of a coarser grid the LTG results were less precise due to numerical inaccuracies, in areas downgradient of well fields the LTG results were less precise due to numerical dispersion, and the LTG method is a recently developed research tool which is not yet widely used or documented in the scientific literature. It should be noted that, except in the case of the ten-year simulation at the Wilmot wellfield, the LTG results agreed reasonably well with the Frind particle track method. The Alder Creek model provides reliable results for the portion of the moraine that was less reliably modeled with WHI’s model. The main advantage of the Alder Creek Model is the input recharge distribution, and the additional hydrogeologic assessment of model results. Additional hydrogeologic and surface water quality information was collected for the watershed as well as detailed information near the Mannheim East, Mannheim West and New Dundee well fields to assess whether these wells extracted groundwater under the influence of surface water (GUDI). Although the Alder Creek Model was based on the same geologic (well log) data set as the Waterloo Moraine Model, the grid spacing was smaller nearer the supply wells since the total area of the model was less than in full domain models and the calibration data set was larger and recent due to the additional data collected. A reliable water balance was produced for the area that rectified recharge concerns identified in previous models. Recharge distribution and rates for the Alder Creek model were established iteratively in conjunction with the GRCA’s GAWSER hydrologic surface water model. The initial rates were established for response units from a highly discretized GAWSER subdomain model for Alder Creek using surficial geology and Landsat imagery. The values were adjusted during the model calibration process. In addition, higher recharge values were applied for closed basins that represent catchments without direct surface water outlets which create additional depression storage and increased infiltration of precipitation to the water table. One potential weakness with the model is that the no- flow boundary on eastern side of model may be too close to the wells and may artificially constrain groundwater flow and capture zone predictions. The authors state that this should not be a problem since a natural divide occurs in this area due to other pumping wells and that Aquifer 1 pinches out in this location. The other discrepancy with this model is that the pumping rates for some wells were substantially lower than for the other models because predicted future pumping rates were not used in the particle tracking simulations. Additional modeling results were performed at higher pumping rates to ensure consistency with previous modeling. (S.S. Papadopolous, 2004). A 103 Wilmot Well Field The capture zone envelopes for this well field were based on the Wilmot subdomain model (high weight), the WMM (low weight) and the UW-Frind model (low weight). The Wilmot subdomain model incorporates the best hydrogeologic data and calibration, except that it includes a hypothetical gravel channel extending to the west. Subsequent analysis suggests that this gravel channel is too exaggerated in the subdomain model, therefore the western extent of the capture zones in the subdomain model likely is exaggerated (P. Martin). The capture zone envelopes minimized this western extent. The other two models (WMM and UW) do not have as detailed a calibration at this well field. These models apparently set a high hydraulic conductivity in Aquifer 1 to the north of the well field, therefore the northern (upgradient) extents of the two- year and ten-year particle tracks for the WMM and UW models are likely too great. A velocity check was done on the final capture zone envelopes, and the northern extents of the two-year and ten- year envelopes are consistent with an aquifer hydraulic conductivity of approximately 3 x 10 -3 m/s. The UW and WMM models incorporate an even higher aquifer hydraulic conductivity in this area, which is unrealistically high as an average hydraulic conductivity for these areas north of the well field. (This area was noted to be at the upper bound set for Aquifer 1 in the base case simulation of the WMM). Boundary condition limitations are not a significant concern for the Wilmot subdomain model, based on interpretation of all model results. It is noted that, for the ten-year case, the UW-Frind capture zone extends much farther north than the UW-LTG capture zone. This is not the case for the two-year or the 40-year cases. The reason for this is not know, but may be an unrealistically high aquifer hydraulic conductivity in a relatively thin layer, in an area to the north of the two- year capture zone extent. Erb Street Envelopes for this well field were assessed based on the Alder Creek subdomain model. The weighting for this well field is as follows: Alder Creek (high), UW-Frind (moderate) and the WMM (low weight). Comments from the Waterloo Moraine model include that the Erb Street envelopes for ten- year and steady-state capture zones approach and/or surround the smaller St. Agatha capture zone envelope. There is a flow divide in Aquifer 1 between the northern extent of the Wilmot capture zone (ten-year and steady-state) and the western extent of the Erb Street envelope. The Alder Creek model has good calibration to Aquifer 1 recharge rates and realistic flow velocities for this area. The available high-quality geologic and hydrogeologic data for the area surrounding the well field are sparse, therefore there is less certainty for the Erb Street capture zones than for the urban well fields (eg. Greenbrook or Parkway). The Alder Creek- modified final capture zone envelopes for this well field are slightly smaller and do not extend as far to the east as initially delineated. This fact is supported by water level monitoring as the Region’s Erb Street landfill which indicates that the flow divide is west of the landfill property. The capture zone envelopes were not modified based on the Alder Creek model. Mannheim West A potential concern to initial capture zone delineation in the Mannheim area is the assumption of steady state used in the calibration process, which was identified as a factor contributing to the poor calibration and capture zone predictions. Additional water level monitoring conducted for the Region since the initial modeling suggests that water levels have stabilized in this area. Further, the use of increased recharge through closed basins, incorporating more recent A 104 monitoring results, and calibrating more closely with surface water levels as part of the Alder Creek subdomain model has removed this concern. Envelopes for this well field were based on the Alder Creek (high weight), UW-Frind and UWLTG results (medium weight) and the WMM (low weight). The Alder Creek model has the best calibration to Aquifer 1 recharge rates and has realistic flow velocities for this area. The agreement between the UW-Frind and UW-LTG results is good, except in the areas downgradient from the well field, where numerical dispersion may have affected the LTG results. The WMM model has unrealistically high recharge rates for the areas near the Mannheim East and Mannheim West well fields (as described earlier). In addition, the WMM allows an unrealistically high volume of water to recharge Aquifer 1 from Alder Creek (simulated as constant- head nodes). In general, the capture zone for this well field is slightly narrower and extends further to the south west (due to a low hydraulic conductivity constraining flow from the west to K26) following modifications to the capture zones as a result of the Alder Creek modeling. There is an area between the Mannheim and Wilmot wellfields which is not included in the steady-state capture zones for these well fields. This area is located around the intersection of Highway 7 and Regional Road 12. This result is in agreement with the hydrogeological information and conceptual models (WMM and UW), and is due to a lower transmissivity in Aquifer 1 in this area, because the saturated thickness of Aquifer 1 is thin and possibly finegrained. Mannheim East Envelopes for this well field were modified based on the Alder Creek subdomain model. The weightings of the model were as follows: Alder Creek (high), UW-Frind and UW-LTG results (moderate) and the WMM (moderate). The Alder Creek model results have a good calibration. The UW model results indicated an unrealistically high velocity in Aquifer 1 to the northwest (up gradient) of the Mannheim East well field, resulting in the two and ten-year capture zones likely extending too far in the north west direction. (The lengths of the UW-Frind particle tracks for the two and ten-year capture zones correspond to an average hydraulic conductivity of about 6 x 10-3 m/s over a distance of more than two km, which is supported by the hydraulic conductivity distribution map for this area that identifies a high area to the north and west of K21). The agreement between the UW-Frind and UW-LTG results is good, except in the areas down gradient from the well field, where numerical dispersion may have affected the LTG results. Conversely, the WMM model has unrealistically high recharge rates for this area (as described earlier), likely resulting in the capture zones not extending far enough in the northwest direction. A velocity check was done on the initial capture zone envelopes , and the northwestern extents of the two-year and ten- year envelopes are consistent with an aquifer hydraulic conductivity of approximately 7 x 10-4 m/s. This corresponds well with the hydraulic conductivity of Aquifer 1 used in the Alder Creek model. The UW and WMM models incorporate an eve n higher aquifer hydraulic conductivity in this area, which is unrealistically high as an average hydraulic conductivity for these areas north of the well field. The final capture zones generated following updating with the Alder Creek model do not extend as far north as the initial capture zone envelopes and extend further south as a result of the increased hydraulic conductivity in this area. The capture zone envelope also include the results of the modeling for the ASR wells completed by CH2MHILL as part of the Long Term Water Strategy project. This area was calculated using a separate MODFLOW model run in transient A 105 mode and by simulating the injection of water for a period of eight months as the design rate of 4,546 m3/day. Parkway/Strasburg The capture zone envelopes for this well field were based on the Parkway subdomain model (moderate weight), the WMM (high weight) and the UW model (low weight). The Parkway subdomain model incorporates a more realistic boundary condition at the Grand River, to the east of the well field. The subdomain model allows groundwater flow across the river, while the other models treat the Grand River as a no- flow boundary (constant head at the top layer). Conversely, the subdomain model has an artificial constant-head boundary condition to the north of the well field, and the other models extend much farther to the north, providing a more realistic boundary condition in that area. The Parkway subdomain model used the WTC-TRAC particle track method, which is know to underpredict the length of time-of-travel particle tracks (eg. two- year and ten-year but not steady-state). As discussed previously, for the Parkway/Strasburg area the UW model is considered to be less reliable than the WMM models, based on a less complete hydrogeologic data set for the Parkway/Strasburg well field areas. The capture zone envelopes for the Parkway well field included the eastward extent indicated by the subdomain model, and the north and westward extent indicated by the WMM models. The westward extent of the ten-year capture zone envelope for the Strasburg model was equally influenced by the subdomain model and the WMM models. The southern boundary of the Strasburg steady-state capture zone envelope was influenced by the WMM and the UW-Frind results. The UW-LTG results extended further south but may have been subject to numerical dispersion effects in this area, and are less reliable. Boundary effects are not evident in the capture zones for the Strasburg well field in the subdomain, UW, or WMM models. William Street Envelopes for this well field were based on the UW-Frind and UW-LTG results (high weight) and the WMM (low weight). The WMM model apparently has a good calibration to water levels in this area but a less reliable calibration to groundwater flow volumes in this area. Groundwater velocities within the two and ten year capture zone areas may be unrealistically high in the WMM simulations. (This area was noted to be at the upper bound set for Aquifer 2 hydraulic conductivity (average of 1 x 10-3 m/s) in the base case simulation of the WMM). The UW model has more realistic aquifer flow velocities, for this area, due to a lower hydraulic conductivity in Aquifer 2 (average of approximately 5 x 10-4 m/s) and a lower aquifer recharge rate. The agreement between the UW-Frind and UW-LTG results is good, except in the areas downgradient from the well field, where numerical dispersion may have affected the LTG results. The William Street steady-state capture zone envelope includes an area to the northeast of well W4, as defined by the “average” of the UW- LTG and UW-Frind results. Strange Street- Aquifer 2 (K12 and K17) Envelopes for this well field were based on the UW-Frind and UW-LTG results (high weight) and the WMM (low weight). As for the William Street well field, the WMM model apparently has a good calibration to water levels in this area but a less reliable calibration to groundwater flow volumes in this area. Groundwater velocities within the two and ten year capture zone areas may be unrealistically high in the WMM simulations. (This area was noted to be at the upper bound set for Aquifer 2 hydraulic conductivity (average of 1 x 10-3 m/s) in the base case simulation of the WMM). The UW model has more realistic aquifer flow velocities, for this area, due to a lowerhydraulic conductivityin Aquifer 2 (average of approximately 5 x 10-4 m/s) and a lower aquifer recharge rate. The agreement between the UW-Frind and UW-LTG results A 106 is good, except in the areas downgradient from the well field, where numerical dispersion may have affected the LTG results. Strange Street- Aquifer One (K10A, K11, K13, K18) Envelopes for this well field were based on the WMM (high weight) and the WMM UW-Frind and UW-LTG results (low weight). The WMM model apparently has a good calibration to water levels in this area and uses a more accurate calibration data set than the UW model, for this area. The WMM is also more accurate in that it includes simulation of private industrial wells screened in the bedrock near the well field, and the UW model does not simulate the private wells. There is some discrepancy between the UW-Frind and UW- LTG results for the Strange Street well field, notably on the western (upgradient) side of the ten-year capture zone area. This may be due to use of a coarse grid in this area for the LTG calculations. Greenbrook Envelopes for this well field were based primarily on the UW-Frind and UW-LTG results. The UW model included more detailed hydrogeologic information in the area of the Greenbrook well field and was expanded from the Greenbrook Subdomain Model, as discussed previously. In fact, the UW and WMM models provide similar results for this well field for the two and ten year capture zones. The WMM capture zones extend farther to the southwest than the UW capture zones, especially for the steady state case, presumably due to slightly different conceptual models of stratigraphy in this area. Waterloo North W4 Envelopes for this well field were based on the WMM (high weight) and the WMM UW-Frind and UW-LTG results (low weight). The UW model (Frind tracks and LTG) shows a small twoyear and ten- year capture zone for this well, with presumably greater local recharge rates to the aquifer, than are present in the WMM model. ***WHI to check that UW used the correct pumping rate***. The larger capture zones predicted by the WMM seem reasonable and are based on a more documented hydrogeologic interpretation, therefore greater weight was given to the WMM results. The average hydraulic conductivity calculated from the WMM two- year capture zone results is approximately 10-4 m/s, which is reasonable for Aquifer 1 in that area. Both models show a water contribution from Laurel Creek to the aquifer, which is reflected in the two and ten year capture zones for the well. Waterloo North W5 Envelopes for this well field were based on the WMM (moderate weight) and the WMM UWFrind and UW- LTG results (moderate weight). The ten-year capture zone for W5 was the only analysis affe cted by a revision to the Frind particle tracking calculation (Dec. 7, 1999 revised calculations). The revised calculation slightly decreased the extent of the ten- year capture zone in the westerly direction. There was good agreement in the capture zone results between the UW model (Frind tracks and LTG) and the WMM models at this wellfield, except in the steady-state capture zone which extended much farther to the northwest in the UW model (Frind and LTG). Low weight was placed on the UW results for the steady-state capture zones, as there is less certainty regarding the conceptual model details in the UW model for the area northwest of W5. Waterloo North W10 Envelopes for this well field were based on the WMM (moderate weight) and the WMM UWFrind and UW- LTG results (moderate weight). Different conceptual models for this well field in the UW and WMM models resulted in different capture zones between the models (UW- a relatively circular capture zone versus WMM - a more elongate capture zone). The capture zone A 107 envelopes include the results from both interpretations, with outliers removed. High quality hydrogeologic data is sparse for this area, and there is relative uncertainty regarding the detailed conceptual model for the wellfield. A steady-state (“Ultimate”) capture zone envelope was delineated (by TM) for well W10 for use in the Microbial Contamination Control Plan, September 2005. This was done using the same data and principles as the other policy capture zones for this well. Wellesley This wellfield was only included in the WMM calculations. The wellfield is located relatively close to the Nith River boundary of the model. The steady state capture zone for the well field is large (approximately 41 km2 ); this is likely a reflection of the deep and confined nature of the municipal aquifer, but also may be an artifact from the no- flow boundary condition used at the River. The “equivalent recharge” to the aquifer over the steady state capture zone area is approximately 2 cm/yr, which may be appropriate. The WMM does not incorporate detailed hydrogeological information at this well field and a more specific conceptual model in this area would provide more confidence in the capture zone envelopes for this wellfield. Foxboro Green This wellfield was only included in the WMM calculations. The ten- year and steady-state capture zones show the influence of the regional flow direction (northeast to southwest, toward the Nith River). The steady state capture zone for the well field is approximately 3.7 km2 . The “equivalent recharge” to the aquifer over the steady state capture zone area is approximately 1 cm/yr, which may be appropriate for the bedrock aquifer in this area. The WMM does not incorporate detailed hydrogeological information at this well field and a more specific conceptual model in this area would provide more confidence in the capture zone envelopes for this wellfield. Saint Agatha Envelopes for this well field were based on the UW-Frind results (High weight) and the WMM (low weight). As stated previously for the Erb Street Wellfield, the UW model apparently has the best calibration to Aquifer 1 recharge rates and the most realistic flow velocities, for this area. The available high-quality geologic and hydrogeologic data for the area surrounding the well field are sparse, therefore there is less certainty for the Saint Agatha capture zone envelopes. The Erb Street envelopes for ten-year and steady-state surround the smaller St. Agatha capture zone envelope. The envelopes for this well field were not modified using the Alder Creek model as the pathlines were within the envelope generated using the above mentioned models. New Dundee This wellfield was only included in the WMM and Alder Creek models with the Alder Creek results weighted high and the WMM results weighed moderate. The capture zone predicted by the WMM is elongate and heavily influenced by the regional groundwater flow system. The New Dundee wells produce from a deeper aquifer which is primarily recharged in the Moraine area to the northwest. The elongate steady-state capture zone reflects this situation. The New Dundee two and ten- year capture zones were relatively sensitive to variations in the local flow system produced by the three scenarios in the WMM. The Alder Creek model used recent and detailed hydrogeologic information at this well field and the two- year and ten-year capture zones from this model are also elongate. The final capture zones for this well are slightly narrower than that delineated initially. A 108 Roseville This wellfield was only included in the WMM calculations. The steady-state capture zone shows the influence of the regional flow direction (northwest to southeast). The two- year and ten-year capture zones are small, reflecting the relatively low pumping rates and the productivity of the aquifers at this well field. Saint Clements and Heidelberg These wellfields were only included in the WMM calculations. The steady-state capture zones from each well field overlap in one area. (Note that the Saint Clements wellfield extracts from Aquifer 1 and the Heidelberg wellfield extracts from Aquifer 3.) The Saint Clements steadystate capture zone includes an extension to the southeast, which was represented in all three WMM scenarios. The WMM does not incorporate detailed hydrogeological information at these well fields and a more specific conceptual model in this area would provide more confidence in the capture zone envelopes. The steady-state capture zone area for the Saint Clements well field is 0.7 km2 ; this corresponds to an “equivalent recharge” to the aquifer of 36 cm/yr over this area. This recharge value may be too large; further examination of surface recharge in this area would provide more confidence in the capture zone envelopes for this wellfield. In the steady-state case, some of the particles backward tracking from the Heidelberg wells do not move beyond Aquitard 2 (the Maryhill Till, represented as Layer 8 in the WMM) and this may indicate very low leakage rates from Aquitard 2 in this area. The steady-state capture zone area for the Heidelberg well field is 6.5 km2 ; this corresponds to an “equivalent recharge” to the aquifer of less than 10 cm/yr over this area, which seems reasonable for Aquifer 3. Steady-State Capture Zone One steady-state capture zone envelope has been defined for all the wells excluding the Heidelberg, Saint Clements, Wellesley, and Foxboro Green wells. The area of this capture zone is approximately 170 km2 . The “equivalent” recharge to the aquifers ove r this area is approximately 23 cm/yr, which seems reasonable. MODELING REFERENCES Alder Creek Groundwater Study Final Report. CH2MHILL and S.S. Papadopulos & Associates Inc. March 2003. Delineation of Well Field Capture Zones within the Waterloo Moraine. Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. September 2000. Detailed Delineation of Capture Zones Greenbrook Well Field Kitchener, Ontario. Gartner Lee Limited, et. al. December 1998. Methodologies For Capture Zone Delineation for the Waterloo Morine Well Fields. Dawood Shahid Muhammad. University of Waterloo unpublished thesis. 2000. Nitrate Migration Control Feasibility Study. Stantec Inc and Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. April 1999. Study of the Hydrogeology of the Parkway Area (Appendix I). Terraqua Investigations Limited and Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. October 1998. Frind, E.O., D.S. Muhammad, and J.W. Molson, 2002. Delineation of Three-Dimensional Well Capture Zones for Complex Multi-Aquifer Systems. Groundwater, V 40, No. 6. December 2002. (RMOW DOCS 249345) S.S. Papadopulos & Associates Inc., Revised Capture Zone Analyses for Wells in the Alder Creek Study Area Complete Results for Mannheim Wellfields. Letter Report to E. Hodgins, Regional Municipality of Waterloo. February 14, 2004. A 109 APPENDIX 5: Well Sensitivity Scoring and Schematic Illustration of Vulnerability Method A 110 Well Field Vulnerability To Point Sources of Contamination Within 10 Year Time-Of-Travel Wellfield Kitchener/ Waterloo Erb St Greenbrook Lower Strange St Upper Strange St Mannheim East Mannheim West Parkway Pompeii/Forwell Woolner Strasburg Waterloo N William St Cambridge Shades Mill (G7/G8) Shades Mill (G38/G39) Elgin Street Pinebush (P10, P11/P17) Pinebush ( P9/P15) Pinebush (G5) Dunbar Groundwater Occurrence Overall Lithology of Aquitard Fissure/ Description Attenuation Value Depth To Groundwater (m) Subscore Description Value Vulnerability Region Importance Descrip Vol. Treatment Value -tion (L/s) % Rating $ Source of Data Description Value confined semi-confined to unconfined semi-confined to unconfined semi-confined to unconfined unconfined to unconfined (covered) unconfined to unconfined (covered) semi-confined to unconfined (covered) unconfined unconfined (covered) semi-confined to unconfined semi-confined to unconfined (covered) semi-confined to unconfined (covered) 0.2 till A 0.4 0.08 20 - 50 0.6 0.048 low 170 7.5 - medium Moraine/PreI 0.7 till to glacial/fluvial A 0.6 0.42 30 - 50 0.6 0.252 low 100 4.4 3.2M medium Greenbrook 0.7 till to glacial/fluvial A 0.6 0.42 10 - 20 0.7 0.294 high 110 4.8 ~3.6M medium Moraine/PreI 0.7 till to glacial/fluvial A 0.6 0.42 20 - 50 0.6 0.252 low 0.9 glacial/fluvial A 0.7 0.63 10 - 20 0.7 0.441 high high Moraine/PreI 0.9 glacial/fluvial A 0.7 0.63 10 - 20 0.7 0.441 high 0.6 1 0.9 till to glacial/fluvial glacial/fluvial till to glacial/fluvial A A A 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.36 0.7 0.54 20 - 50 3 - 10 3 - 10 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.216 0.560 0.432 low high high 135 170 0.7 till to glacial/fluvial A 0.6 0.42 20 - 50 0.6 0.252 low 0.6 till to glacial/fluvial A 0.6 0.36 5 - 10 0.8 0.288 0.6 till to glacial/fluvial A 0.6 0.36 10 - 20 0.7 unconfined (covered) 0.7 clay poor till A 0.6 0.42 5 - 10 unconfined unconfined (covered) 0.9 0.7 glacial/fluvial till, glacial/fluvial A A 0.7 0.6 0.63 0.42 confined 0.2 till A 0.4 semi confined unconfined (covered) 0.4 0.8 A A unconfined (covered) 0.8 till,glacial/fluvial glacial/fluvial glacial/fluvial, limestone F 455 19.9 110.9M Moraine/PreI 5.9 reservoir medium 7.5 ~25.8M medium Parkway Lotowater Lotowater 48 2.1 ~2.5M medium Parkway low 10 0.4 - medium PreI 0.252 low 74 2281 0.8 0.336 high 5 - 10 20 - 50 0.8 0.6 0.504 0.252 0.08 30 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.24 0.56 30 10 - 20 0.8 0.64 10 - 20 3.2 reservoir medium William St 36 1.6 4.3M medium CAM high low 114 29 5.0 1.3 - medium medium CAM CAM 0.048 low 68 3.0 4.5M medium CAM 0.6 0.7 0.144 0.392 low high 71 27 3.1 reservoir medium 1.2 medium CAM CAM 0.7 0.448 high 18 0.8 CAM - medium A 111 Wellfield Fountain St Willard Blair Rd Clemmens Mill Hespeler Middleton Rural Ayr Baden Branchton Conestogo Golf Club Conestogo Plains E10 Foxborough Heidelberg Linwood Maryhill New Dundee New Hamburg Roseville St Agatha St Clements Wellesley West Montrose Wilmot Centre Groundwater Occurrence Description confined semi-confined to unconfined semi-confined to unconfined (covered) confined semi confined semi-confined to unconfined Overall Lithology of Aquitard Fissure/ Value Description Attenuation Value 0.2 till AA 0.4 glacial/fluvial,limest 0.7 F 0.8 one glacial/fluvial,limest 0.6 F 0.8 one 0.2 till/limestone A,F 0.7 0.4 till/limestone A,F 0.7 glacial/fluvial,limest 0.7 F 0.8 one Depth To Groundwater (m) Subscore 0.08 Description Value 40 0.6 Vulnerability Region Importance Descrip Vol. Treatment Value -tion (L/s) % Rating $ 0.048 low 10 0.4 medium Source of Data CAM 0.56 20 - 50 0.6 0.336 high 36 1.6 - medium CAM 0.48 0.14 0.28 20 - 50 20 - 50 10 - 20 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.288 0.084 0.196 high low low 18 83 25 0.8 3.6 1.1 4.5M medium medium medium CAM CAM CAM 0.56 20 - 50 0.6 0.336 high 387 17.0 2281 7.3M high MSWF 1.0M - high low high PREII Moraine PREII high high low high high high high high high high high high high high high PREII PREII PREII PREII PREII PREII PREII PREII PREII PREII PREII PREII PREII PREII Moraine confined semi-confined confined 0.2 0.4 0.2 till till till AA AA AA 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 50 10 - 20 20 - 50 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.060 0.140 0.060 low low low - - unconfined confined semi-confined confined confined confined confined semi-confined confined semi-confined confined unconfined confined unconfined confined 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.2 glacial/fluvial till till till till till till till till till till glacial/fluvial till glacial/fluvial till A AA A AA AA AA AA AA AA A A A A A A 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.63 0.1 0.24 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.24 0.08 0.63 0.08 0.63 0.08 5 - 10 25 40 45 60 60 20 - 50 20 - 50 30 15 - 20 20 - 50 2-5 20 - 50 2-5 20 - 50 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.504 0.060 0.144 0.060 0.050 0.050 0.060 0.120 0.060 0.120 0.048 0.567 0.048 0.567 0.048 high low low low low low low low low low low high low high low 87 300K 60K 200K 50K 350K see WC 680K 160K 1.9M 1.7M 180K 3.8 ~5.3M Notes: Where aquitard lithology varied, a mid-point ranking value was used. Vulnerability ranking is the product of the groundwater occurrence, overall lithology and depth to groundwater values. Volume calculations refer to January 1999 LTWS best estimates. Volume estimates are not provided for small rural systems. These systems have a high importance to the Region because they are sole source supplies. Treatment costs primarily refer to recent water treatment plant construction costs but may include some costs for reservoir upgrades. ~ Refers to projected future costs. A 112 APPENDIX 6: Description of Procedures Used to Compile Well-specific Threat Inventories (WESA, March 2005) Threats Ranked as High Known Contamina tion • Source is Urban CSI as per Memo from Donna Clarkson, March 2, 2005 • KK and KD added to give the number of sites in each Sensitivity area • All are considered to be High risk Septic Systems • Sum of properties zoned as agriculture (i.e. assumed to be farms), rural residences outside a rural community and rural residences inside a rural community • Properties where a communal septic system is known to exist were not included in the total of rural residence inside rural community • Cautionary note is that not all properties that are zoned agriculture have a septic system but have been included in the total count of number of agricultural properties. For example the property zoned agriculture at Waterloo North (W5) in the 10 Year TOT is included in the count but it is known that this property does not have a septic system. Pipelines and Sewers • Length in km of oil and gas pipelines within any given WHPA were taken from the land use maps provided by Eric Hodgins the week of March 14, 2005 Road and Private Property Deicing • Road and street network are divided into three different categories - main Provincial highways, main artery and county roads and side streets in residential areas • It is assumed that deicing materials such as salt is applied at a different rate and frequency in each of these categories • Sum of the length of each of these types is added up within each of the WHPA in the Region NOTE: This is currently being completed Nutrient Application (Commercial Fertilizers and Manure) • The 2001 Census of Agricultural provides data on the number of hectares that receive commercial fertilizer on a Consolidated Census Subdivision (CCS) basis which includes North Dumfries, Cambridge, Kitchener, Wilmot, Wellesley and Woolwich. It should be noted that due to confidentiality issues Waterloo is combined with Kitchener • The 2001 Census of Agriculture provides data on the number of hectares that receive manure using a solid spreader, an irrigation system, a liquid spreader on surface and a liquid spreader injected. It was assumed that land would receive manure by one method only so the total number of hectares receiving manure in a given CCS is the sum of the hectares receiving manure by all methods in that CCS • The percent of land receiving commercial fertilizer or manure in a given CCS was then calculated by dividing the total hectares by the total hectares in crops as it was assumed that the commercial fertilizer and manure would only be applied on crop land A 113 • This percentage was applied to the total area zoned as agriculture within each Sensitivity area as provided by Eric Hodgins in two Excel files - Property Codes and Land Use by Sensitivity Area (March 15, 2005) NOTE: The total area zoned as agriculture within each Sensitivity area was determined by subtracting the inner Sensitivity area from the outer Sensitivity area (i.e. the “Donut” and “Timbit” analogy) Biosolids Application • Only available in the Detailed Rural CSI done by well not by well field Agricultural Chemical Application • The 2001 Census of Agricultural provides data on the number of hectares that receive herbicides, pesticides and fungicides on a Consolidated Census Subdivision (CCS) basis which includes North Dumfries, Cambridge, Kitchener, Wilmot, Wellesley and Woolwich. It should be noted that due to confidentiality issues Waterloo is combined with Kitchener • Each of these chemicals are not necessarily used on a mutually exclusive basis (i.e. some land may receive only one or all of these chemicals) • The percent of land receiving each of these agricultural chemicals in a given CCS was then calculated by dividing the total hectares by the total hectares in crops as it was assumed that the chemicals would only be applied on crop land • This percentage was applied to the total area zoned as agriculture within each Sensitivity area as provided by Eric Hodgins in two Excel files - Property Codes and Land Use by Sensitivity Area (March 15, 2005) NOTE: The total area zoned as agriculture within each Sensitivity area was determined by subtracting the inner Sensitivity area from the outer Sensitivity area (i.e. the “Donut” and “Timbit” analogy) Impervious Covers • The amount of impervious cover within a given WHPA was qualitatively determined as High, Medium or Low as per the land use maps provided by Eric Hodgins the week of March 14, 2005. Areas zoned as residential, industrial or commercial were assumed to have a significant amount of impervious cover • The category of High amount of impervious cover was further subdivided into Urban High (UH), Industrial High (IH), Commercial High (CH) and Rural High (RH) since it was assumed that the density of impermeable cover in each of these zoning categories would be different Threats Ranked as Medium Fuel Storage and Handling • Source is Urban CSI as per Memo from Donna Clarkson, March 2, 2005 • PF and PSF added to give the number of sites in each Sensitivity area • Number of sites is qualified as being High, Medium or Low risk Chemical Storage and Handling • Source is Urban CSI as per Memo from Donna Clarkson, March 2, 2005 A 114 • • PD and PSD added to give the number of sites in each Sensitivity area Number of sites is qualified as being High, Medium or Low risk Waste Product Storage and Handling • Source is Urban CSI as per Memo from Donna Clarkson, March 2, 2005 • PM and PSM added to give the number of sites in each Sensitivity area • Number of sites is qualified as being High, Medium or Low risk Application of Lawn Chemicals • The total area where lawn chemicals are being applied is assumed to be equal to the total area zoned as residential within each Sensitivity area as provided by Eric Hodgins in two Excel files - Property Codes and Land Use by Sensitivity Area (March 15, 2005) NOTE: The total area zoned as residential within each Sensitivity area was determined by subtracting the inner Sensitivity area from the outer Sensitivity area (i.e. the “Donut” and “Timbit” analogy) Golf Course Turf Care • The number of golf courses found in each Sensitivity area was determined as per the Region’s on- line GIS Locator and as per the land use maps provided by Eric Hodgins the week of March 14, 2005 Airport Deicing and Refueling Operations • The number of airports in each Sensitivity area was determined as per the Region’s online GIS Locator and as per the land use maps provided by Eric Hodgins the week of March 14, 2005 Livestock Management/ Manure Storage • Manure storage in each Sensitivity area was assumed to be the same as the number of livestock operations in each Sensitivity area • The number of livestock operations in each area was determined as per the Rural CSI completed as part of the WRPSUP (2004). • The Rural CSI provided the number and location of a livestock operation by noting the location of Dairy Operations as per GIS data provided by Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) and locations of wells noted as having the primary or secondary use as livestock Aggregate Extraction (Potential and Existing) • Two categories within the threat from aggregate extraction are presented • Potential aggregate extraction as per the Region’s GIS data. The total number of hectares of potential aggregate extraction was visually estimated in each Sensitivity area where potential aggregates existed by estimating what percentage of the Sensitivity area is covered by potential aggregates • Number of licensed aggregate extraction areas both above and below the water table within each Sensitivity area was provided in the form of a map from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) published 2005 Wastewater Discharges • Not available A 115 APPENDIX 7: Distribution of Land Uses by Region Property Code for Each Wellfield and Land Use Code Table A 117 A 118 A 119 A 120 A 121 A 122 A 123 A 124 A 125 A 126 A 127 A 128 A 129 A 130 A 131 A 132 A 133 A 134 A 135 A 136 A 137 A 138 A 139 APPENDIX 8: Detailed Description of Criteria Used to Score Threats A number of criteria were used to rank threats for which risk mitigation tools will be developed. The following presents each criterion, the meaning of the criteria and a description of how it was interpreted. Please note that the criteria may apply differently to surface water and groundwater and so it is necessary to cons ider the threat to each source separately. Also note that the threat is assessed at a site specific scale unless stated otherwise. Water Quantity and Quality The threats to drinking water supplies have the potential to affect either the quantity of water or the quality of that water but not usually both. There are a few threats that have the potential of affecting both the quantity and quality. Quantity is measured by the actual amount of water that is or could be affected. The quality impact will be measured by the potential health impacts from drinking water that result or could result from the threat. Both of these issues are described further below. Quantity of Impact This criterion is based on the amount of water that is impacted or could potentially be impacted by the threat. Much more water would be impacted by a threat that affects an entire watershed or subwatershed than a threat that affects one domestic supply well or a small creek. Score 0 1 3 5 Description Not applicable. There is no water quantity associated with the threat. The amount of water impacted is at a local scale - one property (i.e. a private domestic well or a small creek). The amount of water impacted is at the WHPA scale (i.e. a municipal well or a surface water intake for a municipal supply). The amount of water impacted is regionally extensive (i.e. a watershed or subwatershed). Health Impact This criterion is based on the potential health impact associated with a threat and usually the main chemical tha t is associated with the threat. Chemicals that affect the aesthetic aspects (colour, odour or taste) of the water supply usually have a relatively high ODWS. For example, chloride (associated with road salt) has an ODWS criterion of 250 mg/L because the parameter is not health related. Other chemicals have lower ODWS criteria because they potentially may cause chronic health impacts. The chemicals that cause the chronic impacts will have differing ODWS criteria with some of the criteria based on the bio accumulation potential. Some compounds can have immediate acute effects to humans or the environment (pathogens or bacteria). A 140 Score 0 1 2 3 4 5 Description No chemical associated with the threat. Aesthetic concern with no health related ODWS (i.e. salt – 250 mg/L)) Chronic concern with relatively moderate, health related ODWS (i.e. nitrates – 10 mg/L) Chronic concern with low health related ODWS (i.e. most chlorinated solvents). Synthetic organic compounds – persistent or bioaccumulation (i.e. PCBs) Pathogens/Bacteria Probability of Impact The probability of impact is a measure of the ability of the threat to have an impact on water supply. The probability (low, moderate or high) would be based on how the threat or the chemical associated with the threat is introduced to the groundwater or surface water at a level of concern. For example, salt applied directly to the ground surface will have a much higher probability of impacting groundwater than a spill on a road surface which would likely be noticed, reported, and cleaned up. The probability criterion also partially addresses the quantity of chemicals that may be released, stored or used. If small volumes of chemicals are used at a site (and the definition of small will vary depending on the type of chemical), then the probability of impact at a level of concern would be less than the probability of impact from a large tank farm. Score 1 3 5 Description Low – threat or chemical is not applied directly to the groundwater or surface water Moderate – threat or chemical is inadvertently applied to the groundwater or surface water High – threat or chemical is applied directly to the groundwater or surface water Nature of Source The source of the threat could determine the degree of impact to the groundwater or surface water. Point sources are specific, small sources (from an area perspective) that are limited to one property. Corridor sources would be linear features such as along roads or transmission lines. Non-point sources would cover a larger surface area than point sources and may relate to the cumulative effect of multiple sources. Score 1 3 5 Description Point source. Corridor source. Non-point source. A 141 Uncertainty This criterion accounts for uncertainties or known gaps associated with the location of the threat, the route or travel path the threat would take to impact the water supply and the chemical properties associated with the threat. In general, a high level of uncertainty should score higher since there is more unknown about this threat. Specific issues with this criterion include: • • • Score 5 3 1 The location of the threat accounts for how much is known about the source of threat – low, moderate of high amount of knowledge. For some threats or the chemicals associated with the threat, the behaviour of the chemical in the subsurface or surface water associated with the threat are well understood. This pathway or the travel path that the chemical takes to reach the water supply would have a moderate or high certainty . However, for some threats the extent of knowledge on the travel path is limited (low) and more research or practical understanding would be required to more fully evaluate. The chemical properties that may have the health consequences associated with the threat may or may not be well understood. Again the uncertainty on the chemical properties would be low, moderate or high. Description Location – low Travel Path – low Chemical Properties - low Location – moderate Travel Path – moderate Che mical Properties - moderate Location – high Travel Path – high Chemical Properties - high Both groundwater and surface water resources must be protected. However, the threats may score differently depending on whether the actual or potential impact is groundwater or surface water. The study’s Project Team has used this scoring system to evaluate the threats from both a groundwater and surface water perspective by assigning different scores to each threat. The results of this preliminary scoring are shown in Table A8-1. A 142 Table A8-1 Quantity of Impact Health Impact Probability of Impact Nature of Source Uncertainty Groundwater Score Surface Water Score Groundwater Surface Water Groundwater Surface Water Groundwater Surface Water Groundwater Surface Water Groundwater Surface Water Groundwater Qualitative Surface Water Qualitative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 0 5 3 3 4 1 4 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 13 11 11 13 10 H M M H M 12 10 10 12 4 M M M M L Landfills Waste product storage and disposal Application of lawn care chemicals Pipelines/sewers Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 2 4 2 3 4 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 2 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 13 12 11 13 10 H M M H M 13 11 11 13 9 H M M H L Golf course turf care Grading/excavating (roads, development) Stormwater management ponds Road deicing Airport deicing and refueling operations 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 4 0 2 1 3 4 0 2 1 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 1 5 2 2 3 1 5 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 3 11 8 9 13 11 M L L H M 11 8 9 13 11 M L L H M Livestock management (manure storage) Nutrient application Biosolids application Agricultural chemical application Aggregate extraction 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 2 4 3 5 2 2 4 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 4 4 3 3 1 5 5 5 2 1 5 5 5 2 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 12 14 15 14 11 M H H H M 12 14 14 14 13 M H H H H Woodlot/tree removal Erosion (natural and construction) Wastewater discharges Impervious cover (development) Water taking (PTTW) 1 0 0 3 3 1 0 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 1 1 1 3 5 2 2 5 3 5 2 0 0 5 2 2 2 1 5 2 0 0 2 2 4 3 3 3 2 4 5 1 3 13 14 L L L H H 9 8 18 13 14 L L H H H Transient water taking Water injection Closed loop water circulation systems 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 3 2 0 2 0 3 5 1 3 3 1 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 11 12 5 M M L 9 9 3 L L L Threat Known contamination Fuel storage and handling Chemical storage and handling Septic systems Well abandonment A 143 APPENDIX 9: Rationale and Description of the Implementation Options for Specific Threats The following provides additional details on the selected options for each threat identified in Table 1. Each threat and implementation option discussed below follow that listed in Table 1 and are listed from high risk to medium risk. The implementation option are not listed by priority or preference. Qualitatively High Risk Threats Known Contamination • Environmental Protection Act (EPA) is in place to address contaminants moving off properties. • Program effectiveness considered low as it is reactive in nature, and addressed on a site by site basis only. • Some planning tools may be available in the future potentially associated with new municipal tools requested through the provincial source protection legislation. • Municipal infrastructure tools could include monitoring of the contamination and treatment options at the municipal well head. Septic Systems • Systems approved through building permit process. • Program effectiveness is considered low as there is no requirement for septic system maintenance after construction. • BMP, monitoring studies, education can all be used to prolong the effectiveness and proper function of a septic system and therefore reduce the impact on drinking water supplies. • Planning can be used as a tool to prevent development where septic systems would be the only option to deal with waste water. Planning could also require higher levels of treatment e.g. nitrate removal in vulnerable areas. Landfills • Highly regulated: Certificate of Approval (C of A) process through the MOE • Siting of new landfills a concern for the future: could be addressed through Planning • No action required at this time Pipelines/sewers • Partially controlled (installation/maintenance) through the Environment Assessment (EA) process • Key concerns include leaks and maintenance issues • Land purchase/easement, and regulations/by laws have been eliminated as an implementation option as they would not reduce the risk from the threat • Municipal infrastructure in the form of increased maintenance and siting would be one suitable implementation option to avoid spills and subsequent impact on water supplies • BMP and education to maintain the pipelines/sewers would be a suitable implementation option to reduce impacts from leaks and spills • Planning would allow the Region to avoid having new pipelines/ sewers in vulnerable areas A 145 Road deicing • This threat is partially controlled through voluntary reduction in salt application and therefore low in effectiveness • Concerns include imple mentation challenges with voluntary reduction as well as being able to track actual application rates • Implementation options differentiate between municipal and private road deicing • For the municipal sector one implementation option is to lobby for provincial regulations that address road deicing in vulnerable areas as it is within provincial jurisdiction to regulate • Voluntary BMP efforts continue to be an implementation option for both municipal and private applicators • Education could be an option for private applicators particularly as it relates to relative location to Well Head Protection Areas (WHPA) and potential impacts on local drinking water supplies • Specific WHPA could benefit from monitoring and studies associated with new roads or road upgrades as it would allow for early detection of impacts from nearby road deicing • Land purchase/easement has been eliminated as an option as it would not reduce the threat, roads would still need to be deiced Nutrient application • This threat refers to nutrients from manure and synthetic fertilizers as defined under the Nutrient Management Act (NMA) • The current regulation under the NMA will only apply (or applies) to a limited number of farms so concerns include run-off, application rates and enforcement of recommended application rates for the vast majority of farms • Current voluntary programs exist such as the Rural Water Quality Program (RWQP) is administered through the GRCA and supported by the Region • As the vast majority of farms are still only subject to voluntary measures and BMP the programs in place have limited effectiveness • The Region currently does not have any nutrient management by- laws so one available implementation option includes regulation in the form of a by- law • Education and BMP continue to be available implementation tools particularly as they relate to source water protection • For particularly sensitive or vulnerable areas land purchase/ easements might also be an option • Municipal infrastructure in the form of treatment of the water supply was eliminated as a potential tool due to high cost and potential limits in effectiveness under certain circumstances Biosolids application • Biosolids application is controlled under a Certificate of Approval (C of A) process through the MOE: Each municipality also has a contract for a company to apply biosolids as agricultural fertilizer • As with nutrient application, concerns include run-off, application rates and enforcement of recommended application rates • An additional concern includes the unknown chemicals above and beyond the nutrient value of the biosolids being applied • The existing program in place is considered to have a low effectiveness due to the lack of control and enforcement A 146 • • • • • Implementation options include municipal infrastructure in the form of applicator contract requirements Planning can also be used as a tool by excluding certain areas from receiving biosolids – legal ability of this tool requires further investigation Another tool is the education of the receivers to be made aware of the relative location of the nearest WHPA as well as the recommendations associated with biosolids Land purchase/ easement may also be an implementation option to consider should the voluntary application approach not yield a satisfactory amount of control for the Region or receiver It is recognized that biosolids are to be included in a Nutrient Management Plan and/or Strategy; however, this will only apply to a relatively small number of farms in the Region Agricultural chemical application • This threat is referring to all non- nutrient related chemicals being used and applied on farms in the Region in particular pesticides • Controlled and regulated under Federal and Provincial jurisdictions • Federal agency is the Federal (Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada) which administers the Pest Control Products (CPC) Act that deals with pesticide registration and re-evaluation, human health and safety, environmental impact, value (including efficacy) assessment, alternative strategies and compliance and enforceme nt • MOE is the provincial agency which administers the Pesticide Act and Ontario Regulation 914 that deals with transportation, sale, use, storage and disposal, training, certification and licensing of applicators and vendors, spills and accidents, permits and use restrictions and compliance and enforcement. The MOE classifies all pesticides from Schedule 1 to Schedule 6 based on pesticide characteristics and has specific storage requirements for different classes of pesticides. Certification is required to use or sell some classes of pesticides • Current program effectiveness is considered to be medium as storage, run-off and application rates and methods may or may not be enforced regularly • Voluntary implementation options include education and BMP that may help reduce the risk of spills and adverse impacts • Land purchase/ easement could be an implementation option where surface water bodies or WHPA are particularly vulnerable • Municipal infrastructure was eliminated as a tool since it was determined that neither new wells nor treatment were practical or viable Impervious cover (reduction in recharge from development) • Threat controlled through development approvals on a Regional/ municipal level • Concerns include siting in recharge areas and maintenance to ensure on-going infiltration • Currently the development approvals is deemed low in effectiveness because potential reduction in recharge to groundwater or runoff to surface water is not monitored and there is no way of enforcing or managing any adverse impacts from it • Implementation options include planning where the total area of impervious covers can be controlled to allow sufficient recharge where necessary. Infiltration pond can be required as part of the planning and approvals process • Regulations/ by- laws can also be used as a tool to deal with maintenance of the impervious covers to ensure run-off quality in sensitive areas A 147 • • Education efforts can also be a tool in the form of educating the general public that runoff water quality can potentially impacts adjacent water supplies Municipal infrastructure was eliminated as and option as the only action available to address inadequate water supply from lack of recharge in a given area is to drill a new well in a different location Water taking (PTTW) • The Permit to Take Water (PTTW) program is administered through the MOE • Concerns about this program include the extent of review and mitigation of impacts, evaluating the cumulative effects from a number of takings in an area, and enforcement of the conditions of the permit • Currently this program is considered to be low in effectiveness to address the threat • No action is required at this time as new regulations have been drafted to address many of the program short comings. Qualitatively Medium Ranking Threats Fuel storage and handling • Fuel storage and handling is regulated under the Technical Standards and Safety Act (2000) and is administered by the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) • Under this Act, TSSA regulates fuel suppliers, storage facilities, transport trucks, pipelines, contractors and equipment or appliances that use fuels. They also work to protect the public, the environment and property from fuel-related hazards such as spills, fires and explosions • From the Region’s water protection perspective the concern includes spills in WHPA • The program in place is considered to be of medium effectiveness as it can not completely eliminate the potential impacts from a leaky fuel storage facility and only commercial fuel storages are subject to this regulation: private fuel storage such as that on a farm is not subject to these controls • Implementation options include planning where a prohibition of fuel storage structures could be implemented in particularly sensitive areas such as WHPA or specific capture zones • For privately owned and managed fuel storage BMP and education efforts are also available as implementation options • Municipal infrastructure in the form of re- locating storm sewers could also be an implementation option where existing fuel storage facilities are located near sensitive receptors such as streams and creeks. Treatment at the well head is a further municipal infrastructure option where the contamination has made it into the subsurface • Regulation/ by- laws and land purchase/ easements are eliminated as potential tools since commercial fuel storage is an allowable land use and currently under regulation and private fuel storage is a relatively small concern on a regional scale Chemical storage and handling • This threat is referring to industrial chemicals excluding agricultural chemicals discussed separately • This threat is partially regulated under the Fire Code which has limited applicability as it doesn’t dictate where chemicals can be stored but rather how a specific set of chemicals are stored as it relates to fires • The Fire Code is not the responsibility of any given agency A 148 • • • • • The concern with this threat are spills in a sensitive area The current controls are considered to be low in effectiveness because there is no way of enforcing how and where chemicals are stored on private property Implementation options may include planning in the form of prohibiting certain land uses e.g. only allowing dry industries in vulnerable areas. Planning could also require studies and monitoring before approval as well as requiring BMP and a site plan with contingency measures to be in place as is being piloted in Oxford County Education is another implementation option which might include awareness of nearby WHPA and BMPs Municipal infrastructure could be an implementation option in the form of regular inspections of the storage facilities Waste product storage and disposal • This threat is partially controlled through Federal and Provincial regulations governing transportation and disposal • Concerns of spills still exists however with respect to storage of waste products on private property • The controls in place therefore are considered to be low in effectiveness • Implementation options include planning in the form of prohibiting certain land uses. Planning could also require studies and monitoring before approval as well as requiring BMP and a site plan with contingency measures to be in place • Education is another implementation option which might include awareness of nearby WHPA • Municipal infrastructure could be an implementation option in the form of regular inspections of the storage facilities Application of lawn care chemicals • Application of lawn care chemicals for the purposes of this discussion refer to application on private property excluding agricultural use • As with agriculture there are both Federal and Provincial regulations in place that govern the sale and use of these chemicals • Certification is required to use or sell some classes of pesticides • Current program effectiveness is considered to be low as the chemicals are typically applied in several nearby urban settings, the applicators may change between seasons and storage, run-off and application rates and methods may or may not be enforced regularly • Implementation options that might apply include municipal by-laws, education and BMP • Municipal infrastructure as in end-of-pipe treatment was eliminated as a potential implementation tool Golf course turf care • The threat is currently controlled through an industry driven voluntary code of practice • The voluntary code of practice is considered to have a medium to high level of effectiveness largely driven by economic forces and public pressure • Concerns include application and handling issues which have a limited applicability to groundwater • Potential implementation tools include planning in the form of prohibiting golf courses in certain sensitive areas and requiring studies and monitoring as well as site plans and BMP • Education and BMP are also potential implementation options A 149 • Regulations/ by-laws as well as municipal infrastructure (treatment) were eliminated as tools as they are dealing with threats identified on private property Airport deicing and refueling operations • Federal regulations control this threat • The control is considered to be highly effective in terms of operations and safety of airplanes but may be less effective in addressing the threat of spills and deicing run-off • Since the Region owns the airport lands, municipal infrastructure through contractual requirements with tenants is a potential implementation option • Additional implementation options include BMP and education to tenants relative location of WHPA Livestock management (manure storage) • As it currently stands the threat associated with manure storage is only partially controlled by the Nutrient Management Act (NMA) and its regulation since the NMA regulation currently only applies to a select type of farm operations or scenario • The concern relating to the threat of manure storage at the vast majority of livestock operations is controlled only through voluntary programs and industry initiatives and is therefore considered to have low effectiveness from a water protection policy perspective • The current voluntary programs are administered through GRCA with contributions from the Region and OMAF • Regulation of farms increasing in size through a municipal by –law is a potential implementation tool that the Region is currently exploring • BMP and education continue to be an implementation option • Land purchase/ easements could also be considered in particularly sensitive areas Aggregate extraction • Extraction is licensed and site plans are approved by the MNR. Hydrogeologic studies are required in some circumstances. • The concerns include the review process and enforcement particularly from a cumulative impact perspective • The control measure is considered to be medium in effectiveness for the above stated reason • Implementation tools include BMP and studies, planning in terms of siting aggregate extraction operations, and education on where the major impacts could potentially occur • Municipal infrastructure was eliminated as a potential tools as the only option would be constructing a new well Wastewater discharges • This threat is controlled through a Certificate of Approval (C of A) process in conjunction with a municipal sewer- use by law • This control is administered through the MOE and the Region • Concerns with the control include spills and loadings and as such the control is considered to have a medium effectiveness level • Implementation options includes increased regulation through municipal by- law where criteria could be decreased and pollution prevention could be required • Municipal infrastructure through Region staffing to more closely monitor discharges and potentially activities involving chemicals • BMP and education are also potential implementation tools A 150 Transient water taking • The current control is the Permit to Take Water (PTTW) program administered through the MOE • Concerns about this program include the extent of review and mitigation of impacts, evaluating the cumulative effects from a number of takings in an area, and enforcement of the conditions of the permit • Currently this program is considered to be low in effectiveness to address the threat • No action is required at this time as new regulations have been drafted to address many of the program short comings. Water injection • The current control is the Permit to Take Water (PTTW) program administered through the MOE • Concerns about this program include the extent of review and mitigation of impacts, evaluating the cumulative effects from a number of takings in an area, and enforcement of the conditions of the permit • Currently this program is considered to be low in effectiveness to address the threat • No action is required at this time as new regulations have been drafted to address many of the program short comings. A 151 APPENDIX 10: Description of Criteria Used to Score Risk-Mitigation Tools A number of criteria was used to rank each risk-mitigation tool for each threat. The following presents each criterion, the meaning of the criteria and a description of how it was interpreted. Reduction of Risk This criterion considers the degree of reduction in risk that can be expected to be obtained by the method for a particular threat or threats. Score 0 1 3 5 Description Method provides no reduction of risk and should be eliminated for further consideration for the appropriate threat. Method provides little reduction of risk. Method provides moderate reduction of risk. Method provides high reduction of risk. Implementation Method Availability The availability criterion is based on the technical viability of the method. Methods that are not fully developed, unproven or still in research stages would not score as high as methods that could be implemented immediately. An example of the availability from the current protection strategy is the categorization of land use as legal non-conforming. This is a planning tool that would allow current land uses to be considered legal even though they would not comply with Regional policies. The method is currently available but was not implemented due to concerns from the business community. The tool would rank high for this criterion but would not rank high for other criterion that considers the impact on the business community. Score 1 3 5 Description Method is not available. Method is partially available or will be available shortly. Method is currently available for implementation. Implementation Authority This criterion is based on whose authority the method, be it available or not, could be implemented. Score 1 3 5 Description Provincial authority. City/Township (within the Region) authority. Region of Waterloo authority. Effectiveness – Short-Term The short-term effectiveness of the method could range from low to high. Short-term is not defined as a specific time unit as it could vary depending on the method or the threat under consideration. Preventing the spreading of sewage sludge on some farmers fields tha t are adjacent to a well completed in an unconfined aquifer is an example of short-term effectiveness as improvement in water quality would be in a matter of months. A 153 Score 1 3 5 Description Low short-term effectiveness. Moderate short-term effectiveness. High short-term effectiveness. Effectiveness – Long Term The long-term effectiveness of the method could range from low to high. Long-term is not defined as a specific time unit as it could vary depending on the method or the threat under consideration. Implementation tools that have already been implemented to reduce salt impacts would be considered long term since it will likely require decades to see significant reductions in salt content in some of the Region’s wells. Score 1 3 5 Description Low long-term effectiveness. Moderate long-term effectiveness. High long-term effectiveness. Municipal Cost The capital cost to the Region or the Municipalities within the Region for implementing the method is considered with this criterion. The cost could also include operation or maintenance costs if associated with the method. A low cost option would educational efforts on groundwater protection whereas major upgrades of water treatment plants would be a high cost option. Score 1 3 5 Description High cost. Moderate cost. Low cost. Staff Resources This criterion considers the extent of Region (or in some cases other municipal) staff resources to implement the method. For example, implementing the Business Water Quality Program would have taken high staff resources and was therefore completed using an outside agency to minimize staff time. Score 1 3 5 Description High staff resources are needed to implement this method. Moderate staff resources are required. Low staff resources are required. Landowner Costs Some methods would require capital and/or operational/maintenance costs that would be the responsibility of the landowner. Best management practices implemented by businesses can range in costs but many practices such as reducing chemical storage or purchasing spill kits are considered low cost tools. However, a large capital cost would be incurred if the business had to upgrade or install a waste water treatment plant if sewer by-law criteria would lowered. A 154 Score 1 3 5 Description High cost. Moderate cost. Low cost. Public Acceptance This criterion measures the public’s level of acceptance of the method as determined from consumer research, public open houses, Water Resources Public Liaison Committee input and any other public contact point. The public acceptance could be based on other evaluation criteria such as cost or effectiveness and/or be based on the public’s known or perceived knowledge. Score 1 3 5 Description Public is unwilling to accept the method. Eve n with significant education it is unlikely the public would support this method. Public sees significant issues with the method, but these may be overcome with concerted educational efforts. Public is generally in favour of the method. Flexibility The flexibility criterion measures the ability of the implementation method to be adapted to changes to the threat either up or down. Adaptation could also be influenced by modifications/adjustments to the tool, related methods, priorities or policies. Score 1 3 5 Description Method has little to no flexibility. Method has a moderate amount of flexibility. Method is highly flexible. Proactiveness This criterion assesses the degree to which the method avoids an impact at the drinking water intake. Examples of this criteria are as follows: • • • Score 1 3 5 Zoning is a way to prevent new uses from occurring and avoiding an impact. Use of beneficial management practices is precautionary as it has a high likelihood of reducing the risk but does not avoid it. Responding to spills is a reactive tool and would have a low proactive rating. Description Method is a reaction to an event. Method is precautionary as it may avoid an impact. Method will prevent an impact or an event from occurring. The re sults of the option ranking are presented in Table A10-1. A 155 Staff Resources Landowner Costs Public Acceptance Flexibility Proactiveness Qualitative Option Rank Nutrient application Municipal Cost Road and private property deicing Reduction of Risk - Long-Term Pipelines/ sewers Reduction of Risk - Short-Term Septic systems Implementation Authority Known contamination A Planning (RSC/ Clean-Up/ Monitoring) H H L H H M L H M M Better B Regulation (New Regs??) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? C BMP (Incentives to Clean-Up including TIF) H H L M M H M M H L Good D Monitoring/Study (Petition owner and/or MOE for more action) L L L L H H H M H M Good E Municipal Infrastructure (Municipal monitoring/ Legal Action) H H L M L L L M M L Good A BMP (Incentives for Maintenance, Upgrades and Municipal Connections) H H L M M M M M M M Good B Municipal Infrastructure (Inspection or Monitoring) M M M M M M M H H M Good C Education H H L M H H H H H M Best D Planning (Exclusion/ Specified Type of System/ Monitor System) M M L H H M M H M M Better A Municipal Infrastructure (Maintenance and Upgrades) H H M M L M M M M M Good B Planning (Upgrades or Prohibition) H H H M H M H H M M Best C BMP (Incentives for Private Maintenance and Upgrades) M H L M M M M H H M Good A Regulation (Petition for Municipal Operating Practices) M L L L H H H M H M Good B Regulation (Private Restrictions Under the Municipal Act) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? C BMP (Voluntary Adoption for Municipal) H H L M L M H H H M Better D BMP (Incentives for Private Sector Companies) M H L M M M M H H M Better E Education (Municipal and Private) H H L M H H H H H M Best F Monitoring/Study (Private) L H L M H M M H H M Good A Regulation (NMA) H L M M H H M H L M Good B Planning (By-law) H H M M H M M H L M Better C Education H H L M H H H H H M Best D BMP (Incentive for private) H H L M M M M H H M Better E Land Purchase/Easement H H M M L L H M H M Good Qualitative Threat Rank Program Effectiveness Threat Method Availability TABLE A10-1: Threat, Program Effectiveness & Risk Mitigation Tool Ranking H H H H H L L L L L Option A-156 Staff Resources Landowner Costs Public Acceptance Flexibility Proactiveness Municipal Infrastructure (Applicator contracts requiring BMP) H H M M H H H H H M Best H H H M M L B Planning (Upgrades or Prohibition) H H H M H M M H L H Best C Education (Receiver and Applicator) H H L M H H H H H M Best D Land Purchase/Easement H H L M L M H M H M Good M A Education H H L M H H H H H M Best B BMP (Incentives for private) H H L M M M M H H M Better C Land Purchase/Easement H H L M L M H M H M Good L A Planning (Impervious Cover Limits) H H M M H M H H M M Better B Education H H L M H H H H H M Best C Municipal Infrastructure H M L H M M L H H M Better A Planning (Prohibitions and Upgrade Requirements) H H L M H M M H L H Better M B BMP (Incentives for Upgrades and Maintenance) H H L M M M M H H M Better C Municipal Infrastructure (Treatm ent) H H M M L L H L M L Good D Education H H L M H H H H H M Best A Planning (Prohibitions and Upgrade Requirements) H H H H H M M H M H Best L B Regulation (Petition for Licensing) L L M H H M M H H H Better C Education H H L M H H H H H M Best D BMP (Incentives for Upgrades and Maintenance) L H L M M L M M H M Good E Municipal Infrastructure (Inspection) M M M H H M L H H M Better Waste product storage and handling M L A Planning (Prohibitions and Upgrade Requirements) L M H H H M M H H H Best B Education H H L M H H H H H M Best Application of lawn chemicals M L C Municipal Infrastructure (Inspection) M M M H H M L H H M Better A Regulation (Private Restrictions Under Municipal Act) M H M M H M H M M M Better B Education H H L M H H H H H M Best Option Qualitative Option Rank Municipal Cost Chemical storage and handling Reduction of Risk - Long-Term Fuel storage and handling Reduction of Risk - Short-Term Impervious cover Implementation Authority Agricultural chemical application Method Availability Biosolids application A Qualitative Threat Rank Program Effectiveness Threat A 157 Municipal Cost Staff Resources Landowner Costs Public Acceptance Flexibility Proactiveness Qualitative Option Rank Wastewater discharges Reduction of Risk - Long-Term Aggregate extraction Reduction of Risk - Short-Term Livestock management (manure storage) Implementation Authority Airport deicing and refueling operations Method Availability Golf course turf care C BMP (Incentives for Private Sector Companies) H H L M M M M H H M Better A Planning (Prohibitions) H M L M H M H M H M Better B Regulation (Petition for Management Practices) L L M H H H M H H M Better C Education H H L M H H H H H M Best D BMP (Incentives) H H L M M M M H H M Better A BMP (Incentives for Upgrades and Maintenance) H H L M M M M H H M Better B Education H H L M H H H H H M Best C Municipal Infrastructure (Tenant contracts) H H M M H H M H H M Best A Regulation (NMA) H L M M H H M H L M Good B Planning (By-law) H H M M H M M H L M Better C Education H H L M H H H H H M Best D BMP (Incentive for private) H H L M M M M H H M Better E Land Purchase/Easement H H M H L L H M H M Better A BMP (Incentives for Upgrades and Maintenance) H H L M M M M M H M Good B Monitoring/Study (Region Guidelines for Hydrogeological Investigations) H L M M H M M H H M Better C Planning (Prohibitions and "Monitoring/ Study" Requirements) H H M M H M M H M M Better D Education H H L M H H H H H M Best A H L M M H M M H M M Good C Regulation (Stricter Enforcement of CofA Conditions) Municipal Infrastructure (Region to increase monitoring through Sewer Use By-Law) H H L M M M M H H M Better D Education H H L M H H H H H M Best E BMP (Incentives for Upgrades and Maintenance) H H L M M M M H H M Better Qualitative Threat Rank Program Effectiveness Threat M M M M M M/ H H L M M Option A 158 APPENDIX 11: Risk Mitigation Approaches for High and Medium Threats in Well Head Protection Areas Threat: Known Contaminated Sites WPSA2 Protection Area WPSA1 2yr WPSA3 10yr 2yr WPSA 4 Region Wide 10yr Assessment û û û û û û û General (2) - - - - - - ü Detailed assessment (3) ü ü ü SWAT SWAT û û - - - - - - ü - - - - - - ü ü ü ü SWAT SWAT û û ü ü SWAT SWAT SWAT û û - - - - - - ü Hydrogeologic (1) Threat Inventory Policies/Programs To Address Threat Development approvals (contaminated site protocol) and building permits (4) Brownfields redevelopment incentives linked to RGMS Review/Provide Comments on site reports Installation of sentry wells or off-site monitoring wells (5) Education - response to site information requests Notes: WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time RGMS – Regional Growth Management Strategy Program components: ü - part of program; û – not part of program; - - not applicable - (1) – it is not practical to undertake a hydrogeologic assessment at a well scale in order to assess information needs from unknown site (2) – current threat inventory is a tracking list of sites reported to Water Services (3) – detailed assessment would involve a review of site reports against a checklist/priority setting for clean up status and extent of regulatory input (4) – this protocol and building permits requires clean up of properties as a condition of development approvals and is to be modified to reflect recent Brownfields regulations (5) – installation of monitoring wells would be based on results of detailed assessment A 159 Threat: Septic Systems Protection Area Assessment Hydrogeologic GUDI/ 100 m WPSA2 WPSA3 WPSA1 2yr 10yr ü ü SWAT - - ü WPSA 4 Region Wide 2yr 10yr SWAT û û û û - - - - - ü ü û û û û û û ü ü ü û û û û SWAT Education Education û û û û SWAT û û û û û û ü SWAT SWAT SWAT û û û ü û û û û û û Threat Inventory General (1) Detailed assessment Policies/Programs To Address Threat Capture Public Health Building ü Code approval records in Threat Inventory Faulty system Inspection inspection/education (2) Strategic mitigation (e.g. tertiary treatment, connection to SWAT municipal systems, or more treatment at supply well) ROPP policies: Prevent new construction and ü require additional study Require monitoring of ü communal systems Notes: GUDI – the area of a well that is groundwater under direct influence of surface water and is delineated in reference to 50 day time of travel around the well WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û- not part of program; - - not applicable (1) – current threat inventory does not identify urban properties on private septic systems and is limited to rural properties not municipally serviced (2) – program would need involvement of and/or direction from area municipality/building inspectors A 160 Threat: Pipelines and Sewers Protection Area Assessment Hydrogeologic GUDI/ 100 m WPSA1 ü WPSA2 WPSA3 WPSA 4 Region Wide 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr ü SWAT û SWAT û û û - - - - - - - ü ü ü SWAT û SWAT û û û ü SWAT SWAT û ü ü SWAT û û SWAT û û û û û û ü ü SWAT û SWAT û û û ü SWAT û û û û û û Threat Inventory General (1) Detailed assessment Policies/Programs To Address Threat ROPP policies: Prohibit new Develop servicing policies to require upgraded materials to reduce leakage(2) Encourage municipal maintenance and upgrades Incentives for private maintenance and upgrades Notes: GUDI – the area of a well that is groundwater under direct influence of surface water and is delineated in reference to 50 day time of travel around the well WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable (1) – general locations of pipelines corresponds to road network. Need to identify locations of lift/transfer stations (2) – require consideration in EA process for municipal systems. For lift/transfer stations, could also require groundwater monitoring A 161 Threat: Deicing Salt Application WPSA2 WPSA3 WPSA 4 Region Wide û û û - - - ü SWAT SWAT SWAT û û - - - - - ü ü ü ü ü ü x x ü ü ü ü ü x x - - - - - - ü - - - - - - ü - - - - - - ü - - - - - - ü - - - - - - ü WPSA1 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr û û û û - - - ü ü - Protection Area Assessment Hydrogeologic (1) Threat Inventory General (2) Detailed assessment (3) Policies/Programs To Address Threat Road salt reduction programs for municipalities/Region Overall reduction programs and initiatives Sensitive area management plans(4) ROPP policies - additional study requirements and BMPs (5) Require salt management BMPs on Region properties Education Region wide awareness including impacts from water softeners Develop pilots and encourage private property salt reduction plans Encourage municipal adoption of salt management BMPs Notes: WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable (1) - a detailed hydrogeologic assessment is practical to be completed for all the wells in the Region prior to implementing reduction plans (2) – current threat inventory is the road network (3) - for roads, the detailed assessment would be mass loading calculations and assessments for private properties, the detailed assessment would be identification and compilation of business deicing material applications (4) - more aggressive tracking and reduction targets in well head protection areas that have elevated chloride levels (5) - new subdivision applications to undertake chloride impact assessments to meet MOE Reasonable Use criteria and impact of traffic increases on deicing requirements - assess impacts to stormwater management facilities for individual development applications - can require development of salt plans as part of condominium development application. A 162 Threat: Nutrient Application GUDI/ Protection Area WPSA1 100 m Assessment Hydrogeologic WPSA2 WPSA3 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr WPSA 4 Region Wide ü ü SWAT SWAT SWAT û û û ü ü ü - - - - ü SWAT SWAT û û û SWAT SWAT û û û û û SWAT SWAT û û û û û ü - ü - û ü - û û û - - Threat Inventory General (1) Detailed assessment Policies/Programs To Address Threat (2) Strategic land purchase and/or easement (3) Aggressive NMP (existing plus new incentives and marketing Sentry Monitoring Incentive Program (existing RWQP) ü ü ü - - ü Notes: GUDI – the area of a well that is groundwater under direct influence of surface water and is delineated in reference to 50 day time of travel around the well WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time NMP – Nutrient Management Plan RWQP – Rural Water Quality Program Program components: ü - part of program; û – not part of program; “” - not applicable (1) – current threat inventory was updated in 2004 and includes air photo survey and reference to provincial information lists (2) – extent of each program (excluding the RWQP) would be specific to individual wells based on nitrate and bacterial levels (3) – some ground truthing would be required prior to implementing this action A 163 Threat: Municipal Biosolids Protection Area Assessment Hydrogeologic GUDI/ 100 m WPSA1 ü WPSA2 WPSA3 WPSA 4 Region Wide SWAT û û - - - ü SWAT ü SWAT û û SWAT û û û ü ü SWAT ü SWAT û û û û ü SWAT û SWAT û û û 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr ü SWAT SWAT SWAT - - - - ü ü ü ü SWAT ü ü Threat Inventory General (1) Detailed assessment Policies/Programs To Address Threat (2) Strategic land purchase and/or easement (3) Requirements for NMP through Region contractor Council direction to prohibit application Notes: GUDI – the area of a well that is groundwater under direct influence of surface water and is delineated in reference to 50 day time of travel around the well WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time NMP – nutrient management plan Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable (1) – current threat inventory was updated in 2004 and includes air photo survey and reference to provincial information lists (2) – extent of each program (excluding the RWQP) would be specific to individual wells based on nitrate and bacterial levels (3) – some ground truthing would be required prior to implementing this action. Specific details on this approach to be developed as part of the broader Provincial Water Protection Fund project. A 164 Threat: Agricultural Chemical Application WPSA2 Protection Area Assessment Hydrogeologic WPSA3 WPSA 4 Region Wide û û û - - - ü SWAT SWAT û û û û û û û û - ü - - ü û û û WPSA1 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr ü SWAT SWAT SWAT - - - ü ü SWAT ü SWAT ü Threat Inventory General (1) Detailed assessment Policies/Programs To Address Threat (2) Strategic land purchase and/or easement (3) Incentive program (existing RWQP) Sentry well monitoring û Notes: GUDI – the area of a well that is groundwater under direct influence of surface water and is delineated in reference to 50 day time of travel around the well WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable (1) – current threat inventory was updated in 2004 and includes air photo survey and reference to provincial information lists (2) – extent of each program (excluding the RWQP) would be specific to individual wells based on presence in supply or sentry wells (3) – some ground truthing would be required prior to implementing this action A 165 Threat: Impervious Cover Increase WPSA2 Protection Area Assessment Hydrogeologic Identify volume sensitive areas (VSA)(1) WPSA3 WPSA 4 Region Wide WPSA1 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr ü ü ü ü ü û û - - - - - - ü ü ü ü ü ü û û ü ü ü ü ü û û ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü û û û û û û Threat Inventory General (2) Calculate imperviousness for RGMS intensification areas(3) Detailed assessment (4) Policies/Programs To Address Threat(4) ROPP (strategic prohibition/restrictions) (5) Planning approvals/assessment guidelines (6) Research monitoring program (7) Notes: WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable (1) – areas where changes in recharge would substantially affect the volume of water that can be removed from the well (2) – current threat inventory does not identify urban properties on private septic systems and is limited to rural properties not municipally serviced (3) – assess the potential density in urban areas that might result from the Region's Regional Growth Management Strategy (RGMS) and calculate impervious cover density (4) – the extent of these activities would be limited to VSAs (5) – consideration given to have municipalities develop zoning by-laws related to impervious cover limits. (6) results of the assessment could require mitigation strategies such as reduction in the density, add a buffer to prevent individuals from using 100% of ICL to account for post-construction changes, subdivision design, monitoring, and/or education (7) – refers to need to undertake research and monitoring to assess whether reduced recharge actually occurs A 166 Threat: Fuel Storage and Handling WPSA2 Protection Area Assessment Hydrogeologic WPSA3 WPSA 4 Region Wide WPSA1 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr ü û û û û û û - - - - - - ü ü SWAT û SWAT û û û ü SWAT SWAT SWAT û û û ü ü ü ü SWAT û û ü SWAT Education SWAT Education û û ü ü û ü û û û - - - - - - ü Threat Inventory General (1) Detailed assessment Policies/Programs To Address Threat ROPP policies: Prohibition for regulated bulk fuel, retail and accessory use Additional Study requirements, BMPs, and monitoring Inspection/licensing/education (2, 3) Education program for provincial agency to encourage upgrades, monitoring and inspection Incentive program (non-targetted training program) (4) Notes: WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable (1) – current threat inventory does not identify non-regulated (e.g. home heating oil) fuel storage facilities. (2) – most bulk and retail fuel handling activities are regulated at a provincial level and there is limited ability to require additional regulations. (3) – implementing a licensing or inspection program would require additional authority from the province. Inspection/licensing would be limited to most vulnerable areas. Upgrades to management practices or implementing environmental management systems could be requirements of license or enforced under inspection (4) - incentive program would include exploring partnerships with other organizations (e.g. insurance companies) to make implementation more enticing A 167 Threat: Chemical Handling and Storage WPSA2 Protection Area WPSA3 WPSA4 Region Wide SWAT û û - - - ü SWAT SWAT SWAT û û ü ü ü SWAT ü ü ü ü SWAT û û û û ü SWAT Education SWAT Education û û - - - - - - ü - - - - - - ü WPSA1 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr ü SWAT SWAT SWAT - - - ü ü ü Assessment Hydrogeologic Threat Inventory General (1) Detailed assessment Policies/Programs To Address Threat ROPP policies: Restrictions on worst land uses Additional Study requirements, BMPs, and monitoring Inspection/licensing/education (2) Incentive program (non targeted training program) (3) Apply BMPs to Region contracts/facilities Notes: WPSA – we ll head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable (1) – current threat inventory is a series of business directories and does not provide any direct chemical handling information (2) – implementing a licensing or inspection program would require additional authority from the province. Inspection/licensing would be limited to most vulnerable areas. – Restrictions on chemical types or quantities, upgrades to management practices or implementing environmental management systems could be requirements of license or enforced under inspection (3) - incentive program would include exploring partnerships with other organizations (e.g. insurance companies) to make implementation more enticing A 168 Threat: Waste Storage and Handling GUDI/ 100 m * WPSA 1 Protection Area Assessment Hydrogeologic WPSA2 WPSA3 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr WPSA 4 Region Wide ü ü SWAT SWAT SWAT SWAT û û - - - - - - - ü ü ü ü SWAT SWAT SWAT û û ü ü ü SWAT û û û ü ü ü SWAT û û û ü SWAT Education SWAT Education û û ü ü SWAT Standard Standard Standard û û - - - - - - - ü Threat In ventory General (1) Detailed assessment Policies/Programs To Address Threat ROPP policies: Restrictions on worst land ü uses Additional Study ü requirements, BMPs, and monitoring ü Inspection/ Education (2) Review/Provide Comments on new CofA applications (3) Incentive program (non targetted training program) Notes: GUDI – the area of a well that is groundwater under direct influence of surface water and is delineated in reference to 50 day time of travel around the well WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable * – application of programs in this protection area would focus on sources of bacteria or pathogenic waste e.g. medical waste (1) – threat does not refer to general industry but to specific waste generators obtained from O. Reg 347, National Pollutant Release Information (NPRI) and MOE CofAs for waste (2) – implementing an inspection program would require additional authority from the province. Inspection would be limited to most vulnerable areas. (3) – Detailed reviews would be limited to the most sensitive areas with more standard comments for the less sensitive areas A 169 Threat: Lawn Chemicals WPSA2 Protection Area Assessment Hydrogeologic WPSA3 WPSA 4 Region Wide WPSA1 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr û û û û û û û ü ü SWAT SWAT SWAT SWAT SWAT û SWAT x û û û û - - - - - - ü - - - - - - ü SWAT SWAT SWAT/CSI SWAT/CSI û û û û û û û û û û û û û û Threat Inventory General (1) Detailed assessment Policies/Programs To Address Threat Public Health by-law (2) Apply BMPs to Region contracts/facilities (2) Planning approval BMPs (3) Targeting monitoring (4) Contractor storage (5) û û û Notes: WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable (1) – current threat inventory does not identify specific lawn chemical application sites. Need to identify stormwater management ponds and larger properties (2) – Public Health is determining need for this by-law unrelated to water protection issues (3) develop BMPs including vegetative buffer strips near sensitive water features (4) monitoring would help identify whether this is in fact a threat (5) pesticide storage is regulated by the province: any additional requirements for this category of activity will be the same as chemical storage and handling A 170 Threat: Golf Course Turf Care WPSA2 Protection Area Assessment Hydrogeologic WPSA3 WPSA 4 Region Wide WPSA1 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr ü SWAT SWAT SWAT û û û ü ü - - - - ü SWAT SWAT û û û û û û SWAT û û - - ü Threat Inventory General (1) Detailed assessment Policies/Programs To Address Threat ROPP policies: Land Use Restrictions(2) Additional Study requirements, BMPs, and monitoring Incentive program (no n targetted training program) ü ü SWAT ü û ü SWAT ü - - - - Notes: WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable (1) – current threat inventory limited to property codes assigned by Region staff to assessment data (2) – exemptions to prohibiting golf course could occur where conservation easements can be negotiated and would benefit the operation of the water supply well A 171 Threat: Airport De-icing and Refueling Protection Area Assessment Hydrogeologic WPSA2 WPSA3 WPSA 4 Region Wide SWAT û û - - - ü SWAT SWAT SWAT û û SWAT Education SWAT Education û û - - - - - - ü - ü ü ü ü û û WPSA1* 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr - SWAT SWAT SWAT - - - - SWAT - Threat Inventory General (1) Detailed assessment (de-icing) Policies/Programs To Address Threat (2) Apply BMPs to Region contracts/facilities Incentive program (non targetted training program) Improved de-icing facilities (3) Notes: WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable * - no airports within WPSA 1 (1) – current threat inventory limited to identification of Waterloo Region International Airport and does not include specific deicing/refueling information (2) – airport activities are regulated at a Federal level and there is limited ability to require additional regulations. Program implementation in this area focuses on the Region's role as landlord and could include inspection and education initiatives (3) – the need for this program would be dependant on the detailed threat assessment A 172 Threat: Livestock Management (Manure Storage) Protection Area Assessment Hydrogeologic GUDI/ 100 m WPSA2 WPSA3 10yr WPSA 4 Region Wide WPSA1 2yr 10yr 2yr ü ü SWAT SWAT SWAT û û û - - - - - - - ü ü ü ü SWAT ü û û û SWAT SWAT û û û û û ü SWAT û û û û û - - - - - - ü Threat Inventory General (1) Detailed assessment Policies/Programs To Address Threat (2) Strategic land purchase and/or ü easement (3) Aggressive NMP (existing plus ü new incentives and marketing Incentive program (existing RWQP) Notes: GUDI – the area of a well that is groundwater under direct influence of surface water and is delineated in reference to 50 day time of travel around the well WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable (1) – current threat inventory was updated in 2004 and includes air photo survey and reference to provincial information lists (2) – extent of each program (excluding the RWQP) would be specific to individual wells based on nitrate and bacterial levels (3) – some ground truthing would be required prior to implementing this action A 173 Threat: Aggregate Extraction Protection Area Assessment Hydrogeologic WPSA2 WPSA3 2yr 10yr 2yr 10yr WPSA 4 ü ü SWAT û û û û - - - - - - ü ü SWAT SWAT û û û û ü SWAT û û û û - - - - - ü - - - - - ü - - - - - ü WPSA1 Region Wide Threat Inventory General (1) Detailed assessment Policies/Programs To Address Threat ROPP policies (2): ü prohibitions apply proposed new Region study guidelines Education: encourage adoption of guidelines for existing sites Incentive program (non-targeted training program) Notes: WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable (1) – current inventory limited to sites with aggregate licenses (2) – refer to Draft Aggregate Policies and Study Guidelines for Water Supply Protection (November 2004) A 174 Threat: Improper well decommissioning Protection Area GUDI/ 100 m WPSA2 WPSA3 10yr WPS A4 Region Wide WPSA1 2yr 10yr 2yr û û û û û û û û - - - - - - - ü ü ü ü ü ü ü û û ü ü ü ü ü û û - - - - - - ü - - - - - - ü ü ü ü ü ü - ü û û Assessment Hydrogeologic (1) Threat Inventory General (2) Detailed assessment (3) Policies/Programs To Address Threat Implement protocol for monitoring well ü surveying ROPP policy Survey and decommission as part of development approval Prohibitions on new private wells in serviced areas Incentive program to upgrade or decommission private wells Farmers - existing RWQP and federal programs (4) ü Others - general incentive program Notes: GUDI – the area of a well that is groundwater under direct influence of surface water and is delineated in reference to 50 day time of travel around the well WPSA – well head protection sensitivity area SWAT – surface to well advection (travel) time Program components: ü - part of program; û - not part of program; - - not applicable (1) – impractical to undertake an assessment to determine hydrogeologic needs for this threat (2) – current threat inventory includes MOE water well database and select information gathered by Water Services (3) – extent of each program (excluding the RWQP) would be specific to individual wells based on nitrate and bacterial levels (4) – further direction from province needed to assess whether this program should be applied Region wide A 175
