Information here is provisional, subject to change, and posted for local information and education purposes. For current information visit Ontario.ca and sourcewaterinfo.on.ca. We would like to acknowledge the support of the Government of Ontario. Such support does not indicate endorsement of the contents of this material.
This module is a companion to Modules 12-13. (It was originally created, based on feedback from working group participants, to add practical means for working groups to provide policy proposals. The module, creating a fictional but realistic community of Vulnerableville, as a way of discussing threat activities and risk management proposals, was published as the ‘workbook’ for the active learning program.
Learning Expectations
By the end of this module, you should be able to:
Discuss threat activities in a sample watershed.
Propose potential risk management measures to reduce risk to drinking water sources from the activities.
Discuss case studies from throughout Canada and find examples of challenges as well as sharing successful strategies to reduce risk to drinking water sources.
Introduction to Adopt a Vulnerable Area
The purpose of this practical framework for discussion is to help you develop and evaluate strategies for reducing and mitigating risks to sources of drinking water in vulnerable areas. You will be introduced to Vulnerableville, a community which faces drinking water source protection challenges similar to the ones faced in the Ausable Bayfield Maitland Valley Source Protection Region.
We are using ‘Vulnerableville, Ontario,’ because we want you to focus on the kinds of concerns and potential issues that may exist in our region – but we don’t want to use information on specific properties. This will be useful for focusing on real concerns and potential issues and threat activities without talking about specific properties.
The Watershed Characterization in this booklet will familiarize you with the geography, ecology and human activity in Vulnerableville and the surrounding area.
The Assessment Report in this booklet will help you identify the risks to Vulnerableville drinking water that you will focus on mitigating.
After becoming familiar with the situation in Vulnerableville, you will be asked to develop and evaluate different strategies for action.
While Vulnerableville is fictitious, the risk management strategies you develop will be helpful to the source protection committee because they mirror potential risks to municipal drinking water sources in our region and your strategies may help to manage threat activities.
Not re-inventing the wheel
Source protection planning is relatively new on a province-wide scale in Ontario but other provinces and communities across Canada (and in the United States) already have valuable experience in preparing plans and strategies to help provide extra barriers of protection to their drinking water sources.
Before we begin our strategy session, let’s look at some examples of source protection planning and think about their best practices. We don’t have to
‘reinvent the wheel’ – our strategies can build upon past successes.
What have other communities accomplished in strategic planning to protect water sources – internationally, nationally or provincially?
Consult case studies included with this module.
Safeguarding Our Groundwater Supply (Environment and Climate Change Canada)
You may want to consider the examples of:
Amherst, Nova Scotia
Edmundston, New Brunswick
North Saskatchewan Watershed in Alberta
Powell River, British Columbia
Oxford County [Presentation by Marg Evans, of Oxford County, Ausable Bayfield Maitland Valley Source Protection Region, October 29, 2008; Lessons learned.]
In small break-out groups review two of the examples:
What experiences have they had with developing strategies to manage risk?
What challenges have they had?
What lessons have they learned? Share with your group.
Welcome to Vulnerableville!
Vulnerableville is a vibrant rural community in Plentiful County, located in southwestern Ontario.
Vulnerableville is quite similar to communities you might find in the Ausable Bayfield Maitland Valley Source Protection Region. It has a population of 5,000 people and is growing ½ per cent per year thanks to strong manufacturing; agricultural; and tourism, culture, and recreation sectors that form the pillars of the local economy.
The residents of the town are supplied with municipal drinking water from groundwater sources.
Vulnerableville faces a variety challenges in protecting its drinking water sources.
The following is an overview of the situation in Vulnerableville and the surrounding region. Before we can create a plan to protect drinking water, we must first have a big picture understanding of the situation at hand.
Get acquainted with Vulnerableville and its watershed. Think about the potential risks to drinking water that may exist, and how similar they are to risks we face in our region.
Watershed Characterization
Quick facts:
Vulnerableville is located in the Scenic Valley Watershed.
Scenic Valley Watershed area is 2,770 square kilometres.
The watershed’s population is 52,000.
The population is projected to grow at a rate of ½ percent per year in the future.
Population density is 18.77 people per square kilometre (rural and urban).
Plentiful County has 60 per cent rural residents (31,200 rural and 28,000 urban). There are four other towns similar in size to Vulnerableville.
The farming population has decreased to 15 per cent but is still higher than the provincial proportion.
Vulnerableville has a population of 5,000.
Drinking water sources
Vulnerableville depends entirely on groundwater as its drinking water source. Three municipal wells serve the community. These deep bedrock wells are 35+ years old and each over 300 feet deep. In the surrounding countryside residents use private wells, usually deep drilled wells, but there are also some 50+ year old shallow overburden wells. There are 20,000 households on drilled wells, 5,000 households on pipes from town and 5,000 households on shallow dug/bored wells.
Geological setting
Bedrock geology
The area is underlined by sedimentary rock including limestone dolostone and shale with good to fair water yielding capacities.
Quaternary geology
The overburden that covers the bedrock was deposited during the quaternary period. The area is covered primarily with fine till. Local sand and gravel deposits are also present and are the result of glacial melt waters. The overburden thickness varies across the region. It is its shallowest near the local airport. The aquifer is more vulnerable in this area. Cross-sections of the area show alternating layers of silts, clays, sand and gravels on top of bedrock. Both confined and unconfined aquifers are present in the region.
Land uses
The region is predominantly rural with small urban areas scattered throughout. Urban footprint takes up 1.65 per cent of the Scenic Valley Watershed. There are limited natural areas (45 km 2) within the watershed.
Industrial / Commercial Sectors
Industrial and commercial sectors have grown in importance. In 2002 manufacturing and construction employed more than any other sector.
Manufacturing is the fasted growing sector in Plentiful County for business startups and job creation. The town’s manufacturing sector consists of feed
supplies, food products, fabricated metal, wood products, printing and publishing. There is rumored to be a new ethanol plant coming in the near future.
Agriculture Sector
The watershed is 80 per cent cultivated land, two (2) per cent pasture. Ninety-four per cent of all the land is used for agriculture and is considered
prime agricultural land. Plentiful County has a greater number of farms and more farm acres than any other district or county in the province. Corn, soybeans and
wheat are the most commonly grown crops. Vegetable growing operations which require irrigation do exist and greenhouses are being becoming more common.
Livestock operations include mainly swine, poultry and cattle. Intensity of livestock operations has been rising.
Aggregates
There are 170 sand and gravel pits in Plentiful County. Annual production over the last 20 years has averaged around 2.7 million tones. Short-term production is not expected to increase dramatically because of Plentiful County’s distance to large urban markets. In the long term, production may increase as supplies near urban markets deplete.
Landfills
There are several active and closed waste disposal sites in the region. Two sites currently being used have long term potential. In the future old sites will close and new sites will need to be located.
Transportation
Most roads are county or local roads with the exception of one ‘King’s Highway,’ Highway 47 (site of a famous Canadian movie about a road trip involving turnips and a folk song made famous by Tappin’ John Heavyfoot). Highway 47 runs north–south and passes through several large communities in Plentiful County including Vulnerableville.
There are minor airports in the region, one being in Vulnerableville. Train lines, to transport goods (not passengers), run through the region with stops in several large communities including Vulnerableville.
Wastewater Treatment
Septic systems
Rural homes use septic systems to treat their wastewater. A voluntary septic re-inspection program was run recently in parts of Plentiful County. Inspections are mandatory when a building permit is required. It is expected that there are old, malfunctioning septic systems in the County.
The county is currently considering a mandatory inspection program.
Vulnerableville’s sewage treatment lagoons
Almost all homes in Vulnerableville are hooked up to sewer lines. This wastewater ends up at the town’s Sewage Treatment Lagoons. It is expected that remaining homes will be connected to the sewers in the coming years. The treatment facility does not receive water from storm sewers.
Future development
It is important that Vulnerableville continues to grow and prosper. A new subdivision for 25 homes is proposed on the edge of town which will increase tax revenue. There is also talk of a new ethanol plant coming to town, which would bring more jobs and money to the local economy. This plant would require the excess capacity of two of the three wells.
Water Quality
Surface water quality
Major surface water contaminants are:
Phosphorus
Nitrate
Sediment
Bacteria
Trends suggest phosphorus is generally decreasing, nitrates are increasing, and fecal coliform is increasing in rivers throughout the area.
Sources of phosphorus include fertilizer (lawn and agricultural), manure, septic systems, sewage treatment effluent and milkhouse wash water.
Sources of nitrates include septic systems, agricultural and lawn fertilizer, manure, sewage treatment effluent and atmospheric deposition (e.g., acid rain).
Source of sediment include agricultural and urban runoff.
Sources of bacteria include runoff from livestock yards and pastures, manure storages, agricultural fields, faulty septic systems and wildlife.
Groundwater quality
The town’s bedrock aquifer is generally well protected by the fine textured overburden. Overburden wells used be rural residents and farms in the area have higher concentrations of dissolved organic carbon, chloride and bacteria. The shallower wells also show traces of pesticides and petroleum hydrocarbons.
Nitrates are more likely in overburden wells but are rarely exceed the limit set by the Ontario Drinking Water Standards.
Discussion:
Using the map and Watershed Characterization for Vulnerableville, what are some possible threats to drinking water quality and quantity in that watershed?
Some threats may not be obvious from the aerial imagery, especially in urban
areas.
To identify these threats, think about threats that might exist in your home town, village or hamlet.
Threats are not limited to what has been mentioned in the Watershed Characterization.
What activities could negatively impact drinking water?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
Assessment Report for Vulnerableville
What is an Assessment Report?
Assessment Reports identify significant, moderate and low risks to drinking water quality and quantity.
(Click on glossary or Assessment Reports page).
Threats Inventory
The Threats Inventory Table is a selection of possible drinking water quality threats located in Vulnerableville’s anticipated Wellhead Protection Area. You can find the location of a specific threat from the table by finding the Property Code (e.g., ‘SOS’ for Storage of Organic Solvents) on the Threats Map.
Circumstance:
For each threat there are different circumstances which will make that threat more or less of a risk. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) takes into consideration numerous combinations of factors.
To learn how thorough the process is, refer to the Provincial Tables of Threats and Circumstances available at working group meetings or at Ontario.ca.
Factors considered include:
The quantity of a chemical
Whether or not the public has access to the chemical
Whether storage is below or above ground
Others:
Hazardous materials
Hazardous materials can contaminate drinking water sources and pose a risk to human health. Here are some contaminants that are often present in hazardous waste sites. Many of these contaminants can be found in household products and/or are used by small businesses.
Cadmium is found in batteries, pigments, metal coatings, plastics, and some metal alloys. Health effects from exposure to Cadmium include kidney, lung, and intestinal damage depending on the route of exposure.
Chromium VI is found in bricks and linings for furnaces. Its compounds are used for chrome plating, manufacture of dyes, wood treatment and water treatment.
Arsenic is used in pesticides, herbicides, insecticides and alloys.
Trichlorphenoxyacetic acid 2 4 5 is a herbicide used to defoliate leaves.
Dichlorphenoxyacetic acid 2 4 is a common synthetic herbicide.
Dichlorobenzene (DCB’s) do not occur naturally. They are produced to create home products, plastics, and herbicides.
Lead is used in storage batteries in cars and other vehicles. Some uses of lead, such as leaded gasoline, lead-based paints for domestic use, lead-based solder in water pipes, lead sinkers, and ammunition, have been reduced or banned to minimize lead’s harmful effects on people and animals.
Mercury exposure can lead to damage to the human brain, nervous system and kidneys. Mercury can leach into groundwater from industrial or hazardous waste sites.
Mercury is used in outdoor paints, batteries. Small amounts can be released by burning coal.
Selenium is found in photographic devices, plastics, paints, antidandruff shampoos, vitamin and mineral supplements, fungicides, and certain types of glass.
Selenium is also used to prepare drugs and as a nutritional feed supplement for poultry and livestock.
Hazardous waste sites could be a significant source of Selenium.
Silver compounds are used to make photographs. These photographic materials are the major source of the silver that is released into the environment. Another source is mines that produce silver and other metals. Rain can eventually wash silver out of soil and carry it toward groundwater sources.
Barium and its compounds are used for many different purposes including to make drilling muds, paints, bricks, tiles, glass, and rubber. Some barium compounds, such as barium carbonate, barium chloride and barium hydroxide, are used to make ceramics, insect and rat poisons, and as additives for oils and fuels; in the treatment of boiler water; in the production of barium greases; as a component in sealants and in paper manufacturing.
Dichlorobenzenes are used to make herbicides, insecticides, medicine, dyes, mothballs and deodorant blocks which are used in garbage cans and rest rooms.
Trichloroethylene (DNAPL) is used as a solvent to remove grease from metal parts and to make other chemicals. It can be found in paint removers, adhesives, and spot removers.
Vinyl Chloride is used to make a polymer called polyvinyl chloride (PVC), which is used to make a variety of plastic products including pipes, wire and cable coatings, and packaging materials.
SOURCE: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ‘Public Health Statement’
De-icing roads
We depend on clear roads and highways for safe travel and the continual flow of goods and services. De-icing chemicals such as sodium chloride are used to remove snow and ice from our roads during the winter months. The runoff from these chemicals has the potential to enter surface water and groundwater sources. This threat has prompted some areas to search for ways to reduce the amount of salt that is used and to look at ways to use it more efficiently, but this practice still poses a potential threat to drinking water.
Learn about the Smart About Salt program at: Smart about Salt.
Strategic approaches to planning
Step One: Understanding our goals and focus
The goal of source protection planning is primarily to create local science-based plans to protect municipal sources of drinking water from contamination.
To do this we must:
- Understand the watershed (refer to Watershed Characterization)
- Identify drinking water quality and risks in the area and determine the severity of these risks (refer Assessment Report)
- Develop policies to mitigate significant risks and prevent moderate risks from becoming significant
What are our other goals?
a)
b)
c)
What should we keep in mind while developing strategies?
a)
b)
c)
Our planning process focuses on finding and addressing key (or strategic) priorities. In order to keep the proposed plan practical, it may be necessary to give certain threats, or potential issues priority. It may not be practical to propose policies for every possible source of contamination. With that in mind, answer the following questions:
On what basis do you choose priorities (criteria, values)?
How are strategic priorities sorted out?
Review the definition of a drinking water threat
(Refer to glossary).
Review the definition of a drinking water issue:
You may want to select the threats you will deal with by evaluating its priority.
The following exercise can help you determine a threat or issue’s priority.
Select a threat or issue:
Determine:
a) Its urgency
b) Its strategic (economic, social, environmental) importance
c) Whether it is in your control
d) How easy it will be to address
Step Two: Identifying Threat Activities and Potential Issues
After evaluating your priorities, what threats – and what issues – have you decided to focus on? Use the check box column of your Threats (and Issues)
Inventory Table to help you remember which threats you are focusing on.
Threat Activities; Concerns and Potential Issues:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
Other:
In brief Oxford County had to deal with numerous challenges to protect its groundwater sources.
Potential contaminants identified were:
Industrial leaks and spills
Chemicals
Manure and nutrients
Road salt
Road spills
Previous and existing industrial uses
Vulnerability Scoring
Where are the threats to drinking water quality and quantity located?
Threats located in a zone closer to the municipal well are more likely to have higher Risk Score, thus could require more stringent policies to mitigate such risk.
Fill out the WHPA (wellhead protection area) Column in your Threats Inventory Table for the threats you have selected.
The vulnerability of an area is calculated by combining two things, time of travel (time within the aquifer) and the Intrinsic Susceptibility (aquifer
vulnerability to surface activities).
Using the ISI Index on the Threats map provided, fill out the ISI score in the Threats Inventory Table.
Intrinsic Susceptibility Index (Aquifer Vulnerability) of an area is rated High, Medium or Low.
The time of travel has been determined for three different zones, the two-year, five (5) year and 25 year time of travel zones. By combining the two, we get a clearer picture of how vulnerable different areas are. The various combinations result in different vulnerability scores.
Use the table below to determine the vulnerability scores for the parcels in which the above threats are taking place.
Fill in:
The Vulnerability Score column in the Threats Inventory Table for each of the threats you have selected.
Vulnerability Score
Location within wellhead protection areas
Intrinsic Susceptibility
100-metre
Two-year Time of Travel
Five-year Time of Travel
25-year Time of Travel Index
High
Medium
Low
Actions
1)
2)
3)
Who is impacted?
Costs (Low, Medium, High)
Pros
Cons
Likelihood of Success
Level of Protection
Type of Strategy:
Incentive? (e.g., $)
Disincentive? (e.g., penalty)
Strategies to manage risk
Strategy 1
Strategy 2
Strategy 3
Strategy 4
Strategy 5
Threat activity type: e.g., Fuel Storage
Actions
1)
2)
3)
Who is impacted?
Costs (Low, Medium, High)
Pros
Cons
Likelihood of Success
Level of Protection
Type of Strategy:
Incentive? (e.g., $)
Disincentive? (e.g., penalty)
Threat type:
Strategies to manage risk
Strategy 1
Strategy 2
Strategy 3
Strategy 4
Strategy 5
Threats Inventory table
Step Three: Determining levels of risk
The Assessment Reports identify risks to drinking water quality and quantity and assign them a value of Significant, Moderate or Low.
You can determine the risk score for the threats you have selected by looking in the Master Threats Table which is available at working group meetings, and online at sourcewaterinfo.on.ca.
To use this Table, locate your threat, and its matching circumstance, then see where the vulnerability score for your threat is located. If the vulnerability score for your threat was eight (8), and you see 8 in the Moderate Column of the Master Threats Table, then your threat has a moderate Risk Score.
(Please consult most current regulations).
What are the risks levels for the different threats or issues you are focusing on? Fill out the risk score on your Threats Inventory Table.
How many significant risks have you identified? __ H
ow many moderate risks have you identified? __
Dealing with uncertainty
Uncertainty may impact how you develop strategies. Uncertainty can be a factor when there are gaps in the science, such as the source of a contaminant being unknown, data is not available or monitoring has not been thorough enough, etc.
There is also uncertainty around future events, such as extreme weather events or accidents. There could be other possible unknowns (e.g., age of a fuel storage tank).
Discussion:
How do you deal with uncertainty?
Should moderate risks be considered High Risk if there is a level of uncertainty?
Step Four: Developing possible strategies
What is a strategy?
What should we keep in mind when developing strategies? What are our objectives?
a)
b)
c)
Who will be impacted by possible strategies?
1)
2)
3)
For each threat you have selected fill out the ‘Strategies to Manage Risk’ Chart. You will brainstorm different strategies and evaluate them.
Step Five: Evaluating and selecting a strategy
Considerations
It is important to weigh the impacts of the different strategies your group has proposed. Write down the environmental, social, and economical pros and cons for each strategy on the Strategies to Manage Threats Chart.
Impact versus Probability
The different strategies you have proposed likely will have different levels of water protection as well as different likelihood of being implemented successfully.
Give each strategy two rankings, one for positive water protection impact, and one for probability of successful implementation.
Rank the strategies using a scale from one (1) to eight (8), ‘1’ being the least positive impact and least likely to be implemented, and ‘8’ being a very
positive impact and highly probable of being implemented successfully.
Plot each strategy on the graph provided. This will help compare the different options.
Select a strategy to mitigate each threat/risk:
Threat #1
Threat #2
Step Six: Plan implementation
You have selected a strategy, now it is time to work out the finer details.
In Oxford County policies are implemented using zoning bylaws as authorized in the provincial Planning Act. These include:
Site plan control bylaws can be used to require proper siting and storage
facilities, lot grading and drainage, etc.
Condition on subdivisions or consents.
Legal non-conforming uses. Extension or enlargement of legal non-conforming uses could be permitted in situations where it is determined to be non-detrimental to surrounding properties.
Step Seven: Speaking to those who are affected
How would you inform those who will be affected?
Develop a brief communications plan for advising the affected members of the public.
Who is your target audience?
What are your key messages?
What are the most effective ways to reach them?
(When determining effectiveness think of likelihood of that media reaching the audience and also cost in time and expense to use that media).
Step Eight: Monitoring and evaluation
What monitoring would you recommend for your proposed strategies?
Why is project evaluation important?
Common rationales for conducting an evaluation are:
Response to demands for accountability;
Demonstration of effective, efficient and equitable use of financial and other resources;
Recognition of actual changes and progress made;
Identification of success factors, need for improvement or where expected
outcomes are unrealistic;
Validation for project staff and partners that desired outcomes are being
achieved.
How do you know you have mitigated the risk?
How much monitoring is practical?
Case Studies:
Amherst, Nova Scotia
Edmundston, New Brunswick
North Saskatchewan Watershed in Alberta
Powell River, British Columbia
Oxford County
Excerpts of case studies are included in small, break-out boxes or in the appendix – for full case studies visit the appropriate websites.
Case study sources include Environment and Climate Change Canada’s ‘From Source to Tap… a multi-barrier approach to protecting drinking water.’
‘This Source Protection thing is a lot of smoke and no fire – why do we need to do all this work anyway?’
Someone might want to look at the case of Amherst, Nova Scotia.
First, their surface water quality became degraded, so they turned to groundwater. Then, their aquifers got contaminated and they had to look for a new groundwater source.
Oxford County efforts begin in 1990s
Oxford County recognized the importance of protecting its sources of drinking water before the tragedy in Walkerton occurred. In 1990 Oxford County reviewed its official plan and asked a consultant to look at groundwater protection issues in the county. With almost 100 per cent of the county’s drinking water coming from groundwater sources, Oxford County understood that they needed to do something to protect this resource. Their consultants made recommendations to create protection plans for areas around municipal wells and five sensitive aquifer areas.
In Oxford County ’Groundwater Recharge Areas‘ were incorporated into the Official Plan and were protected from incompatible land uses. Incompatible land uses include municipal and industrial landfills; lagoons or other water disposal facilities; asphalt and concrete batching plants; industrial and commercial uses, other than farms, involving the storage or processing of chemical and/or petroleum products; gasoline or oil depots; service stations, and vehicle salvage, maintenance, and service yards. Existing uses are allowed to continue, but new or expanding uses are subject to certain requirements.
Based on the recommendations and public input Oxford County developed new Land use Restrictions, Well Head Protection Policies, Aquifer Protection Policies and Water Quantity Protection Policies.
Oxford County Pilot Study: Land Acquisition and Land Lease
As farms were put up for sale near wells, the municipality took advantage of the chance to purchase this land.
The land was rented back to farmers.
Farmers were selected based on their proposed plans for nutrient management.
The more vulnerable the aquifer, the more stringent the nutrient requirements were.
Groundwater quality as a function of nutrient application is now being monitored.
Is this an approach that should be considered in our region? Is it practical?
What government programs exist which could help?
What prompted Alberta to look at its water?
Walkerton . . . but not just Walkerton … Saskatchewan too
Agricultural communities in Alberta in the new millennium were growing in their awareness of the need to preserve riparian ecosystems, find alternative livestock watering systems, develop livestock wastewater recovery systems, and replace chemical pest control strategies with integrated pest management that included biological controls. People who depended on water bodies for recreation – cottagers, boaters, and anglers – were coming to understand the significant role played by ecosystems at the water’s edge in maintaining water quality and quantity. The tragic water contamination events in Walkerton, Ontario, in May 2000, and in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, in the spring of 2001, served to intensify the interest in, and commitment to, source water protection in Alberta.
Land use, water demand concern in Alberta
Water demands on the North Saskatchewan River in Alberta include hydroelectric generation, human consumption, oil and gas extraction, mining, and agricultural uses such as irrigation and livestock watering. Precipitation and groundwater baseflow also affect overall stream flow in rivers and streams. The cumulative impact of land use and water demand is an emerging area of concern, with possible impacts on environmental integrity and water quantity and quality in the future.
Edmundston, New Brunswick
Is Ontario alone in protecting its drinking water sources? No.
New Brunswick created a Watershed Protection Program back in the 1980s to protect surface-water sources of drinking water.
In the late 1980s, incidents of contamination of the water supply in various
parts of the province raised concerns over the protection of public water
supplies.
The Province began investigating new policies for water quality management based on controls of land use and development in municipal water supply watersheds.
The mandatory program gave protected-area designations to 31 surface watersheds supplying potable water to 24 municipalities. New Brunswick’s Watercourse Setback Designation Order defined watershed boundaries and corresponding watercourses, and established a 75-metre buffer zone or setback adjacent to these watercourses, and identified activities that were permitted within these zones.
Under New Brunswick’s Watershed Protection Program each watershed underwent a designation study which included maps, land use inventories, hydrogeological assessment, water quality assessment, risk assessment, proposed setback widths and proposed draft of the regulation.
How was New Brunswick’s approach like Ontario’s?
How was it different?
In brief
Article: Surface Water: Are all our eggs in one basket?
When we rely on a Great Lake for our drinking water needs – do we begin to take water for granted? In Waterloo Region, would people begin to value water less and conserve water less if they had a pipeline to Lake Erie?
The fragile Waterloo moraine supplies that area with 48 per cent of its drinking water. An environmental group, The Waterlooians, has fought for protection policies to preserve the Waterloo moraine and prevent sprawl into the area west of the city of Waterloo.
Some fear a water distribution study will lead to pumping water from Lake Erie and that a pipeline could ‘feed’ urban sprawl in the area. The region might be better served by using the water resources from the Grand River and local aquifers to which it already has access.
“If we’re putting all of our eggs in one basket by putting a pipeline to Lake Erie, we don’t need to conserve or steward properly what we have here,” said spokesperson David Wellhauser. “In the five years we’ve been in this fight we’ve constantly seen the pipeline used to justify the degradation that is happening in the moraine.”
Regional Chair Ken Seiling said it’s the region’s intent to push off the need for a pipeline as long as possible, and ongoing conservation measures have
already delayed the date for a potential pipeline.
The region is currently updating its water master plan, and is still looking to expand local sources of groundwater. The goal is self-sufficiency and Seiling
said he thinks the region can handle the province’s projected population growth for this area to 725,000 by 2031 with the water resources it already has available.
“The reality is that you just can’t shut the community down, and we aren’t prepared to do that,” said Seiling, about the ongoing planning for a potential pipeline. “The interesting thing is that our growth targets by the province for 2031 are still doable within the confines we’re operating under now with the current groundwater.”
SOURCE: The New Hamburg Independent, July 2, 2008, ‘Environmental group steps up efforts to protect moraine,’ news article by Bob Vrbanac.
Case study: Powell River, British Columbia
Emergency response plan An emergency response plan was developed by the planning team to prepare for any environmental emergencies that might threaten the supply of water or its safety as a potable source. The plan assigns responsibilities for reporting events, developing an action strategy, and implementing that strategy. Environmental emergencies that could pose a risk to water supplies include:
Slides from roads or other ground disturbances that bring high levels of
sediment into the water
Spills of contaminants or hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline, solvents,
herbicides)
Occurrences of pathogens and waterborne diseases. How does emergency response planning fit into our source protection region?
Case Study: Amherst, Nova Scotia
What triggered their Drinking Water Source Protection planning exercise? Until 1949, the town of Amherst derived its drinking water from surface water sources.
When the quality of this water became inadequate for this use, the town commenced drilling deep wells to access the groundwater resource. Over the next 30 years, 14 wells were drilled, mainly within town boundaries and with no consideration of land uses adjacent to the wells. Only seven of these wells remained in production by 1982, the rest having been abandoned because of well collapse, salt intrusion, bacterial contamination, or interference with private wells. In 1983, a volatile organic compound (VOC), perchloethylene, was detected in two of the remaining wells at levels that exceeded the limit given in the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. This chemical is used in the drycleaning business, and its presence in the wells showed that an inorganic contaminant could make its way from the surface into the underlying aquifer. The Town Council realized that the wells were vulnerable and that potentially more-toxic contaminants could enter the groundwater by similar pathways, and immediately closed the two wells. As a long-term remedy to this problem, they opted to begin an exploratory drilling program to locate a new groundwater source outside of town with sufficient capacity for town use.
A firm was contracted and carried out a three-year wellfield exploration program. Of the four aquifers identified in this program, the North Tyndal Road site was found to be ideal for town needs. A groundwater protection strategy was a critical component of developing this new drinking water source. The protected water area of the North Tyndal Wellfield is the source of drinking water for both the town and parts of the county. It occupies a generally low-lying, flat area that contains two small farms and extensive forests, much of which remain in their natural state. Forestry operations range in scale from large industrial harvests to small private woodlots.
Amherst, Nova Scotia Groundwater Protection Strategy
As part of their Groundwater Protection Strategy they evaluated and compared plans in operation in several European countries, as well as the United States.
They concluded from that comparison that that groundwater protection could best be achieved through the creation of three protection zones surrounding the pumping wells in roughly concentric circles and they also looked at recharge areas for the well. Groundwater flow was modeled and water protection zones one and two were established on the basis of groundwater travel times. The three zones are: Zone 1 (10-year delay), covering 600 hectares of the recharge area;
Zone 2 (50-year delay), covering 1050 hectares; and Zone 3, covering the remaining 2400 hectares. To determine what type of land uses and activities were appropriate for each of the wellfield protection zones, a risk assessment was carried out. This assessment considered the persistence of various contaminants, the potential for some substances to break down into persistent and toxic products, and the resistance of some substances (such as nitrates and chloride) to degradation.
On the basis of their assessment, it was recommended that the potential for contaminant release be eliminated in Zone 1 by restricting activities to water supply operations and limited forest management (e.g., select cutting) to reduce the risk of forest fire. It was also recommended that Zone 2 be expanded to include a minimum of 62, to allow for control of road drainage, road salting, and potential residential growth in this corridor. Forest harvesting would be permitted in this zone, subject to provincial regulations and the adoption of a forest management plan. The use of chemical biocides would be prohibited, as would the use of highway salt for de-icing the road. Recreation would be permitted. The construction of residential structures would be permitted on large lots. Existing land uses and activities in Zone 3 were inventoried and assessed for their potential to contaminate the groundwater. Activities included quarrying, forestry, agriculture, roadway use, recreational activities and an electricity transmission corridor… To continue reading this case study visit
sourcewaterinfo.on.ca.
The Inter-Municipal Planning Strategy is not a static document, but is continuously studied and reviewed as an ongoing responsibility of the two
municipal Councils. Major changes in circumstances arising from the Councils’ actions or those of other levels of government may necessitate amendments of the Strategy. The Strategy is to be reviewed at least every five years, or sooner as deemed necessary by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (now Service Nova Scotia).
The groundwater protection strategy itself is regularly reviewed and updated as needed. For example, the wellfield contingency plan was updated in 2003. In 2000, hydrogeological modelling was carried out again to check the initial findings, using the first seven years of wellfield pumping data and groundwater level data collected since 1991. Two new MODFLOW simulations were done, along with a new Well Head Protection Area simulation. The resulting information was used to review the pumping regime (to determine if the wellfield was being overpumped), and to model the long-term drawdown effects in the aquifer. The delineation of the aquifer protection zones was also reviewed using particle trace and travel-time analysis from the models, and water quality was evaluated.
Groundwater levels in the observation wells surrounding the wellfield area showed no apparent trend of decreasing or increasing water levels, a good
indication that the wellfield is being pumped at a sustainable rate. The new steady-state and transient MODFLOW simulations indicated a close match between the calculated and observed water levels measured in November 1999. The 10-, 20-, and 50-year simulations of the wellfield using MODFLOW showed no increase in the levels of drawdown in the four observation wells, also indicating that the current pumping rate is sustainable. Particle-trace and travel-time analysis indicated that the original zone designation for Zones 2 and 3 remained satisfactory. Water chemistry data for the pumping and observation wells showed that groundwater quality continued to exceed all relevant requirements, with no adverse trends apparent.
Amherst, Nova Scotia
Reasons for success
Stakeholders are represented on the North Tyndal Wellfield Advisory Committee Town and County councils strongly support wellfield protection
The community, landowners, and public were widely consulted during the preparation of protection strategy and are kept informed of changes in the
management process
The area contains substantial wetlands that are not suitable for development
The protected water area has only two dwelling units, both on small farms
Source water protection measures have included steps for water conservation: the installation of water meters in 1998 resulted in an eight (8) per cent reduction
in water consumption, and the introduction in 2000 of a sewer usage charge based on water consumption reduced consumption by a further 15 per cent.
Lessons learned along the way
Reduction in highway salting was not popular with local motorists, but it reduced the rate of deterioration of the paved road through the wellfield
The general public have taken ownership of the groundwater protection strategy, as evidenced by the number of reports they make regarding people who may be violating the regulations The value of money spent on land acquisition cannot be emphasized enough. It is an excellent long-term investment, removing conflict with owners The cooperation from landowners has exceeded expectations It is gradually being realized that the groundwater protection strategy is long-term. Most plans last for only a few years, but this plan is expected to continue doing its job for many generations
Its real value will be realized in 100 to 200 years, when the citizens of Amherst still have a viable water supply while many other communities struggle
with pollution of their unprotected supplies …
Case Study: North Saskatchewan Watershed in Alberta
Reasons for success
Amalgamation of a large number and broad range of stakeholders already active in watershed protection
Establishment of well-defined vision, mission, and values
Good public response to educational tools for watershed management
Steadily increasing membership as community awareness of water issues increases
Increase in visibility through public education projects like the North
Saskatchewan River Guide and on-going community visitations and presentations
Challenges
Securing operational, rather than project-specific, funding
Ensuring that the needs of all stakeholders are met while placing emphasis on ecosystem functioning and integrity
Efficient co-ordination of activities of a rapidly growing membership
Prompt dispersal of an increasing amount of information to a rapidly growing membership.
Lessons learned along the way
Community-based lead planning is the preferred approach to developing a watershed management plan, because when people at the grassroots level have no initial involvement in finding water quality solutions and do not participate in the development of watershed management strategies, they will not understand the importance of implementation initiatives and may even resist such initiatives Any successful water strategy must incorporate sincere public ownership at the most basic level of watershed residency
Community outreach and watershed projects
While the North Saskatchewan Watershed Management Plan is being developed, work continues to support existing watershed protection programs and to empower local communities to care for the watershed. Such initiatives, examples of which are described in this section, will comprise a key part of implementing the future plan at the grassroots level.
Outreach tools
The Community Watershed Toolkit supports the goals of the Alliance and the developing watershed management plan by:
Improving the capacity of rural water users to address their own water issues, such as water scarcity, groundwater depletion, riparian area management, and sound septic and agricultural practices
Introducing smaller groups to the North Saskatchewan Watershed Alliance and encouraging them to use the Alliance as a resource
Raising awareness of the connections between watersheds, environmental integrity, water quality, and human health.
Edmundston, New Brunswick
Reasons for success
Source water protection in the Edmundston area has been a success because of the following:
A grassroots, cooperative approach with municipalities and affected landowners
The addition of Regional Water Planning Officers to deliver the programs locally
Effective communication and education components of the programs
Good support from both municipal and provincial governments
A strong provincial position on drinking water protection
An innovative approach to problems using science-based solutions
Inclusion of best management practices for land uses in the regulation
Effective communication with other government departments
Assistance/data sharing from District Planning Commissions on residential
development.
Lessons learned along the way
Strong succession planning for program staff is key in maintaining program
consistency and continuity
A grassroots approach to watershed management is effective; however, a strong
Act and regulations are necessary to ensure continued water protection
Continuing public education is a critical element of watershed management
Input from, and communication with, other departments and municipalities is
important.
Case Study: Powell River, British Columbia
By the early 1990s, the ability of the Haslam Lake and Lang Creek systems to supply an adequate quantity of water for domestic and fisheries uses had become a concern. There were also concerns over potential deterioration of water quality of community water supplies due to ongoing and proposed industrial, resource-extraction, and recreational activities in the watershed.
The approach
In 1993, government agencies, water purveyors, and other stakeholders with a direct interest in the watershed were invited to participate in the planning process. Input was also solicited from the watersheds’various resource users and concerned citizens. This consensus-based process was thought to be the most appropriate planning approach because of the watershed’s many users. The objectives of the planning process were to:
Produce an Integrated Watershed Management Plan according to provincial guidelines and regulations that would ensure the protection of water quality, quantity, and timing of flows
Promote environmentally sustainable management practices
Minimize the adverse effects of resource development
Evaluate the environmental, social, and economic interests of resource users and the public, as well as keep all parties informed
Establish a mechanism for implementing the plan, including review, monitoring, and corrective action.
In May 2003 the new provincial ‘Drinking Water Protection Regulation,’ came into effect under the Drinking Water Protection Act (2001). The new regulation focuses on total and faecal coliform bacterial indicators, and allows public health officers to direct additional testing for water quality parameters included in the ‘Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality,’ as warranted.
The plan
The completed Integrated Watershed Management Plan established guidelines and made recommendations for the management of water, forestry, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, mining, and other land use activities. It also included recommendations for the management of the two protected areas within the watershed, as well as an emergency response plan for environmental emergencies that could pose a risk to water supplies. The Integrated Watershed Management Plan took into account provisions for water resource protection in existing local land use plans for public land and water and made recommendations for the management of private lands.
A number of inventory and other technical studies were conducted to assess watershed characteristics and guide future resource use and/or rehabilitation activities. An ongoing comprehensive water quality and quantity monitoring program funded initially by Forest Renewal B.C. and later by the Forest Investment Account, described below, serves as an ongoing source of important information for management decisions.
Reasons for success
By signing off on the Integrated Watershed Management Plan, all key stakeholders commit to doing their part to meet plan objectives
The Integrated Watershed Management Plan has several components that are linked to legislative requirements
The Coastal Watershed Assessment Procedure, a component of the Integrated Watershed Management Plan that is done at three-year intervals, guides rehabilitation works and forest-harvesting activities within the watershed
Glossary
Assessment Report
The source protection committee for a source protection area shall prepare an assessment report for the source protection area to identify all the watersheds
in the source protection area (each watershed); characterize the quality and quantity of water in each watershed); set out a water budget for each watershed
identified under clause that, identifies the different ways that water enters and leaves the watershed and quantifies the amount of water that enters or
leaves in each way, describes the groundwater and surface water flows in the watershed, quantifies the existing and anticipated amounts of water taken from the watershed that require a permit under section 34 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, quantifies the existing and anticipated amounts of water taken from the watershed that do not require a permit under section 34 of the Ontario Water Resources Act, and having regard to the information, describes any existing or anticipated water shortages in the watershed; identify all the significant groundwater recharge areas and highly vulnerable aquifers that are in the source protection area; identify all the surface water intake protection zones and wellhead protection areas that are in the source protection area and that are related to, existing and planned municipal drinking water systems that serve or are planned to serve major residential developments, existing and planned drinking water systems that, pursuant to resolutions passed, the terms of reference provide for the assessment report to consider, existing and planned drinking water systems; describe the drinking water issues relating to the quality and quantity of water in each of the vulnerable areas identified under
clauses list, for each vulnerable area activities that are or would be drinking water threats, and conditions that result from past activities and that are drinking water threats; identify, within each vulnerable area the areas where an activity listed is or would be a significant drinking water threat, and the areas where a condition listed is a significant drinking water threat.
Drinking Water Issue
A substantiated condition relating to the quality or quantity of water that interferes or is anticipated to soon interfere with the use of a drinking water source by a municipal residential system or designated system.
Drinking Water Risk
The likelihood of a drinking water threat (a) rendering an existing or planned drinking water source impaired, unusable or unsustainable, or
(b) compromising the effectiveness of a drinking water treatment process,
resulting in the potential for adverse human health effects.
Drinking Water Threat
An existing activity, possible future activity or existing condition that results from a past activity, (a) that adversely affects or has the potential to
adversely affect the quality or quantity of any water that is or may be used as a source of drinking water, or (b) that results in or has the potential to
result in the raw water supply of an existing or planned drinking-water system failing to meet any standards prescribed by the regulations respecting the quality or quantity of water, and includes an activity or condition that is prescribed by the regulations as a drinking water threat.
Goal
A goal is a broad statement of what the program hopes to accomplish.
Objective
An objective is a specific, measurable condition that must be attained in order to accomplish a particular program goal.
Strategy
A strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.
Hazard Rating
A Hazard Rating is a scientifically-determined numeric value which represents the relative potential for a contaminant of concern to impact drinking water sources at concentrations significant enough to cause human illness. The numeric value which represents the relative potential for a contaminant of concern to impact drinking water sources at concentrations significant enough to cause human illness.
Vulnerability Score
A vulnerability score is assigned to drinking water intake zones and refers to the comparative likelihood of a contaminant of concern reaching an intake or wellhead.
Watershed Characterization
The Watershed Characterization is a summary of the known information about the source protection areas (watersheds) in the source protection region.
Descriptions of the physical attributes land and water issues are provided in this report.
Existing legislation
When developing new strategies it may help to consider existing legislation. The following is a list of resources you may find useful.
Nutrient Management Act
Clean Water Act, 2006
Oak Ridges Moraine Plan
Oxford County Official Plan
Symposium
A Backyard Briefs afternoon working group symposium was held on Wednesday, October 29th at the Holmesville Community Centre.
Presenting were Ontario Chief Drinking Water Inspector Keith West; Bob Worsell, of the Huron County Health Unit on Sampling Savvy; Sandra Edelsward, Program Coordinator, Drinking Water Testing, London Public Health Laboratory, on analysis, testing, results, and reporting with the topic ‘What’s in my Glass?’;
Ron Hopper, of W.D. Hopper & Sons, on well drilling and maintenance, pumps, decommissioning with the topic ‘Knowing Your Well Well’; Dr. Mary Jane Conboy,
of the Well Wise Resource Centre, on Well Wise services, programs and publications; Mike Reid, of C.E. Reid & Sons, on different types of septic
systems, maintenance, samples of regular and tertiary systems effluent with an ‘Is the grass greener on the other side?’ septic system overview; Pamela Scharfe, of the Huron County Health Unit, on septic inspections.
© Active Learning Program 2019