Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.0 NORFOLK COUNTY GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ...... 5-1 Delhi-Courtland Water Quality Risk Assessment ...... 5-4 5.1.1 Delhi-Courtland Wellhead Protection Areas ...... 5-5 5.1.2 Delhi Vulnerability Scoring in Wellhead Protection Areas ...... 5-10 5.1.3 Lehman Dam Reservoir Surface Water Intake ...... 5-18 5.1.4 Vulnerability Assessment...... 5-20 5.1.5 Percent Managed Lands and Livestock Density ...... 5-25 5.1.6 Percent Impervious Surface Area ...... 5-27 5.1.7 Delhi Water Quality Threats Assessment ...... 5-33 5.1.8 Conditions Evaluation ...... 5-40 5.1.9 Delhi-Courtland Drinking Water Quality Issues Evaluation...... 5-44 5.2 Simcoe Water Quality Risk Assessment ...... 5-49 5.2.1 Simcoe Wellhead Protection Areas ...... 5-50 Simcoe Vulnerability Scoring in Wellhead Protection Areas ...... 5-55 5.2.2 Percent Managed Lands and Livestock Density ...... 5-67 5.2.3 Percent Impervious Surface Area in Wellhead Protection Areas...... 5-70 5.2.4 Simcoe Water Quality Threats Assessment ...... 5-78 5.2.5 Condition Evaluation ...... 5-83 5.2.6 Simcoe - Enumeration of Significant Threats ...... 5-86 5.2.7 Simcoe Drinking Water Quality Issues Evaluation ...... 5-89 5.3 Waterford Well Supply ...... 5-97 5.3.1 Waterford Wellhead Protection Areas ...... 5-97 5.3.2 Waterford Vulnerability Scoring in Wellhead Protection Areas ...... 5-101 5.3.3 Waterford Transport Pathways and Adjusted Vulnerability Score ...... 5-102 5.3.4 WHPA-E Vulnerability Scoring ...... 5-103 5.3.5 Percent Managed Lands and Livestock Density ...... 5-104 5.3.6 Percent Impervious Surface Area in WHPAs ...... 5-106 5.3.7 Waterford Water Quality Threats Assessment ...... 5-119 5.3.8 Condition-based Threats ...... 5-124 5.3.9 Data Gaps and Uncertainty in Threats Assessment ...... 5-125 5.3.10 Waterford Drinking Water Quality Issues Evaluation ...... 5-126 5.4 Port Dover Water Treatment Plant ...... 5-129 5.4.1 Intake Protection Zone 1 ...... 5-129 5.4.2 Intake Protection Zone 2 ...... 5-129 5.4.3 Intake Protection Zone 3 ...... 5-130 5.4.4 Information Sources for Vulnerability Assessment ...... 5-130 5.4.5 Vulnerability Assessment...... 5-131

October 5, 2017 TOC-1 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.4.6 Percent Managed Lands and Livestock Density within Intake Protection Zones ...... 5-132 5.4.7 Percent Impervious Surfaces within the Intake Protection Zone ...... 5-132 5.4.8 Uncertainty and Limitations of Data and Methods ...... 5-139 5.4.9 Threat Assessment...... 5-139 5.4.10 Intake Protection Zone 3 ...... 5-140 5.4.11 Conditions Assessment ...... 5-140 5.4.12 Preliminary Issues Identification and Parameters of Concern ...... 5-140 5.4.13 Uncertainty/Limitations of Data and Methods Used for Issues Evaluation ...... 5-141 5.5 Port Rowan Water Treatment Plant ...... 5-141 5.5.1 Intake Protection Zone 1 ...... 5-142 5.5.2 Intake Protection Zone 2 ...... 5-142 5.5.3 Information Sources for Vulnerability Assessment ...... 5-143 5.5.4 Vulnerability Assessment...... 5-144 5.5.5 Managed Lands and Livestock Density within Intake Protection Zones . 5-144 5.5.6 Percent Impervious Surfaces within the Intake Protection Zone ...... 5-144 5.5.7 Uncertainty and Limitations of Data and Methods ...... 5-145 5.5.8 Threat Assessment...... 5-151 5.5.9 Intake Protection Zone 3 ...... 5-152 5.5.10 Conditions Assessment ...... 5-152 5.5.11 Preliminary Issues Identification and Parameters of Concern ...... 5-152 5.5.12 Uncertainty/Limitations of Data and Methods Used for Issues Evaluation ...... 5-153

LIST OF MAPS

Map 5-1: Delhi-Courtland Serviced Area ...... 5-13 Map 5-2: Delhi-Courtland WHPA ...... 5-14 Map 5-3: Delhi-Courtland WHPA Intrinsic Vulnerability ...... 5-15 Map 5-4: Delhi-Courtland Transport Pathways...... 5-16 Map 5-5: Delhi-Courtland WHPA Vulnerability Scoring ...... 5-17 Map 5-6: Lehman Dam Surface Water Reservoir Intake Protection Zones ...... 5-23 Map 5-7: Lehman Dam Surface Water Reservoir Intake Protection Zone 3 ...... 5-24 Map 5-8: Percent Managed Lands within the Delhi-Courtland WHPA ...... 5-29 Map 5-9: Livestock Density within the Delhi-Courtland WHPA ...... 5-30 Map 5-10: Impervious Surface within the Delhi-Courtland WHPA ...... 5-31 Map 5-11: Impervious Surface within the Lehman Dam Surface Water Reservoir Intake Protection Zone ...... 5-32 Map 5-12: Simcoe Serviced Area ...... 5-58 Map 5-13: Simcoe Wellhead Protection Area ...... 5-59 Map 5-14: Simcoe WHPA E ...... 5-60 Map 5-15: Simcoe WHPA Unadjusted Intrinsic Vulnerability ...... 5-61 Map 5-16: Simcoe Transport Pathways ...... 5-62 Map 5-17: Simcoe WHPA Adjusted Intrinsic Vulnerability ...... 5-63

October 5, 2017 TOC-2 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-18: Simcoe WHPA Vulnerability Scoring ...... 5-64 Map 5-19: Simcoe Transport Pathways Area of Influence ...... 5-65 Map 5-20: Percent Manage d Lands within the Simcoe WHPA ...... 5-72 Map 5-21: Percent Managed Lands within the Simcoe WHPA E ...... 5-73 Map 5-22: Livestock Density within the Simcoe WHPA ...... 5-74 Map 5-23: Livestock Density within the Simcoe WHPA E ...... 5-75 Map 5-24: Impervious Surface within the Simcoe WHPA ...... 5-76 Map 5-25: Impervious Surface within the Simcoe WHPA E ...... 5-77 Map 5-26: Simcoe Well Supply Issue Contributing Areas (Chapel St. and Cedar St.) ..... 5-96 Map 5-27: Serviced Areas for the Waterford Water Supply ...... 5-107 Map 5-28: Waterford WHPA ...... 5-108 Map 5-29: Waterford WHPA E ...... 5-109 Map 5-30: Waterford WHPA Unadjusted Intrinsic Vulnerability ...... 5-110 Map 5-31: Waterford WHPA Vulnerability Scoring ...... 5-111 Map 5-32: Waterford Transport Pathways ...... 5-112 Map 5-33: Percent Managed Lands within the Waterford WHPA ...... 5-113 Map 5-34: Managed Lands within the Waterford WHPA E ...... 5-114 Map 5-35: Livestock Density within the Waterford WHPA ...... 5-115 Map 5-36: Livestock Density within the Waterford WHPA E ...... 5-116 Map 5-37: Impervious Surface within the Waterford WHPA ...... 5-117 Map 5-38: Impervious Surface within the Waterford WHPA E ...... 5-118 Map 5-39: Port Dover Service Area ...... 5-134 Map 5-40: Port Dover Intake Protection Zone ...... 5-135 Map 5-41: Percent Managed Lands within the Port Dover Intake Protection Zone ...... 5-136 Map 5-42: Livestock Density within the Port Dover Intake Protection Zone ...... 5-137 Map 5-43: Impervious Surfaces within the Port Dover Intake Protection Zone ...... 5-138 Map 5-44: Port Rowan Service Area ...... 5-146 Map 5-45: Port Rowan WTP Surface Water Intake Protection Zone ...... 5-147 Map 5-46: Percent Managed Lands within the Port Rowan Intake Protection Zone ...... 5-148 Map 5-47: Livestock Density within the Port Rowan Intake Protection Zone ...... 5-149 Map 5-48: Impervious Surfaces within the Port Rowan Intake Protection Zone ...... 5-150

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5-1: Norfolk County Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems in the Long Point Region ...... 5-1 Table 5-2: Annual and Monthly Average Pumping Rates for Norfolk County Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems in the Long Point Region...... 5-1 Table 5-3: Delhi Municipal Pumping Rates for WHPA Delineation ...... 5-6 Table 5-4-: WHPA Vulnerability Scores ...... 5-10 Table 5-5: Source Vulnerability Factor for the Lehman Dam Water Treatment Plant ...... 5-20 Table 5-6: Vulnerability Score Summary for the Lehman Dam Water Treatment Plant ... 5-21 Table 5-7: Percent Managed Land Calculations Within Delhi WHPAs and IPZs ...... 5-25 Table 5-8: Livestock Density (NU/Acre) Calculations ...... 5-27 Table 5-9: Identification of Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Delhi Wellhead Protection Areas ...... 5-34 Table 5-10: Identification of Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Lehman Dam (Delhi) Intake Protection Zones ...... 5-34 Table 5-11: Drinking Water Quality Threats ...... 5-36

October 5, 2017 TOC-3 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-12: Potential Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Delhi-Courtland WHPAs (Matrix, 2017) ...... 5-39 Table 5-13: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Lehman Reservoir Intake (Stantec, 2010a) ...... 5-43 Table 5-14: Simcoe Municipal Pumping Rates (Base Case scenario) ...... 5-51 Table 5-15: WHPA Vulnerability Scores ...... 5-55 Table 5-16: Vulnerability Score Summary for the Simcoe WHPA-E Zones...... 5-67 Table 5-17: Managed Land Calculations ...... 5-68 Table 5-18: Livestock Density Calculations ...... 5-69 Table 5-19: Identification of Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Simcoe WHPAs ...... 5-79 Table 5-20: Drinking Water Quality Threats ...... 5-80 Table 5-22: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in Simcoe North West WHPAs..... 5-86 Table 5-23: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in Simcoe Cedar Street WHPAs .. 5-87 Table 5-24: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in Simcoe Chapel Street WHPAs . 5-88 Table 5-26: WHPA Vulnerability Scores ...... 5-101 Table 5-27: Vulnerability Score Summary for the Waterford WHPA-E Zone ...... 5-103 Table 5-28: Managed Land Calculations ...... 5-105 Table 5-29: Livestock Density (NU/Acre) Calculations ...... 5-105 Table 5-30: Identification of Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Waterford WHPAs .... 5-120 Table 5-31: Drinking Water Quality Threats ...... 5-121 Table 5-32: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in Waterford WHPAs ...... 5-125 Table 5-32: Summary of Data Sources Used in the Delineation of the Vulnerable Areas and the Vulnerability Assessment ...... 5-130 Table 5-33: Vulnerability Scoring for Port Dover WTP Intake ...... 5-132 Table 5-34: Input Data for Impervious Surfaces in Intake Protection Zones ...... 5-133 Table 5-35: Identification of Drinking Water Threats in the Port Dover Intake Protection Zones ...... 5-140 Table 5-36: Summary of Data Sources Used in the Delineation of the Vulnerable Areas and the Vulnerability Assessment...... 5-143 Table 5-37: Vulnerability Scoring for the Port Rowan WTP Intakes ...... 5-144 Table 5-38: Input Data for Impervious Surfaces in Intake Protection Zones ...... 5-145 Table 5-39: Identification of Drinking Water Threats in the Port Rowan Intake Protection Zone ...... 5-152

October 5, 2017 TOC-4 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

This page left blank intentionally.

October 5, 2017 TOC-5 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.0 NORFOLK COUNTY GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT Five municipal drinking water systems are located within the portion of the Norfolk County that falls within the Long Point Region Source Protection Area: Two groundwater systems (Simcoe and Waterford), two surface water systems (Port Dover and Port Rowan), and one combined groundwater and surface water system (Delhi). These systems are operated by the County’s Public Works and Environmental Services (PW & ES) Department).

Table 5-1: Norfolk County Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems in the Long Point Region

DWS Operating System Number of DWS Name GW or SW 1 Number Authority Classification Users served Delhi Water Large municipal 220007178 PW & ES GW&SW 6,000 6,262 Supply System residential Port Dover Water Large municipal 5,000 220000399 PW & ES SW Treatment Plant residential (7116)7,089 Port Rowan Water Large municipal 1,100 220000898 PW & ES SW Treatment Plant residential (16552,312 Simcoe Well Large municipal 220000371 PW & ES GW 15,500 (15,040 Supply residential Waterford Well Large municipal 3,600 220000905 PW & ES GW Supply residential (3,315230) 1 as defined by O. Reg. 170/03 (Drinking Water Systems) made under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002.

A description of each of these systems and the methods used for the water quality risk assessment are included in Section 5.1 to 5.5. Table 5-2 provides a summary of the annual and monthly average pumping rates for each well and intake associated with these systems.

Table 5-2: Annual and Monthly Average Pumping Rates for Norfolk County Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems in the Long Point Region

Annual Monthly Average Taking1 (m3/d) Well or Avg. Intake Taking1 3 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (m /d) Delhi Well #1 514 444 444 471 488 1027 745 506 341 405 473 425 396 (treated) Delhi Well #2 924 722 732 710 772 1195 1105 1321 1227 1001 760 741 795 (treated) Delhi ------Well #3a

October 5, 2017 5-1 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-2: Annual and Monthly Average Pumping Rates for Norfolk County Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems in the Long Point Region

Annual Monthly Average Taking1 (m3/d) Well or Avg. Intake Taking1 3 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (m /d) Delhi ------Well #3b Delhi Lehman 135 147 147 157 124 125 163 138 96 134 131 128 134 Reservoir Simcoe Cedar St. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well #1A Simcoe Cedar St 261 254 264 183 247 332 325 326 346 252 232 170 196 Well #2A Simcoe Cedar St 523 436 426 376 483 645 639 604 675 583 479 511 416 Well #3 Simcoe Cedar St 380 344 346 302 389 515 509 455 513 368 328 228 265 Well #4 Simcoe Cedar St 442 389 379 352 400 535 501 494 575 486 429 401 360 Well #5 Simcoe Cedar St 160 42 24 185 253 139 405 345 287 62 9 95 77 Infiltration Gallery Simcoe Chapel St 1559 1400 1447 1511 1608 1606 1615 1498 1593 1591 1605 1630 1604 Well (treated) Simcoe Northwest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Well #1 Simcoe Northwest 709 610 432 549 666 705 939 999 871 861 809 817 248 Well #2 Simcoe Northwest 959 919 1020 866 741 884 1151 1279 1156 1094 1012 392 980 Well #3 Waterford 485 365 389 430 481 604 521 668 533 462 440 482 436 Well #3 Waterford 498 455 420 382 403 487 754 625 600 590 485 355 421 Well #4 Port Dover 2576 2221 2271 2172 2515 2801 3193 3352 3241 2760 2443 2049 1879 Intake

October 5, 2017 5-2 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-2: Annual and Monthly Average Pumping Rates for Norfolk County Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems in the Long Point Region

Annual Monthly Average Taking1 (m3/d) Well or Avg. Intake Taking1 3 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (m /d) (treated) Port Rowan 862 599 631 757 857 1027 1162 1144 1060 977 779 665 683 Intake (treated)

1 Source: Norfolk County, based on 2016 monitoring data

October 5, 2017 5-3 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Delhi-Courtland Water Quality Risk Assessment

Norfolk County provides municipal drinking water to approximately 6,000 6.262 residents in the communities of Delhi and Courtland (see Table 5-1) via the Delhi-Courtland Water Supply system. This is an existing large municipal residential drinking water system, defined as a Type 1 system under the Technical Rules (2009a). Map 5-1 shows the serviced area for Delhi and Courtland. The Delhi-Courtland water supply is via a drinking water system that distributes treated water fromsourced from two groundwater supply wells located to the east of Delhi and a surface water intake located in the Lehman Reservoir. Approximately 90% of the water supplied through the Delhi-Courtland system is sourced from groundwater, with the remaining 10% from the Lehman Reservoir. The Delhi-Courtland Water Supply is an existing large municipal residential drinking water system, and as such is a Type I system as defined by the Technical Rules (2009a). Treated water from the three sources enters a common distribution system and approximately 10 to 12% of the treated supply originates from the surface water intake. The groundwater supply wells are operated in first and second duty with the surface water supply as the third duty system. Typically, municipal demand is provided by the wells with the surface water intake only required during periods of unusually high demand, for examplee.g. to provide additional flow during fire fighting activities. Routine operating procedure requires the surface water treatment plant to be run on weekdays for 2 to 3 hours with an operator on-site. Annual average raw surface water taking from the Lehman Reservoir in 2008 was 190 m3/day. As of 2016, the rated capacity of the surface water treatment plant is 4,545 m3/day. The Delhi-Courtland groundwater supply system consists of one well field containing two wells (Well #1 and Well #2). Both wells are 39 m deep screened from 31 to 38 m, and pump from an extensive unconfined aquifer consisting of glaciolacustrine sands and gravels. The wells have a planned pumping capacity of 2,300307 m3/day. The annual average raw water takings in 2016 from Wells 1 and 2 were 514 m3/day and 924 m3/day, respectively. Annual average raw surface water taking from the Lehman Reservoir in 2016 was 135 m3/day. As of 2016, the rated capacity of the surface water treatment plant was 4,545 m3/day.

Both groundwater supply wells (Wells 1 and 2) are located together in one wellfield to the east of Delhi. The wells are 39 m deep and screened in an extensive unconfined aquifer consisting of glaciolacutrine sands and gravels that are part of an intermediate aquifer.

Wells 1 and 2 are classified as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GUDI) as previous analyses have shown a potential hydraulic connection between the intermediate municipal aquifer and the shallow surficial aquifer (Stantec, 2010a).

Norfolk County has identified a need for increased capacity for the Delhi-Courtland system and To address the need for increased capacity y completed a Schedule B Class Environmental Assessment (EA) in March of 2012 for the Delhi Water System. The Class EA process identified the preferred solution as the construction of two new wells at the Delhi Well Fieldwellfield. Municipal wells 3A and 3B were drilled in 2016 with the purpose of providing increased capacity. Well 3A and Well 3BBoth wells are 39 m deep and screened from 31 to 38 m BGS within the same unconfined aquifer as Well 1 and Well 2. The wells are not currently pumping to the Delhi- Courtland Water System, however will be brought online when needed. The 2016 identified rated capacity for Wells 3a and 3b is 1,145 m3/day.

October 5, 2017 5-4 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Regional groundwater flow appears to follow the regional topography and flows south towards Lake Erie. Locally, groundwater flow within the surficial aquifer and likely the lower aquifer is generally towards Big Creek to the west of the Delhi wells. .

completed a groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GUDI) study and concluded that Well #1 operates under GUDI conditions, as its 50 days capture zone intersects a small pond.

Technical studies to support the vulnerable area delineation, threat assessment and issue identification for the Delhi-Courtland system are described in the following reports:

• Norfolk County Source Water Protection Team Vulnerability Report, Schlumberger Water Services (Canada) Inc. (November 2009);

• Delhi, Simcoe and Waterford Source Protection Study Preliminary Threats Assessment and Issues Identification Report #2, Schlumberger Water Services (Canada) Inc. (May 2010);

• Wellhead Protection Area E Delineation and Vulnerability Scoring for GUDI Wells in Norfolk County, Stantec (March 2010);

• Norfolk County Lehman Reservoir Surface Water Intake Vulnerability Analysis, AECOM (March 2010); and

• Norfolk County Lehman Reservoir Preliminary Threats Assessment and Issues Identification, AECOM (May 2010)

• Draft Delhi WHPA Delineation, Vulnerability Scoring and Threats Assessment, Matrix Solutions, Inc. (September, 2017)

5.1.1 Delhi-Courtland Wellhead Protection Areas Wellhead Protection Areas for the Delhi municipal wells were developed using an updated numerical model of groundwater flow that was previously developed for the Tier Two Stress Assessment using FEFLOW (DHI Water & Environment; DHI 2012a)the USGS code MODFLOW with Visual MODFLOW. While the entire model domain was updated, greater refinement and attention during calibration was given to the Tier Three Focus Area (i.e. Delhi- Courtland wellfield).

In the early 2000s, a local scale Visual MODFLOW (Harbaugh 2005) model was developed to delineate groundwater quality WHPAs for Delhi municipal wells 1 and 2. Later in 2009, a regional scale groundwater flow model was developed for all of Long Point Region for the Tier Two Water Budget Study (Matrix, 2009a) using FeFlow (DHI 2012a). In 2015, the Long Point Region Tier Three Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment was completed (Matrix 2015) which included a water quantity evaluation of the Delhi system. This work included the local refinement of areas around Delhi, Simcoe, and Waterford within the Tier Two regional scale

October 5, 2017 5-5 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report groundwater flow model and the development of a new integrated groundwater/surface-water model using MikeSHE (DHI 2012b).

WHPAs have been re-delineated for the existing wells 1 and 2, and new WHPAs have been delineated for Delhi wells 3a and 3b. The existing Long Point Tier Three groundwater flow model developed by Matrix (2015) has been updated to represent the new production wells and refined to better match new pumping test results at the well field.

Modifying the existing three-dimensional (3D) groundwater flow model (FEFLOW) was the preferred approach for this study. This model contains hydraulic conductivity and recharge values representative of the aquifers and aquitards of the area and was calibrated to be best available data at the well field scale. The model is regional in extent (encompassing Long Point, Catfish Creek, and Kettle Creek conservation authorities), and as such, model boundary effects are not a concern at the well field scale.

Overburden in the area consists of glaciolacustrine silt and clay, glaciofluvial outwash sand and gravel, and glaciofluvial ice-contact deposits consisting of sand and gravel, as well as some till and silt. Glaciofluvial ice-contact deposits are present in kames and eskers throughout the area.

The production aquifer for the Delhi municipal wells consists of fine to coarse grained sand, overlain by approximately 17 metres of Wentworth Drift and 18 m of sand/gravel material at surface. Hydrogeologic characterization work completed by Matrix (2015) has suggested potential for hydraulic connection between the production aquifer and the surficial shallow sand.

Delhi’s WHPAs were updated to reflect thedelineated using pumping rates that correspond to the “identified capacity” of the existing Wells 1 and 2, and the combined target capacity of the two new wells, Wells 3A and 3B (from Schedule ‘B’ Class Environmental Assessment Delhi Water System, Vallee 2012). The total proposed pumping of 6,870 m3/day satisfies the Maximum Day demand of 6,021 m3/d predicted to the year 2026 in the Norfolk County Master Plan (November 2007).

planned 25-year municipal pumping rates as provided by Norfolk The rates are summarized in Table 5-14.Table 5-2.The previous Schlumberger (2009) study planned 25-year municipal pumping rates are also shown in the table below.

The model domain covers a 14 km by 14 km area which encompasses the community of Delhi. The following provides a summary of the Delhi groundwater model based on hydrogeological information available at the time of the WHI et al. (2003) study.

Table 5-3: Delhi Municipal Pumping Rates for WHPA Delineation

Depth (m) Screening Top (m) Screening Bottom (m) Well ID 3 Pumping Rate (m /day) Previous Model (Schlumberger, 2009) 2016 Identified Capacity

October 5, 2017 5-6 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

39.3 31.1 Delhi 1 38.6

2,290 33.0 39.0 Delhi 2

2,290

Delhi 3a (New) 1,145

Delhi 3b (New) 1,145 Total Wellfield Pumping 6,870

Stratigraphy Overburden in the area consists of glaciolacustrine silt and clay, glaciofluvial outwash sand and gravel, and glaciofluvial ice-contact deposits consisting of sand and gravel, as well as some till and silt. Glaciofluvial ice-contact deposits are present in kames and eskers throughout the area.

TheBedrock geology consists predominantly of the Dundee Formation, consisting mainly of dolomite and some mudstone. Also present in the area are the Amherstburg and Lucas Formations, also primarily composed of dolostone. The bedrock was set as the bottom boundary for the groundwater model.

The production aquifer for Delhi wells 1, 2, 3a and 3b consists of fine to coarse grained sand, overlain by approximately 17 metres of Wentworth Drift and 18 m of sand/gravel material at surface. Hydrogeologic characterization work completed by Matrix (2015) has suggested potential for hydraulic connection between the production aquifer and the surficial shallow sand.

The primary aquifer for the Delhi municipal wells is situated within the sand and gravel deposits of the area. Many of these deposits are intercalated with clay-rich sediment. The thickness of the aquifer varies from 5 to 35 m. The clay (till) units form aquitards which vary in thickness up to 30 m.

The Delhi groundwater model consists of 5 layers based upon the Quaternary geology of the area. The layer structure of the model was defined by the development of cross-sections throughout the model domain and is based on the geology contained within the MOE’s Water Well Information System. Completion of transient calibration of the Long Point Tier 3 model for layers 3 (Wentworth Drift) and 4 (the production aquifer) yielded updated hydraulic conductivity and anisotropic ratio values (Matrix, in progress 2017).

Groundwater Flow Boundaries Boundary conditions in the flow model consist of constant head boundaries in Layers 3 and 5, and river boundaries in Layers 1 and 2. River boundaries represent significant creeks and tributaries and Big Creek, the main discharge feature. All other boundaries between active and inactive zones in the model are no flow boundaries by default.

October 5, 2017 5-7 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Constant head boundaries were assigned along the northern and southern boundaries of the model to add the north-south flow component observed in hydraulic head maps. The boundary along the northern edge is primarily an inflow boundary, while the boundary in the south of the model is primarily an outflow boundary. The general westward flow is caused by Big Creek, which is the main discharge element in the model. The bottom boundary of the model is a no-flow boundary that corresponds to the base of the weathered portion of impermeable bedrock. Two new well boundary conditions were added to the groundwater flow model to represent wells 3a and 3b (Matrix, in progress 2017)..

River stage elevations were determined from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) for the area. Estimated river widths and depths were used to calculate river conductance.

Recharge Recharge estimates were taken from the hydrologic model and applied to the groundwater model to provide a connection between the surface and groundwater numerical models.Recharge values were defined using Quaternary geology maps and local knowledge of the area. Throughout the Norfolk Sand Plain recharge was considered to be between 250 and 300 mm/year. A recharge rate of 280 mm/year was applied across the model domain.

Recharge values were defined using Quaternary geology maps and local knowledge of the area. Throughout the Norfolk Sand Plain recharge was considered to be between 250 and 300 mm/year. A recharge rate of 280 mm/year was applied across the model domain.

Hydraulic Conductivity and Porosity Hydraulic conductivity information was derived from estimates based on MOECC water well record lithology descriptions. For the area in the vicinity of the pumping wells, hydraulic conductivity values were generally available from previously performed pumping tests. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity was estimated to be ten times greater than the vertical hydraulic conductivity, resulting in an anisotrophy ratio of 1:10 for the vertical to horizontal hydraulic conductivity values. Hydraulic conductivity values were modified during the model calibration to achieve a suitable match between predicted and observed conditions.

Table 5-4 summarizes the layer structure of the Delhi groundwater flow model, which is based on the Quaternary geology of the area. A porosity value of 0.25 was used in the model for the production aquifer and a value of 0.15 was assigned to the Wentworth drift unit. This value of 0.25 is supported by ranges defined by Freeze and Cherry (1979) and is consistent with the sand material within the production aquifer. (Matrix, in progress 2017).A porosity value of 0.25 was applied across the model.

Table 5-4Error! No sequence specified.: Delhi Model Layers and Hydrogeologic Properties

Layer Feature Kx Range (m/s) Lithologies 1 Aquifer 3x10-4 to 2x10-3 Sand and gravel (shallow water glaciolacustrine deposits) 2 Aquitard 1x10-6 to 1x10-4 Silt till – Port Stanley Till 3 Aquifer 1x10-4 to 7x10-4 Glaciolacustrine sands 4 Aquitard 2x10-6 to 3x10-5 Sandy till – Catfish Creek Till 5 Aquifer 6x10-6 Dundee Formation – limestone bedrock

October 5, 2017 5-8 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

The groundwater flow model was transiently calibrated to a 7-day constant rate pumping test of Wells 1, 2, 3a, and 3b to refine the local hydraulic conductivity (Matrix, 2017). The steady-state calibration was then re-assessed to ensure the model was sufficiently calibrated for the purpose of producing WHPAs.by applying a transient pumping scheme to the municipal Delhi wells and comparing the simulated drawdown/response at select observation locations to the observed response (Matrix, in progress, 2017).

In addition, fourFour sensitivity scenarios were performed to address uncertainty. The four scenarios included modifying model input parameters for recharge/hydraulic conductivity, production well rates, water takings and permit to take water representation, and porosity. All of the sensitivity analysis scenarios were considered as well calibrated as the base case scenario and had a mass balance error of less than or equal to 1% (Matrix, 2017). Overall the sensitivity cases produced a poorer fit to observations; however given the temporal/ seasonal variability of observations and the temporal variability in production rates, thes cases remain in the realm of possibility. The sensitivity analysis adequately tested the upper and lower bounds of the well field’s capture zone (Matrix, in progress 2017).

Capture zones for wells 1, 2, 3a, and 3b were delineated using particle tracking in the updated FEFLOW groundwater flow model to track fictitious particles through the modelled steady-state domain. These particles were tracked forwards in time through the saturated groundwater flow field and pathlines were visually inspected to ensure that a large enough area of particle release locations was used to fully delineate the capture zones. Each particle passing within 15 m of a municipal production well was flagged as a “captured” particle. The release position of each captured particle was queried to generate the total areal extent of the capture zone, and the time of capture was also recorded to delineate the 2-, 5-, and 25-year time-of-travel capture zones. Capture zones in this study represent the maximum horizontal extent of pathlines through the saturated subsurface for a particular time period.

Once the time-of-travel capture zones were compiled, the WHPAs for the wells were delineated with polygons that encompass the respective time-of-travel capture zones. WHPA-A is delineated as a 100m fixed radius zone around each of the wells, independent of the time-of-travel capture zone. WHPA-B is delineated as the area outside the WHPA-A, within which the time-of-travel to the well is less than or equal to 2 years. WHPA-C is delineated as the area outside WHPA-B, within which the time-of-travel to the well is greater than 2 years, but less than or equal to 5 years. Lastly, WHPA-D is delineated as the area outside WHPA-C, within which the time-of-travel to the well is greater than 5 years, but less than or equal to 25 years.

The resulting WHPAs for Delhi are shown on Map 5-1. Wells 1, 2, 3a and 3b are located close to each other and exhibit a single capture zone. The WHPAs extend predominantly eastward aligned to the east-west directed local groundwater flow. The 25-year WHPA has an area of 4.96 km2 and intersects two tributaries of Stoney Creek.

The model was calibrated to steady-state conditions and acceptable (WHI et al., 2003) calibration results were obtained. The model was verified through a successful simulation of a pumping test where the simulated drawdown of 21 cm very closely matched the field observations of 18 cm during the 24 hours pumping test (WHI et al., 2003). In addition, seven sensitivity scenarios were performed by modifying model input parameters for recharge, porosity and hydraulic conductivity for aquifers and aquitards. For each scenario, it was verified, whether the calibration statistics were still acceptable and whether the capture zones remained realistic. Two out of the seven scenarios lead to poor calibration or unrealistic capture zones. It was noted that large changes to input parameters resulted in similar predicted capture zones.

October 5, 2017 5-9 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

WHPA-E Delineation for Wells Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water (GUDI) Delineation of additional WHPAs may be required for each well or wellfield that has been identified as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water under subsection 2(2) of O. Reg. 170/03 (referred to as GUDI wells). WHPA-E is required for GUDI wells where the interaction between surface and groundwater has the effect of decreasing the travel time of water to the well. Although Delhi Well No. 1 is among several wells in Norfolk County that have been identified as GUDI, there is no evidence of a connection to or interaction with a surface waterbody that would decrease the time of travel of water to the well; therefore, no WHPA-E was delineated for this well (Stantec, 2010a). Delhi Well No. 1 is GUDI due to the presence of a shallow water table within 4 metres of the ground surface.

Data Gaps and Uncertainty in Wellhead Protection Area Delineation In addition to the discrepancy between the cross-section and model layers, there is also a difference between the hydraulic conductivities used in the model and the conductivity determined by means of a pumping test. In the model, the upper aquifer has a hydraulic conductivity of 1.4x10-4 m/s and the lower aquifer (where the wells are screened) has a conductivity of 1.8x10-5 m/s. A pumping test performed in Well #1 indicated a considerably higher conductivity of 8.1x10-4 to 1.72x10-3 m/s.

As a part of the Tier 3 Water budget, Delhi’s WHPAs were updated to reflect current knowledge of the area. Based on differences between the model layers and the well logs, and on the uncertainty of the recharge, the uncertainty of the resulting Delhi WHPAs is considered to be highlow. However, work is currently underway to complete a Tier 3 Water budget for the Delhi system. As a part of this project, Delhi’s WHPAs will be updated to reflect current knowledge of the area.

5.1.2 Delhi Vulnerability Scoring in Wellhead Protection Areas A vulnerability assessment using the surface to aquifer advection time (SAAT) method was previously completed to identify the vulnerability of the groundwater resources to surficial sources of contamination (SWS, 2010b; EarthFx, 2008). The SAAT time of travel values were used to create mapped vulnerability categories of low (value > 25 years), medium (5 < value ≤ 25 years) and high (value ≤ 5). The Surface to Aquifer Advection Time (SAAT) methodology was used to assess vulnerability in Norfolk County as described in EarthFX, 2008. The methodology is described in Section 3.1.1.

The water table is approximately 4 metres below ground surface (mbgs) within the WHPAs, accounting for a travel time of approximately 3 years. The vulnerability was considewas therefore classified as highred to be high over the entire capture zone, as shown in Map 3-2.

Vulnerability scores within wellhead protection zones were assigned following Part VII.2 in the Technical rules as summarizedhown in Table 5-4 WHPA Vulnerability Scores.

Table 5-4-: WHPA Vulnerability Scores

Intrinsic Vulnerability Time of Travel Capture Zone Category 100-m 2-year 5-Year 25-year High 10 10 8 6

October 5, 2017 5-10 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Medium 10 8 6 2 Low 10 6 4 2

Map 5-3 shows the intrinsic vulnerability while Map 5-5 shows the vulnerability scores, which represent an intersection of the capture zones and the vulnerability categories. Since the vulnerability category is uniform, the vulnerability scores follow the capture zone delineations, where the 2-year capture zone results in a score of 10 (high), and the 5-year capture zone results in a score of 8 and the 25-year capture zone in a score of 6.

Delhi Transport Pathways and Adjusted Vulnerability Score Constructed or natural preferential pathways such as improperly abandoned boreholes or breaches in aquitards may be present within the WHPAs, and these pathways may allow contaminants to move rapidly from the ground surface to the underlying aquifer. Other preferential pathways may include pits and quarries, large diameter subsurface infrastructure such as storm and sanitary pipelines, and ditches.

Various potential transport pathways within the Delhi Capture zones were identified using various databases and GIS layers, including MOE Water Well Records, Oil and Gas Wells, Tile Drainage, Constructed Drains, Storm Sewers and Pits and Quarries. All identified potential features are mapped on It is recognized that anthropogenic activities such as large excavations, pits and quarries, private water wells, unused water wells, abandoned water wells, and the construction of underground services can compromise the natural protection of the overburden layers and increase the vulnerability of the underlying aquifers to surficial contamination.

To identify potential transport pathways, an aerial photograph review of two separate time periods (2002 and 2006) was completed by SWS (2010) for all WHPAs in Norfolk County. As part of this evaluation, both sets of aerial photographs were compared to identify major changes that had occurred between the two time periods. In addition, other compiled information was overlaid onto the aerial photographs to assist in a complete evaluation. This overlaid information included: land survey results, quarries, Norfolk County Threats Database information and transport pathways (agricultural tiles, rivers, ditches, swales, roads, MOECC water well records, permits to take water and oil and gas well records). In addition, maps of the unserviced areas were prepared to outline the locations of potential septic beds and water wells.

Various potential transport pathways as presented in Map 5-4. are located within the Delhi WHPAs.

Since the entire WHPA already has a high vulnerability, the presence of potential transport pathways does not impact the final vulnerability score on Map 5-5.

Table 5-5: Delhi Transport Pathways

Well field WHPA Transport Pathways

2 water wells 100m 1 oil and gas well Delhi well field 2 year 4 water wells 1 oil and gas well

October 5, 2017 5-11 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

1 ditch 3 tiles

1 oil and gas well 5 year 1 tile

5 water wells 25 year 3 ditches

The MOECC Technical Rules note that the low vulnerability areas can be increased to medium or high vulnerability or a medium vulnerability area can be increased to high due to the presence of one of the above noted anthropogenic transport pathways. Professional judgment is used to increase the vulnerability score based on the hydrogeological conditions, the type and nature of the pathway, and the potential cumulative impact of the pathways. However, because the vulnerability in the Delhi WHPAs is already high, additional preferential pathways cannot increase the vulnerability any further.Numerous oil and gas wells are found throughout Norfolk County. Oil and gas wells were found in each WHPA of the Delhi wells. The presence of potential oil and gas in these wells, combined with the preferential pathway that they form, can present a serious risk of contamination. It is recommended that these wells be further evaluated to determine whether they represent a serious risk to the nearby municipal water supplies.

Uncertainty and Limitations in Delhi Vulnerability Scoring The uncertainty of the vulnerability score mapping is considered to be low, since the underlying vulnerability values are uniformly high.

There is very little uncertainty that the water level is close to the surface and the soil material between surface and water table has a high permeability. The uncertainty of the vulnerability category areas is, therefore, considered to be low.

Except for the four municipal wells, there are no nearby deep wells that provide additional insight regarding the continuity of clay and silt lenses assumed to be present throughout the model. Additional well logs or geophysical information would improve the analysis of the presence and continuity of the aquitard formation.

October 5, 2017 5-12 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-1: Delhi-Courtland Serviced Area

October 5, 2017 5-13 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-2: Delhi-Courtland WHPA

October 5, 2017 5-14 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-3: Delhi-Courtland WHPA Unadjusted Intrinsic Vulnerability

October 5, 2017 5-15 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-4: Delhi-Courtland Transport Pathways

October 5, 2017 5-16 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-5: Delhi-Courtland WHPA Vulnerability Scoring

October 5, 2017 5-17 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.1.3 Lehman Dam Reservoir Surface Water Intake Lehman Dam Reservoir is located just west of the community of Delhi. It was built in 1963 by constructing an earthen dam and flooding the existing river valley. The Lehman Dam Reservoir is fed by two creeks, North Creek and South Creek, with a total contributing watershed area of about 55 54 km2. The North Creek watershed is dominated by deposits of the Norfolk Sand Plain, with the sandy overburden leading to high infiltration and groundwater discharge to local streams. The banks for the reservoir are steeply sloped and largely forested. Residential areas exist on the north bank with agricultural land occurring on the south and west banks. Recreational fishing is permitted in the reservoir; however, swimming and boating are not permitted.

The Lehman Dam Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has a single, type D intake located in Lehman Dam Reservoir. The dam is owned and operated by the Long Point Region Conservation Authority. The intake and water treatment plant are owned and operated by Norfolk County. The intake is located approximately 16.75 m from the shoreline at the normal operating level of the reservoir (Map 5-6). The intake structure has two openings that can be operated independently using valves. One opening is located 0.73 m below the water surface and the other is 1.7 m below surface. Under normal operation, only the 0.73 m opening is used. For the purposes of delineating the IPZs, the two intakes are considered to be a single point, since they are located within the same intake structure and therefore are indistinguishable in plan view. The Lehman Dam Water Treatment Plant (WTP) has a rated capacity of 4,545 cubic metres per day (m3/d); however, it typically produces much less than this because it is only operated periodically. The total volume of water supplied by the Lehman WTP in 2008 was 69,432 m3 (190 m3/d on average) and 75,791 m3 in 2009 (208 m3/d on average). Raw water from the Lehman Dam Reservoir is treated with sodium hypochlorite for initial disinfection and polyaluminum chloride is added prior to the sedimentation and flocculation tanks. Clarified water from the sedimentation tanks is pumped through three parallel sand/anthracite and gravel filters. Filtered water passes through one of two ultraviolet reactors and chlorinated to complete primary disinfection. At this point, pressurized water is sent to the distribution system. The surface water vulnerability assessment, Issues identification and threats assessment for the Lehman Dam WTP intake is documented in Norfolk County Lehman Reservoir Surface Water Intake Vulnerability Analysis (AECOM, 2010a) and Norfolk County Lehman Reservoir Preliminary Threats Assessment and Issues Identification (AECOM, 2010b). was carried out by AECOM Ltd. on behalf of Norfolk County and is documented in Norfolk County Lehman Reservoir Surface Water Intake Vulnerability Analysis, April 28, 2010 and Norfolk County Lehman Reservoir Preliminary Threats Assessment and Issues Identification, May 21, 2010. Intake Protection Zone - 1 Intake protection zones (IPZ) 1 and 2 were delineated for the intake in accordance with Part VI of the Technical Rules (November 2009). An IPZ-1 represents the most vulnerable and immediate area around an intake and, for a type D intake, is defined as a circle that has a radius of 1,000 m centred on the intake. Where the 1,000 m circle intersected land, only the portion of land within the Conservation Authority Regulation Limit or within 120 m, whichever was greater, was included. According to the Technical Rules (2009), the 120 m setback is to be measured from the high water mark; however, this GIS layer is not readily available. The Water Virtual Flow – Seamless Provincial Data Set and Water Poly Segment data layers from the Ontario Land Information Warehouse were used to identify the extent of waterbodies for the purpose of defining the 120 m setback. For in-land rivers, it is unlikely that there will be significant change in the wetted perimeter of the watercourse under

October 5, 2017 5-18 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

high water conditions compared to this layer and therefore, this approach is considered to be appropriate. IPZ-1 was modified to take into account hydrodynamic conditions, per Technical Rule 64, to exclude areas downstream of the dam. IPZ-1 for the Lehman Dam WTP Intake is shown in Map 5-6. Intake Protection Zone - 2 An IPZ-2 is defined by the Technical Rules as an area within the surface water body that may contribute water to the intake where the time of travel is equal to or less than the amount of time required by the water plant operator to respond to a spill or other event that may impair raw water quality. Where this area abuts land, IPZ-2 also includes the portion of land within the Conservation Authority Regulation Limit or within 120 m, whichever is greater. According to the Technical Rules, the 120 m setback is to be measured from the high water mark, however this GIS layer is not readily available. The same approach as for IPZ-1 has been used to determine the 120 m setback. A preliminary IPZ-2 was delineated for the Lehman Dam WTP intake using a time of travel of 2 hours. For the Lehman Dam WTP, it was determined that a response time of 2 hours is sufficient for delineating IPZ-2 because the intake is typically operated for only 2 to 3 hours per day with an operator on-site and can be shut down remotely, if necessary.

Dye tracer studies were conducted in an attempt to determine time of travel to the intake from the creeks feeding into the reservoir. A bathymetric study was carried out to determine the volume of water in the reservoir. The dye tracer study was done under low flow conditions and could not be accurately scaled up to higher flow conditions due to complex mixing and possible preferential flowpaths through the reservoir. In addition, there is little or no data available for North Creek and South Creek to estimate high flow return periods to determine bankfull flow. As such, the two hour time of travel area is highly uncertain and further refinement of the preliminary IPZ-2 through further data collection and modeling is recommended.

Based on the information from the dye tracer study, a preliminary IPZ-2 was delineated using a 2 hour time of travel and incorporating stormwater drains on Highway 3 and Hillside Avenue. The preliminary calculations suggested that the IPZ-2 was located entirely within the IPZ-1. The Assessment Report Technical Rules preclude IPZ-2 overlapping IPZ-1; therefore, it was reported that the Lehman Dam Reservoir intake had no IPZ-2. As a result of peer review comments, further hydrologic modelling and hydraulic modelling was conducted in the fall of 2010. The IPZ-2 was delineated by first recalculating the design flow rate (two year peak flow) and then building a hydraulic model using HEC-RAS software to estimate travel times through the reservoir and upstream river reaches (North Branch and South Branch). The lateral extents of the IPZ-2 were determined using the greater of either the Conservation Authority Regulation Limit or a 120 m setback from the watercourse (AquaResource Inc., 2011).

Intake Protection Zone - 3 IPZ-3 for the Lehman Dam intake was delineated in accordance with Technical Rule 70, which states that IPZ-3 shall include the area within each surface water body that may contribute water to the intake and where this area abuts land, the IPZ-3 will also include the portion of land within the Conservation Authority Regulation Limit or 120 m, whichever is greater. According to the Technical Rules, the 120 m setback is to be measured from the high water mark, however this GIS layer is not readily available. The same approach as for IPZ-1 has been used to determine the 120 m setback. For the purposes of delineating the IPZ-3 for the Delhi WTP, the MNR Water Virtual Flow – Seamless Provincial Data Set and Water Poly Segment GIS data layers from the Ontario Land

October 5, 2017 5-19 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Information Warehouse were used to identify water bodies upstream of IPZ-2 that may contribute water to the intake. IPZ-3 for the Lehman Dam intake is shown in Map 5-7.

5.1.4 Vulnerability Assessment The vulnerability analysis for IPZ-1, IPZ-2 and IPZ-3 includes consideration for both the area and the source as described in the Technical Rules. The area vulnerability factor for the IPZ-1 is prescribed to be 10 in the Technical Rules. For an IPZ-2, rule 89 states the area vulnerability factor will be not less than 7 and not more than 9. In this case, the score of 7 has been chosen due to the low runoff potential, stable and large riparian zones and the absence of transport pathways. For an IPZ-3 determining the area vulnerability factor was approached consistently across the Lake Erie Source Protection Region. The following criteria, according to Technical Rule 92, were considered: - Percentage of the area composed of land; - Runoff potential that incorporates land cover, soil type, permeability and slope; - Transport pathways; and - Proximity of the area to the intake. The IPZ-3 for the Lehman Dam WTP intake is mostly composed of rural lands, the percentage of IPZ-3 composed of land is greater than 95% due to the size of the setbacks on land relative to the width of the watercourse (e.g. typically less than 5 m) making this area more vulnerable to land-based threat activities. The total land area of the IPZ-3 is small in comparison to other IPZ- 3 within the Lake Erie Source Protection Region. In terms of proximity, most areas are considered moderately close to the intake suggesting a moderate vulnerability. The runoff potential is generally low (AquaResource Inc., 2009a) throughout the region surrounding Delhi, and in particular within the IPZ-3 area, which suggests the vulnerability factor is low. Further, in addition to the rural-agricultural land cover of the area and high infiltration rates (AquaResource Inc., 2009a), there are very few transport pathways (e.g. tile drains) which would direct the movement of contaminants toward the intake and this also favours a low vulnerability score. These attributes combine to yield an area vulnerability score of 3.0. The source vulnerability factor can range from 0.8 to 1.0 for a Type D intake. The matrix in Table 5-5 provides a summary of the rationale used to assign the source vulnerability factor for the Lehman Dam WTP intake. For the Lehman Dam WTP intake, the source vulnerability factor was assigned an intermediate value of 0.9 given the shallow depth of the intake, moderate proximity to land and no history of raw water quality concerns at the intake.

Table 5-5: Source Vulnerability Factor for the Lehman Dam Water Treatment Plant

Lehman Dam WTP Sub-factor Sub-factor Intake 0.8 0.9 1.0 Score Characteristic Depth of intake 0.73 m (typical) >5 m 1 to 5 m <1 m 1.0 Distance from land 16.75 m >100 m 10 to 100 m <10 m 0.9 Historical water Organic N typically Less than Two to five More than 0.8 quality concerns high two Issues Issues five Issues Overall average source vulnerability score 0.9

October 5, 2017 5-20 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Combining the area and source vulnerability scores, the overall vulnerability score for the Lehman Dam WTP is 9.0 for the IPZ-1, 6.3 for the IPZ-2 and 2.7 for IPZ-3 (seeTable 5-5 and Table 5-6).

Table 5-6: Vulnerability Score Summary for the Lehman Dam Water Treatment Plant

Intake Intake Protection Area Vulnerability Source Vulnerability Vulnerability Type Zone Factor Factor Score Type D IPZ-1 10 0.9 9 Type D IPZ-2 7 0.9 6.3 Type D IPZ-3 3 0.9 2.7

Information Sources for the Vulnerability Assessment A variety of information sources were used during the course of technical studies related to the Lehman Dam WTP intake. Data sources and the purpose for which they were used are summarized in Table 5-8.

Table 5-8: Data Sources for Vulnerability Assessment

Data Type Source Purpose Watercourse mapping using Ministry of Natural Resources Identify watercourses/transport Water Virtual Flow and Water pathways that may impact IPZ Poly Segment GIS datasets Constructed drain and tile Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Identify transport pathways that drainage GIS dataset Food and Rural Affairs may impact IPZ Conservation Area Regulation Long Point Region Determine land area to be Limit GIS dataset Conservation Authority included in IPZ 2000 orthoimagery Norfolk County General mapping and identification of surface features Raw water quality MOE Drinking Water Assess vulnerability of intake and Surveillance Program, Norfolk identify Issues/concerns County daily SCADA reports, weekly sampling of raw and treated water for Total coliform and E. coli, Norfolk County operation shut-down reports Flow monitoring for North Creek 14 spot flow measurements Determine extent of 2 hour time of and South Creek between 2001 and 2005 were travel under high flow conditions provided by LPRCA Dye tracer study Carried out as part of technical Determine time of travel from studies in June 2006 North Creek and South Creek to intake Reservoir bathymetry Carried out as part of technical Determine volume of reservoir studies in June 2006 and provide input data for modeling the IPZ-2 refinement

October 5, 2017 5-21 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Uncertainty/Limitations in the Vulnerability Assessment There As there wasis a high level of confidence in the datasets used to delineate IPZ-1; therefore,, a low level of uncertainty has beenwas assigned and no limitations have beenwere identified. The vulnerability of the IPZ-1 was assessed on the basis of well known characteristics of the intake (i.e. depth from surface and distance from land) and historical records of water quality concerns; this approach is consistent with the methodology given in the Technical Rules. The vulnerability score for IPZ-1 is considered to have “Low” uncertainty. Technical/Peer Review Process Technical and peer review for the surface water vulnerability assessment was completed, iteratively, throughout the development of the final reports by GRCA and Norfolk County staff. External peer review was provided by Dr. Hugh Whiteley, University of Guelph. Peer review comments were addressed to Dr. Whiteley’s satisfaction and peer review of the report was completed on April 22nd, 2010.

Several of Dr. Whiteley’s comments were addressed by including additional detail and discussion in the technical report. Specific areas that required added detail included the operation of the surface water intake as a backup system for the groundwater wells, operational procedures related to spills response, justification of a 2 hour time of travel for IPZ 2 delineation, and raw water sampling. The additional information did not change the findings or conclusions of the technical study but provided additional rationale and clarification. One comment that could not be addressed within the current technical study related to the approach used to delineate IPZ-2. Dr. Whitely recommended additional hydrologic modeling to determine the appropriate bankfull flow and additional hydraulic modeling that takes into consideration the likely preferential flow pathways in the reservoir corresponding with the pre-reservoir creek valleys.

In response to Dr. Whiteley’s concern over the high uncertainty of the IPZ-2 delineation, additional modeling of IPZ-2 was undertaken in the Fall of 2010 and an IPZ-2 refinement memo was submitted by AquaResource Inc. in January 2011 for peer review. Dr. Whiteley’s review comments and statement of acceptance was included in a letter dated January 24, 2011.

October 5, 2017 5-22 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-6: Lehman Dam Surface Water Reservoir Intake Protection Zones

October 5, 2017 5-23 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-7: Lehman Dam Surface Water Reservoir Intake Protection Zone 3

October 5, 2017 5-24 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.1.5 Percent Managed Lands and Livestock Density Percent Managed Lands in the Wellhead Protection Areas Managed Lands are lands to which nutrients are applied. Managed lands can be categorized into two groups: agricultural managed land and non-agricultural managed land. Agricultural managed land includes areas of cropland, fallow and improved pasture that may receive nutrients. Non-agricultural managed land includes golf courses, sports fields, lawns and other grassed areas that may receive nutrients (primarily commercial fertilizer).

To determine the location and percentage of agriculturally managed lands in the WHPAs, parcels with agricultural land use were identified on the aerial photography and digitized. All areas with wooded land, wetlands and water were cut out of these surfaces.

To assess the percentage of Non-agricultural managed land, all non-agricultural parcels were first delineated. The green space area was then digitized in a representative subarea in this zone and the percentage of green space of the total area was calculated. The average of green space was found to be 60% within the residential subdivision properties, which covered the bulk of the non-agricultural managed land.

The combined Managed Land results are summarized in Table 5-9 and are also shown in Map 5-6Map 5-6 and Map 6-11Map 6-10Map 5-9Map 5-9.

Percent Managed Lands within Intake Protection Zones The percent managed lands were calculated for Lehman Reservoir IPZ-1 by using aerial photography to determine the extent of agricultural lands within the IPZ-1. Based on this analysis,was classified as 14.1 ha or 22% agricultural managed lands for IPZ-1 agricultural managed lands comprise 14.1 ha or 22% of IPZ-1, and 28.3 ha or 42% of IPZ-2.

As per Technical Rule 16(9), mapping of the percent managed lands within IPZ-3 was not required as the vulnerability score was less than that necessary for activities to be considered low, moderate or significant drinking water threats.

Managed lands within the Delhi WHPAs and IPZs are summarized in Table 5-7 and are shown on Map 5-8 and Error! Reference source not found..

The results are summarized in Table 5-9 for Managed Land and Table 5-10 for Agricultural Managed Land and the delineated areas are also shown in Map 5-8.

Table 5-7: Percent Managed Land Calculations-Delhi Within Delhi WHPAs and IPZs

Scenario Total Area (m2) Managed Land Area (m2) % Managed Land Well 1 WHPA-A 31,37531,214 15,30918,5401 49%59% Well 2 WHPA-A 31,37531,214 9,77113,08879 421.9%31% Well 3A&B WHPA-A 34,331 12,8420 37.4% WHPA-B 659,711587,908 453,412437,48604 69%74.4% WHPA-C 364,405994,207 253,440706,535881 70%71.1% WHPA-D 1,631,0813,282,695 1,314,1482,34950,366410 81%721.6%

October 5, 2017 5-25 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

IPZ-1 642,279 141,000 22% IPZ-2 673,545 282,889 42%

Livestock Density Livestock density is defined as nutrient units per acre of agricultural managed land within a vulnerable area. A nutrient unit is defined as the number of animals that will give the fertilizer replacement value of the lesser of 43 kilograms of nitrogen or 55 kilograms of phosphate per year as nutrients.

Livestock density was calculated using the MOE 2009 guidance “Technical Bulletin: Proposed Methodology for Calculating Percentage of Managed Lands and Livestock Density for Land Application of Agricultural Source of Material, Non-Agricultural Source of Material and Commercial Fertilizers” for calculating Livestock Density in the WHPAs. Using aerial photography, livestock buildings were identified and square metre areas were measured for each structure. Each category of livestock was calculated into Nutrient Units as per the Barn/Nutrient Unit Relationship Table provided by the MOE (2009) and area weighted given the amount of Agricultural Managed Land that fell within each WHPA zone. The sum of the total Nutrient Units for each WHPA zone was then divided by the agricultural managed land area acreage to arrive at the NU/acre density for each WHPA zone.

In Delhi, the only structure that was identified as holding livestock within the WHPA was located on a residential property that appeared to board horses. The structure has an approximate area of 131 m2 and using the Nutrient Unit (NU) Conversion factors found in Table 1 of the Technical Bulletin (26 m2/NU; MOE 2009), a total NU of 5.0 was determined for WHPA-B. This rResults concluded with a NU/Acre of 0.05 for WHPA-B, and

A large barn was found in the southern part of WHPA-D. It is unclear whether the barn holds livestock as the rest of the property is covered with agricultural fields of ginseng and a greenhouse. To take a precautionary approach, the barn and potential livestock have conservatively been included in the livestock density assessment. The structure has an approximate area of 992 m2 and a NU Conversion factor of 13 m2/NU (MOE 2009; assuming mixed livestock) was applied. Therefore, a total NU of 76.3 was determined for WHPA-D (Table 9). This results in a NU/Acre of 0.14 for WHPA-D.

A classification of “less than 0.5 NU/acre” is presented on Table 5-8 and Map 5-11.Map 5-9.

Based on an analysis of air photos and a windshield survey no evidence of livestock within IPZ- 1 or IPZ-2 were found. Per Technical Rule 16(10), mapping of the livestock density within IPZ-3 is not required as the vulnerability score is less than that necessary for activities to be considered low, moderate or significant drinking water threats.

October 5, 2017 5-26 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-8: Livestock Density (NU/Acre) Calculations

Livestock Density Scenario Total NU Notes (NU/Acre)

WHPA-A (Well 1) None0 0 No Animals

WHPA-A (Well 2)B 0None 0 No Animals

WHPA-A (Well 3A & 0None 0 No Animals 3B)C Residential hobby WHPA-B 5.04None 0.050 horse boarding No Animals

WHPA-CD 0 0 No Animals Large barn, WHPA-D 76.3None 0.140 assumed mixed livestockNo Animals

IPZ-1 0None 0 No Animals

IPZ-2 0None 0 No Animals

5.1.6 Percent Impervious Surface Area Percent Impervious Surface Area in Wellhead Protection Areas The quantification and mapping of the percentage of impervious surface area was completed to assess the potential threats related to road salt application. A 1 km x 1 km grid was overlaid and centered on the WHPAs and the percentage of impervious area for each grid cell was determined using the project GIS. For the Delhi area, this included the impervious area represented by roads only. Map 5-10 presents the percentage of impervious surface areas for the Delhi WHPAs. In order for the application of road salt to be considered a significant threat in the Delhi area, the percentage impervious area must be greater than 80% within WHPA-A or WHPA-B where the vulnerability score is 10. Impervious percentage ranged from 0 % to 6.1% across the WHPA, therefore the application of road salt is not considered a significant threat.

To map impervious areas, roads, sidewalk and parking lots within the WHPA were digitized based on 2016 aerial photograph. A one kilometer square was centered on the centroid of the WHPA and additional squares were added next to the central square, until the WHPA area was entirely covered by the grid. The results of this calculation are shown in Map 5-10. The percent impervious surface per grid cell ranges from 6.12.2% near the municipal wells to 0% in the rural areas of the 25-year WHPA..

This methodology departs from Technical Rule 17 as the grid was centered on the centroid of the WHPA rather than the source protection area. The rationale for this departure is that the previous percent impervious surface was calculated prior to the release of the current Technical Rules (November, 2009) and was consistent with the previous version of the Technical Rules (December, 2008). The method of centering the grid on the vulnerable area is considered to be

October 5, 2017 5-27 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

an equivalent approach. As per Technical Rule 15.1, the Director has provided confirmation agreeing with the departure. The Director`s letter of confirmation can be found in Appendix B. This method was retained for the current update to be consistent with the previous work.

Percent Impervious Surfaces within Intake Protection Zones To calculate the percent impervious surface, information on land cover classification from the Southern Ontario Land Resource Information system (SOLRIS) was used. This provided land use information, including road and highway transportation routes, as continuous 15x15 metre grid cells across the entire Source Protection Area. All the cells that represent highways and other impervious surfaces used for vehicular traffic were re-coded with a cell value of 1 and all other land cover classifications were given a value of 0, to identify impervious surface areas.

Then, a focal sum moving window average was applied using the Spatial Analyst module of the ArcGIS software. For each 15x15 metre cell, the total number of neighbouring grid cells coded as impervious, within a 1x1 kilometre search area, was calculated. This total was then converted into the percentage of impervious surface by land area, using the area of each cell (225 sq. m) and the area of the moving window (1 sq. km). This provides a 1x1 kilometre moving window calculation of percent impervious surface, represented in 15x15 metre spatial increments. This dataset was calculated for the entire Source Protection Area, but was clipped to show those results only in the WHPAs and Intake Protection Zones. The analysis is more representative of road density and is better than the method described in the Technical Rules. As per Technical Rule 15.1, the Director has provided confirmation agreeing with the departure. The Director’s letter of confirmation can be found in Appendix B. Using this approach, the percent impervious surface was determined to be 1% to <80% for IPZ-1 and 0% to <8% for IPZ- 2 (Map 5-11).

October 5, 2017 5-28 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-8: Percent Managed Lands within the Delhi-Courtland WHPA

October 5, 2017 5-29 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-9: Livestock Density within the Delhi-Courtland WHPA

October 5, 2017 5-30 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-10: Impervious Surface within the Delhi-Courtland WHPA

October 5, 2017 5-31 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-11: Impervious Surface within the Lehman Dam Surface Water Reservoir Intake Protection Zone

October 5, 2017 5-32 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.1.7 Delhi Water Quality Threats Assessment The Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006 defines a drinking water threat as “an activity or condition 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, and includes an activity or condition that is prescribed by the regulation as a drinking water threat.”

The Technical Rules (MOE, 2009a) list five ways in which to identify a drinking water threat:

a) Through an activity prescribed by the Act as a Prescribed Drinking Water Threat; b) Through an activity identified by the Source Water Protection Committee as an activity that may be a threat and (in the opinion of the Director) a hazard assessment confirms that the activity is a threat; c) Through a condition that has resulted from past activities that could affect the quality of drinking water; d) Through an activity associated with a drinking water issue; and e) Through an activity identified through the events based approach (this approach has not been used in this Assessment Report).

Threats can fall into one of the following four categories:

• Chemical threats can include toxic metals, pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products and industrial solvents; • Pathogenic threats are microorganisms that could cause illness; and • Dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) are chemicals which are denser than water and do not dissolve in water, such as chlorinated solvents. • Through a condition that has resulted from past activities that could affect the quality of drinking water.

The identification of a land use activity as a significant, moderate, or low drinking water threat depends on its risk score, determined by considering the circumstances of the activity and the type and vulnerability score of any underlying protection zones, as set out in the Tables of Drinking Water Threats available through www.sourcewater.ca. Information on drinking water threats is also accessible through the Source Water Protection Threats Tool: http://swpip.ca. For local threats, the risk score is calculated as per the Director’s Approval Letter, as shown in Appendix C. The information above can be used with the vulnerability scores shown in Map 5-4, Map 5-8 and Map 5-99 to help the public determine where certain activities are or would be significant, moderate and low drinking water threats.

Table 5-9 and Table 5-10 provide a summary of the threat levels possible in the Delhi- Courtland Water Supply System for Chemical, Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL), Pathogen, and Local Threats (Oil Pipelines). A checkmark indicates that the threat classification level is possible for the indicated threat type under the corresponding vulnerable area / vulnerable score; a blank cell indicates that it is not. The colours shown for each vulnerability score correspond to those shown in the maps.

A threat assessment was not carried outcompleted for the Lehman Dam IPZ-3 as the vulnerability score was 2.7, which meansindicating there are no low, moderate or significant threats according to the Table of Drinking Water Threats and there arewere no Issues associated with this intake.; however, tThe Lehman Dam IPZ-2 had a score of 6.3, therefore,

October 5, 2017 5-33 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report there was the potential for moderate and low threats. Significant threats to the Delhi water supply were assessed through the development of a desktop land use inventory.

Table 5-9: Identification of Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Delhi Wellhead Protection Areas Threat Classification Level Vulnerable Vulnerability Threat Type Significant Moderate Low Area Score 80+ 60 to <80 >40 to <60 WHPA-A/B 10    Chemicals WHPA-C 8    WHPA-D 6   Handling / Storage of WHPA-A/B/C Any Score  DNAPLs WHPA-D 6   WHPA-A/B 10   Pathogens WHPA-C/D Any Score WHPA-A/B 10  Local Threat WHPA-C 8  (Oil Pipelines) WHPA-D 6 

Table 5-105-12: Identification of Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Lehman Dam (Delhi) Intake Protection Zones Threat Classification Level Vulnerable Vulnerability Threat Type Significant Moderate Low Area Score 80+ 60 to <80 >40 to <60 IPZ-1 9    Chemicals IPZ-2 6.3   IPZ-3 2.7 IPZ-1 9  Handling / Storage of IPZ-2 6.3  DNAPLs IPZ-3 2.7 IPZ-1 9    Pathogens IPZ-2 6.3   IPZ-3 2.7 Local Threat IPZ-1, 2, 3 Any Score (Oil Pipelines)

Activities that Are or Would be Drinking Water Threats in the Wellhead Protection Areas and Intake Protection Zones Ontario Regulation 287/07, pursuant to the Act, provides a list of prescribed drinking water threats that could constitute a threat to drinking water sources. In addition, there is one local threat that has been identified in the Lake Erie Source Protection Region, the transportation of oil and fuel products through a pipeline.

October 5, 2017 5-34 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

A spill of oil and fuel products could result in the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons or BTEX in groundwater. The conveyance of oil by way of an underground pipeline that would be designated as transmitting or distributing “liquid hydrocarbons”, including “crude oil”, “condensate”, or “liquid petroleum products”, and not including “natural gas liquids” or “liquefied petroleum gas”, within the meaning of Ontario Regulation 210/01 under the Technical Standards and Safety Act or is subject to the National Energy Board Act, was approved as a local threat. The letter of approval from the Director of the Source Protection Programs Branch and table of hazard ratings is found in Appendix C.

Table 5-11 lists the activities that are prescribed drinking water quality threats and local identified threat. Listed beside the drinking water quality threats are the typical land use activities that are associated with the threat. Land Use Inventory Methodology A land use threats assessment was completed through the review of existing data within Delhi’s WHPAs (Matrix, 2017) and summarized in Table 5-12.To associate the drinking water quality threats listed in Table 5-13, Norfolk County compiled a land use inventory. The inventory was based on a review of multiple data sources which included previous groundwater-related work undertaken by the County, public records, local knowledge and windshield surveys. The datasets used to form the basis of the threats inventory are provided in Table 5-14.

A classification system was used to link potential contaminants associated with each drinking water threat based on the identified land use. Each land use activity was classified using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The NAICS is a system for classifying business establishments and industrial processes using a unique code in a consistent hierarchical manner. The system helps to determine chemicals or other material that may be onsite based on the land use activity identified.

Potential threats were identified based on the land use activity that was identified and the chemicals or materials associated with the land use activity. In many cases, assumptions as to the presence of an activity were made. Observations and assumptions are summarized in .

Limited site specific information was collected for the current inventory.as a part of this assessment Most threats identified through this assessmentand most identified threats arewere considered potential, requiring and require further review and site specific assessments to confirm their presence.

A total of 38 potential threats were identified on 12 properties within the Delhi WHPAs as follows.

• 1 activity related to a waste disposal site • 8 activities related to septic systems • 8 activities related to the storate and application of agricultural source material (ASM) to land • 3 activities related to the storage of commercial fertilizer • 8 activities related to the storage and application of pesticides to land • 8 activities related to the handling and storage of fuel • 1 activity related the management or handling of ASM generation (grazing and pasturing) • 1 activity related to the management or handling of ASM generation (yards or confinement)

October 5, 2017 5-35 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Norfolk County Historic Threats Database A historic threats database (version 4.1) was compiled within the scope of the Norfolk Municipal Groundwater Study, which was completed by WHI et al. during May of 2003. This database was used as part of the current investigation to evaluate potential historic threats within the County.

Table 5-11: Drinking Water Quality Threats

Prescribed Drinking Water Quality Threats Land Use/Activity Ontario Regulation 287/07 s.1.1.(1) The establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste Landfills – Active, Closed 1 disposal site within the meaning of Part V of the Hazardous Waste Disposal Environmental Protection Act. Liquid Industrial Waste The establishment, operation or maintenance of a system Sewage Infrastructures 2 that collects, stores, transmits, treats or disposes of sewage. Septic Systems, etc. 3 The application of agricultural source material to land. e.g. manure, whey, etc.

4 The storage of agricultural source material. e.g. manure, whey, etc.

5 The management of agricultural source material. aquaculture Organic Soil Conditioning 6 The application of non-agricultural source material to land. Biosolids Organic Soil Conditioning 7 The handling and storage of non-agricultural source material. Biosolids 8 The application of commercial fertilizer to land. Agriculture Fertilizer

9 The handling and storage of commercial fertilizer. General Fertilizer Storage

10 The application of pesticide to land. Pesticides

11 The handling and storage of pesticide. General Pesticide Storage

12 The application of road salt. Road Salt Application

13 The handling and storage of road salt. Road Salt Storage

14 The storage of snow. Snow Dumps

15 The handling and storage of fuel. Petroleum Hydrocarbons The handling and storage of a dense non-aqueous phase 16 DNAPLs liquid. 17 The handling and storage of an organic solvent Organic Solvents The management of runoff that contains chemicals used in 18 De-icing the de-icing of aircraft. The use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an 21 Agricultural Operations outdoor confinement area or a farm-animal yard. Local Drinking Water Quality Threats Land Use/Activity

October 5, 2017 5-36 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-11: Drinking Water Quality Threats

Prescribed Drinking Water Quality Threats Land Use/Activity Ontario Regulation 287/07 s.1.1.(1) The conveyance of oil by way of an underground pipeline that would be designated as transmitting or distributing “liquid hydrocarbons”, including “crude oil”, “condensate”, or “liquid petroleum products”, and not including “natural gas liquids” or Oil pipeline “liquefied petroleum gas”, within the meaning of the Ontario Regulation 210/01 under the Technical Standards and Safety Act or is subject to the National Energy Board Act.1 1: As confirmed by the letter from the Director of the Source Protection Programs Branch in Appendix C.

Table 5-14: Data Sources for Threats Assessment

Data Type Source Purpose

Windshield survey of properties Carried out as part of technical Identify/confirm potential threats surrounding reservoir studies in August 2009 within IPZs To identify threats in vulnerable areas because these areas Field surveys completed by Windshield survey were perceived to have the SWS. greatest potential to impact sources of drinking water. To determine additional Completed by SWS and Matrix. information which could lead to Well Operator Interviews the identification of significant threats Completed by WHI, 2003 in the The database was used to Historic Norfolk County Threats Norfolk Municipal Groundwater evaluate potential historical Database Study. threats.

To aid in the determination of SWS reviewed aerial land use activities including Photography from 2006, Google managed lands and impervious Historic Aerial Photographs Maps (2009), and Street view surfaces. To determine any (2009). potential threats due to land use and land use changes. LESPR staff reviewed aerial photography from 2010, Google Identify/confirm potential Aerial Photographs Maps (2013), and Google Street threats. View (2013).

Windshield survey of properties LESPR staff carried out as part Identify/confirm potential in WHPAs & IPZs of threat review in 2013/2014 threats.

To aid in the determination of land use activities including Matrix reviewed Google Maps Land Use Activity Assumptions managed lands and impervious and Street View (2016) surfaces. To identify any potential threats.

October 5, 2017 5-37 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-14: Data Sources for Threats Assessment

Data Type Source Purpose To identify potential and historic Environmental Databases ERIS Ecolog Report threats in vulnerable areas.

Aerial PhotographsTable 5-15: Matrix reviewed Google Maps To aid in the determination of Land Use Activity and Street View (2016) land use activities including Assumptions managed lands and impervious surfaces. To identify any potential threats. Environmental Databases ERIS Ecolog Report To identify potential and historic threats in vulnerable areas.

Table 5-15: Land Use Activity Assumptions

Observation Assumption DWT Reg Ref No Agricultural property with Presence of septic system and septic system holding 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, residence and tank, storage and application of commercial fertilizer, 1511, 15, 9, 4, 2, outbuildings – buildings storage and handling of fuel, application of ASM, 10, 8, 3 located in WHPA application and storage of pesticides Agricultural property with Circumstances related to storage and handling of 3, 8, 10, residence and chemicals and septic systems are not applied as there outbuilding – buildings is not building in the vulnerable area. Those not in WHPA circumstances related to application of ASM, commercial fertilizer and pesticides are applied if agricultural managed land is within the WHPA. Agricultural property Circumstances related to storage and handling or 3, 8, 10, without farm buildings septic systems are not applied. Those related to and structures application are applied Residence where no Heating oil tank is present– associated fuel storage 15 natural gas line is and handling threats are applied present No sanitary sewer Septic system is present 2 infrastructure Lawn/turf Potential application of commercial fertilizer (ID 8 dependent on the percent of managed land and the application of NU to the surrounding properties). Waste Disposal The establishment, operation or maintenance of a 1 waste disposal site within the meaning of Part V of the Environmental Protection Act. Commercial/Industrial The handling and storage of a dense non-aqueous 16 phase liquid. Gas Station The handling and storage of fuel. 15

October 5, 2017 5-38 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-15: Land Use Activity Assumptions

Observation Assumption DWT Reg Ref No Storm sewer piping Storm sewer piping is not considered to be part of a 2 storm water management facilty.

Rural residential Presence of septic system and septic system holding 2, 8, 9, 15 property with single tank, storage and application of commercial fertilizer, family detached home or storage and handling of fuel rural recreational property with building (e.g., club), not on municipal water Maintained lawn Application of commercial fertilizer 8 surrounding municipal well

Table 5-13: Data Categories

Source Category Number of Locations Ministry of the Environment, Potentially PCB sites 17 Contaminated Sites Databases Ministry of the Environment, Potentially Contaminant Sources 111 Contaminated Sites Databases Ministry of Agriculture and Food Intensive Livestock 86 Ministry of the Environment, Potentially Waste Disposal Sites 36 Contaminated Sites Databases Ministry of the Environment, Potentially Spills 69 Contaminated Sites Databases Table 5-12: Potential Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Delhi- Courtland WHPAs (Matrix, 2017)

1 2 Number of PDWT # Threat Subcategory Vulnerable Area Activities

Waste Disposal Site - Storage of wastes WHPA-A 1 described in clauses (p), (q), (r), (s), (t) or (u) 1 WHPA-B of the definition of hazardous waste

2 Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Septic WHPA-A 8 System WHPA-B

Application Of Agricultural Source Material WHPA-A 3 7 (ASM) To Land WHPA-B

Storage Of Agricultural Source Material 4 1 WHPA-B (ASM)

October 5, 2017 5-39 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

WHPA-A 9 Storage Of Commercial Fertilizer 3 WHPA-B

10 Application Of Pesticide To Land 5 WHPA-B WHPA-A 11 Storage Of A Pesticide 3 WHPA-B WHPA-A 15 Handling Of Fuel 4 WHPA-B WHPA-A 15 Storage Of Fuel 4 WHPA-B Management Or Handling Of Agricultural Source Material - Agricultural Source 1 WHPA-B Material (ASM) Generation (Grazing and 21 pasturing) Management Or Handling Of Agricultural Source Material - Agricultural Source 1 WHPA-B Material (ASM) Generation (Yards or confinement) Total number of activities 38 Total number of properties 12 1: Prescribed Drinking Water Threat Regulation Reference Number refers to the prescribed drinking water threat listed in O. Reg 287/07 s. 1.1.(1). 2: Where applicable, waste, sewage, and livestock threat numbers are reported by sub-threat; fuel and DNAPL by Prescribed Drinking Water Threat category. Note: Certain types of activities on residential properties that are incidental in nature and that are significant drinking water threats are not enumerated. These threats include the application of commercial fertilizer on residential properties, the storage of organic solvents (dense non-aqueous phase liquids) on residential properties, and the storage of fuel (e.g., heating fuel tanks) on residential properties in natural gas serviced areas. Note: Storm sewer piping is not considered to be part of a storm water management facilty.

5.1.8 Conditions Evaluation The Technical Rules (Part XI.3) require a list of conditions resulting from a past activity where the following groundwater-related conditions are present:

• The presence of a non-aqueous phase liquid in groundwater in a highly vulnerable aquifer, significant groundwater recharge area or WHPA;

• The presence of a contaminant listed in Table 2 of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards and is present at a concentration that exceeds the potable groundwater standard set out for the contaminant in that Table;

• The presence of a contaminant in sediment, if the contaminant is listed in Table 1 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards and is present at a concentration that exceed the sediment standard set out for the contaminant in that Table, and the presence of the contaminant in sediment could result in the deterioration of the surface water for use as a source of drinking water

No data was available that would have allowed determining -site migration from potentially contaminated sites. Therefore, no significant, conditions-based threats were

October 5, 2017 5-40 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report identified. MOE datasets related to past spills and Records of Site Condition were not assessed and this is noted as a data gap.

To identify potential threats from conditions within the WHPAs, multiple data sources were reviewed including aerial and roadside imagery, the ERIS database report, the interviews with municipal staff, and the historic 2003 Norfolk County Threats Database. No significant, conditions-based threats were identified in this review, and thus no conditions resulting from past activities in the WHPA were identified as per Technical Rule 126. No conditions resulting from past activities were identified as per Technical Rule 126 in the WHPA.

Fifty 74 significant prescribed threats were identified in the WHPA of Delhi. These threats are listed in Table 5-14Table 5-14.

Table 5-17: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Delhi-Courtland Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas

1 2 2 Number of Vulnerable PDWT # TSC # Threat Subcategory Activities Area 11 WHPA-A Waste Disposal Site - Storage of wastes WHPA- described in clauses (p), (q), (r), (s), (t) or BWHPA-A (u) of the definition of hazardous 11 10 WHPA-B wasteWaste Disposal Site - Storage of wastes described in clauses (p), (q), (r), (s), (t) or (u) of the definition of hazardous 814 WHPA-A Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Septic 2 WHPA- 15 SystemSewage System Or Sewage Works - WHPA-A 2 Septic System B WHPA-B 77 WHPA-A Application Of Agricultural Source Material WHPA- 34 20 (ASM) To LandHandling and Storage Of WHPA-A Agricultural Source Material (ASM) B WHPA-B 11 WHPA- Storage Of Agricultural Source Material BWHPA-B 47 21 (ASM)Handling and Storage of Non - Agricultural Source Material (NASM) 743 WHPA-A Storage Of Commercial FertilizerHandling 911 26 and Storage Of A Pesticide WHPA- BWHPA-B 775 WHPA-A Application Of Pesticide To LandHandling WHPA- 1015 27 and Storage Of Fuel BWHPA-A WHPA-B Storage Of A PesticideManagement Or 31 WHPA-A Handling Of Agricultural Source Material - WHPA- 1121 28 Agricultural Source Material (ASM) BWHPA-B Generation (Yards or confinement) 15 32 Handling Of Fuel 84 WHPA-A

October 5, 2017 5-41 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-17: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Delhi-Courtland Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas

1 2 Number of Vulnerable PDWT # 2 Threat Subcategory TSC # Activities Area WHPA-B Storage Of Fuel 84 WHPA-A 15 33 WHPA-B Management Or Handling Of Agricultural 1 WHPA-B Source Material - Agricultural Source 38 Material (ASM) Generation (Grazing and 21 pasturing) 21 Management Or Handling Of Agricultural 1 WHPA-B Source Material - Agricultural Source 39 Material (ASM) Generation (Yards or confinement) Total number of activities 743850 Total number of properties 132616 1: Prescribed Drinking Water Threat Regulation Reference Number refers to the prescribed drinking water threat listed in O. Reg 287/07 s. 1.1.(1). 2: Where applicable, waste, sewage, and livestock threat numbers are reported by sub-threat; fuel and DNAPL by Prescribed Drinking Water Threat category. Note: Certain types of activities on residential properties that are incidental in nature and that are significant drinking water threats are not enumerated. These threats include the application of commercial fertilizer on residential properties, the storage of organic solvents (dense non-aqueous phase liquids) on residential properties, and the storage of fuel (e.g., heating fuel tanks) on residential properties in natural gas serviced areas. Note: Storm sewer piping is not considered to be part of a storm water management facilty.

Threat Assessment – Lehman Reservoir Intake

Land Use Inventory A threat assessment was completed based on the vulnerability attributed to the intake protection zones (AECOM, 2010a; Stantec, 2010b). Air photo interpretation and a windshield survey conducted in August 2009 were used to confirm the presence of specific land use activities within IPZ-1. Circumstances related to the threats were evaluated using the percent managed lands and impervious surface area described above. Where information was not available to evaluate circumstances, conservative assumptions were made about threats associated with land use activities, e.g. in the absence of information about specific practices on each farm within IPZ-1, it was assumed that all agricultural lands may apply agricultural source material, non-agricultural source material, commercial fertilizer, pesticides, etc. Agricultural properties identified within IPZ-1 were assumed to be potential threats resulting from the application of agricultural source material to land, application of non-agricultural source material to land, application of commercial fertilizer to land, and application of pesticide to land. There were no farm buildings or storage tanks identified within IPZ 1 therefore it was assumed that there were no potential threats associated with permanent storage and handling of agricultural source material, fertilizers, etc.

October 5, 2017 5-42 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Conditions Evaluation The Technical Rules (Part XI.3) require a list of conditions resulting from a part activity where the following surface water related conditions are present:

• The presence of a single mass of more than 100 litres of one or more dense non-aqueous phase liquids in surface water in a surface water intake protection zone;

• The presence of a contaminant in surface soil in a surface water intake protection zone if, the contaminant is listed in Table 4 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards is present at a concentration that exceeds the surface soil standard for industrial/commercial/community property use set out for the contaminant in that Table.

• The presence of a contaminant in sediment, if the contaminant is listed in Table 1 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards and is present at a concentration that exceed the sediment standard set out for the contaminant in that Table.

The potential presence of conditions associated with past activities was assessed based on local knowledge through discussions with Norfolk County municipal staff. MOE datasets related to past spills, Records of Site Condition and potentially contaminated sites were not assessed and this is noted as a data gap. No conditions resulting from past activities were identified as per Technical Rule 126 in IPZ-1. Enumeration of Significant Threats - Lehman Reservoir Intake IPZ-1 According to the Ministry of the Environment’s Table of Drinking Water Threats, a vulnerability score of 9 for IPZ-1 may result in significant threats associated with land use activities as summarized in Table 5-13.

Table 5-13: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Lehman Reservoir Intake (Stantec, 2010a)

1 2 Number of Vulnerable PDWT # Threat Subcategory Activities Area Application Of Agricultural Source Material (ASM) To 3 6 IPZ-1 Land

Handling and Storage Of Agricultural Source Material 4 7 IPZ-1 (ASM)

10 Application Of Pesticide To Land 4 IPZ-1

Management Or Handling Of Agricultural Source 21 Material - Agricultural Source Material (ASM) 1 IPZ-1 Generation (Yards or confinement)

Total Number of Properties 7 Total Number of Activities 18 1: Prescribed Drinking Water Threat Number refers to the prescribed drinking water threat listed in O.Reg 287/07 s.1.1.(1). 2: Where applicable, waste, sewage, and livestock threat numbers are reported by sub-threat; fuel and DNAPL by Prescribed Drinking Water Threat category. Note: Certain types of activities on residential properties that are incidental in nature and that are significant drinking water

October 5, 2017 5-43 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-13: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Lehman Reservoir Intake (Stantec, 2010a)

1 2 Number of Vulnerable PDWT # Threat Subcategory Activities Area threats are not enumerated. These threats include the application of commercial fertilizer on residential properties, the storage of organic solvents (dense non-aqueous phase liquids) on residential properties, and the storage of fuel (e.g., heating fuel tanks) on residential properties in natural gas serviced areas. Note: Storm sewer piping is not considered to be part of a storm water management facilty.

All properties referenced in Table 5-13 intersect with IPZ-1 and are used for agricultural purposes. Although agricultural properties have, or could potentially have, land use activities that pose a significant threat to the Lehman Dam WTP intake, further investigation is required to confirm whether these activities are actually occurring.

The number of significant threat activities occurring in Lehman Dam WTP intake IPZ-1 is 18 as follows:

• 6 locations where the application of agricultural source material may be occurring; • 4 locations where the application of pesticide may be occurring; • 7 locations where the storage of agricultural source material may be occurring; • 1 location where the use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an outdoor confinement area or a farm-animal yard may be occurring.

5.1.9 Delhi-Courtland Drinking Water Quality Issues Evaluation Issues Evaluation - Delhi Wells The objective of the Issues evaluation is to identify drinking water Issues where the existing or trending concentration of a parameter or pathogen at an intake, well or monitoring well would result in the deterioration of the quality of water for use as a source of drinking water. The parameter or pathogen must be listed in Schedule 1, 2 or 3 of the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards (ODWQS) or Table 4 of the Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (Technical Rules XI.1 (114 – 117)).

Once a drinking water Issue is identified, the objective is to identify all sources and threats that may contribute to the issue within an Issue contributing area and manage these threats appropriately. If at this time the Issue contributing area can not be identified or the Issue can not be linked to threats then a work plan must be provided to assess the possible link.

If an Issue is identified for an intake, well or monitoring well, then all threats related to a particular Issue within the Issue Contributing Areas are classified as significant drinking water threats, regardless of the vulnerability.

Delhi wells 1 and 2 have separate pump houses including the following equipment for water treatment:The Delhi water supply system serves the community of Delhi and the Hamlet of Courtland. It includes two pumping wells: well #1 with a depth of 39.3 m and well #2 having a depth of 40.8 m. Two newly constructed production wells, 3a and 3b have a depth of X and X, respectively. These wells are not

October 5, 2017 5-44 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report in production as of September 2017.Each well has a separate pump house including the following equipment for water treatment:

UV disinfection units

• A sodium hypochlorite disinfection system • UV disinfection units • A fluoridation system • Sodium silicate (iron and manganese sequestration) • Chlorine As of September 2017, Wells 3a and 3b have not yet been put into production yet.

Schedule 1 Parameters Weekly samples analysed for E. coli and total coliforms were available from 2005 to 2016. For Well 1, raw and treated samples were available for the entire time period. For Well 2, only analyses of raw water were available from 2005 to 2009 and both raw and treated water from 2010 to 2016.

In Well 1, total coliforms were found in 7 raw water samples and in 2 treated water samples over the available record. In Well 2 total coliforms were detected in 7 raw water samples and 1 treated water sample. E. coli was detected in a single raw water sample in Well 2 indicating fecal contamination.

One instance of E.coli and total coliform was found at the water treatment plant (WTP) in 2014; however, additional sampling was completed and results were within applicable guidelines. Similarly, total coliform was detected in the distribution system in 2015 but additional sampling showed results within applicable guidelines.

The well operator confirmed that the disinfection system provides the appropriate treatment for this low number of microbes. No Schedule 1 parameters were therefore noted.

Weekly samples analysed for E. coli and total coliforms were available from 2005 to 2009. For Well #1 raw and treated samples were available, for well #2 only analyses of raw water were available.

In well #1, total coliforms were found in 3 raw water samples and in 2 treated water samples. In well #2 Total coliforms were detected in 7 raw water samples. E. coli was detected in a single raw water sample in well #2 indicating fecal contamination. The well operator confirmed that the disinfection system provides the appropriate treatment for this low number of microbes. No Schedule 1 parameters were therefore noted.

Schedule 2 and 3 Parameters No occurrences of inorganic Schedule 2 parameters were observed in the raw water of Delhi wells 1 and 2; however, in 2016 a fluoride residual was found leaving the WTP at more than the standard of 1.5 mg/L. As remedial action, the WTP was backwashed, hydrants were flushed, the fluoride pump was reprogrammed and operators received training on pump controls.

Among the organic Schedule 2 parameters, one exceedance of the ODWQS maximum acceptable concentration was noted at Delhi Well 1 for benzo(a)pyrene on November 21, 2001

October 5, 2017 5-45 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report with a concentration of 0.03 ug/L (MAC = 0.01 ug/L). All other available concentrations extracted from the annual drinking water reports 2003 to 2009 (treated water) and 2010 to 2016 (raw water) were below the detection limit of 0.004 ug/L. The elevated concentration was, therefore, considered to be a single occurrence and this parameter was not noted as a concern.

From 2010 to 2013, the annual quarterly average concentrations of trihalomethanes (THM) exceeded 50% of MAC (100 ug/L) at wells 1 and 2. Annual average concentrations ranged from 51.5 to 78.5 ug/L during these 4 years. The quarterly THM has consistently been declining since 2013 to well below the 50% MAC (32.3 ug/L) in 2016. Therefore THM is not considered an Issue.

In 2012, N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) was found in the Delhi WTP at 0.054 ug/L and 0.057 ug/L at sample station 4 Gage St. (MAC is 0.009 ug/L). The source of NDMA is attributed to land application and run-off into surface water supply. Subsequent samples from the drinking water system were found to be within guidelines and no further action was required.

In 2015, the fungicide, Mefenoxam, was detected in the WTP at a concentration of 0.2 ug/L. Additional samples were retrieved and found to be within guidelines and no further action was required. Note that this parameter is not listed in Schedule 1, 2, or 3 of the ODWQS, Table 4 of the Technical Support Document, or Table 2 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards.

In May 2016, new wells 3a and 3b were sampled for dioxins and furans and all analyses were below detection limits.

Schedule 3 Parameters No elevated values of gross alpha and gross beta were found for wells 1 and 2 in the available analysis which made the analysis of further elements of Table 3 (radioactive) parameters unnecessary. One tritium activity analysis was available and the activity remained below the detection limit.

In May 2016, new wells 3a and 3b were also sampled for gross alpha, gross beta and tritium. Similar to earlier analysis, the results were below the reportable detection limits.

No occurrences of inorganic Schedule 2 parameters were observed in the raw water of the Delhi wells. Among the organic Schedule 2 parameters one exceedance of the ODWQS maximum acceptable concentration was noted at Delhi Well #1 for benzo(a)pyrene on November 21, 2001 with a concentration of 0.03 ug/L (MAC = 0.01ug/L). All other available concentrations extracted from the annual drinking water reports 2003 to 2009 (treated water) were below the detection limit of 0.004 ug/L. The elevated concentration was, therefore, considered to be a single occurrence and was not noted.

No elevated values of gross alpha and gross beta were found in the available analysis which made the analysis of further elements of Table 3 (radioactive) parameter obsolete. One tritium activity analysis was also available, and the activity remained below the detection limit of 1000 Becquerel/L.

Table 4 Parameters Hardness is elevated at Delhi Well 1 with available data between 1999 and 2015 exceeding the Operational Guideline (OG; 80 to 100 mg/L) with a maximum concentration of 224 mg/L.

October 5, 2017 5-46 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Hardness at Well 2 was also analyzed in 2012 and was found to also exceed the OG. However, hardness is not a concern for staff at Norfolk County.

Turbidity occurred above the screening benchmark at Delhi Well 2 on July 27, 2004 with a value of 36 NTU. Available sample results obtained after this date remained below the benchmark level indicating that this exceedance may have been an isolated event or more likely a transcription error (omission of decimal separator).

Iron and manganese concentrations were available for raw water at Well 1 in Delhi from February 2017 at values below each parameter’s aesthetic objective. These parameters were not noted as a concern by staff at Norfolk County.

No complaints in respect to odours in the drinking water of Delhi were mentioned in the drinking water reports or by the well operator and therefore this parameter was not noted as a concern.

Elevated hardness appears to be a consistent problem at Delhi Well #1 with all samples collected between 1999 and 2009 exceeding the Operational Guidelines with a maximum concentration of 224 mg/L. Hardness was therefore noted.

Turbidity occurred above the screening benchmark at Delhi Well #2 on July 27, 2004 with a value of 36 NTU. Samples taken after this date remained below the benchmark level indicating that this exceedance may have been an isolated event or more likely a transcription error (omission of decimal separator).

No Iron and manganese concentrations were available for raw water in Delhi; however, the well operator confirmed that both parameters occur at elevated concentrations, which is the reason why the water is treated for iron and manganese sequestration.

The 2,4 Dichloro-phenol levels remained below the detection limit of 2 μg/L; and, as such, this parameter does not exceed the 50% MAC benchmark (450 mg/L). However, the aesthetic objective is 0.3 μg; and, therefore, non-detects could still exceed this threshold.

No complaints in respect to odours in the drinking water of Delhi were mentioned in the drinking water reports or by the well operator and therefore this parameter was not noted.

Issues Summary - Delhi Wells Iron and manganese are frequently above the ODWQS Aesthetic Objective; however, the drinking water is already treated for these constituents. Both parameters were therefore identified as elevated parameters.

Hardness is frequently above the ODWQS Operational Guideline Objective. Given the natural origin and the lack of a health threat associated with this parameter, it was identified as an elevated parameter. Therefore no Issues were identified in Delhi as per Technical Rule 114.

Issues Evaluation - Lehman Reservoir Intake Raw water quality data, from a number of sources including daily and weekly water treatment plant operator sampling, continuous raw water monitoring and the MOE Drinking Water Surveillance Program (DWSP), was reviewed. Raw water data was compared to the Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines to identify potential Issues. The Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines are instruments to be applied to treated water only; however, they were compared to raw water results for the purposes of this

October 5, 2017 5-47 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

assessment to determine whether any parameters should be flagged for further review. Based on this comparison, the following observations were made: • A single sample exceeded the ODWS for dichloromethane. This is assumed to be a laboratory or sampling error, since all other results were less than detection,

• True colour, dissolved organic carbon, manganese, turbidity, water temperature and iron exceeded aesthetic objectives, and

• Aluminum, hardness, organic nitrogen, and pH exceeded operational guidelines.

• Preliminary trend analysis suggests that arsenic, boron, fluoride and nitrate levels are increasing slowly with time but remain well below the applicable standard.

Elevated levels of true colour, dissolved organic carbon, manganese, turbidity, water temperature, iron, aluminum, hardness and pH are considered Issues attributed to naturally occurring processes and therefore, no further assessment is required. Arsenic, boron, fluoride and nitrate may be increasing over time but are not considered Issues since the concentrations are not increasing rapidly and are well within acceptable limits.

Organic nitrogen has been identified as a preliminary issue that may be attributed to both natural and anthropogenic sources. Further monitoring and evaluation of this parameter is recommended before it can be identified as an issue under Technical Rule 114. An enhanced monitoring strategy at the Lehman Dam WTP intake for organic nitrogen may be developed by Norfolk County as part of the Source Protection Program.

Uncertainty/Limitations for Issue Evaluation In general, the available data were of sufficient quality and quantity to evaluate Issues. These data were sufficient for a general characterization of the raw water quality; however, more frequent and consistent sampling would be required to complete a statistical analysis with associated confidence.

October 5, 2017 5-48 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.2 Simcoe Water Quality Risk Assessment The community of Simcoe, which is serviced by three separate overburden wellfields, has a population of approximately 15,50015,040 residents. The serviced area is shown on Map 5-12.

The Cedar Street wellfield consists of five individual wells (Cedar 1A, 2A, 3, 4, and 5) and an infiltration gallery. All five wells areThe wellfield is located along the banks of Kent Creek, with well screen bottoms between 10.59.5 and 15 m below ground surface. The infiltration gallery consists of a series of underground pipes that run parallel to Kent Creek.

The Northwest Wellfield consists is comprised of three two wells (Northwest 1, 2 and 3) in proximity to Patterson Creek, and within an active aggregate producing operation. Screens for well 2 and well 3three wells begin at 19-20 m and extend to 2225-26 m below ground surface.

The Chapel Street Wellfield consists ofis a single well located within the community of Simcoe, which extends approximately 24 metres below ground surface, and is far removed from surface water bodies.

Surficial sand and gravel deposits form the primary aquifer for the Simcoe municipal wells. These deposits are interbedded with Port Stanley Till silts and clays. The thickness of the aquifer varies from 5 to 25 m.

All wells, with the exception the Chapel Street well, are classified as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GUDI) as previous analyses have shown a potential hydraulic connection between the municipal aquifer and nearby surface water features have been identified as operating under GUDI conditions (MacViro, 2002b).

Technical studies to support vulnerable area delineation, threat assessment and issue identification for the Simcoe municipal drinking water system are described in the following reports:

• Norfolk County Source Water Protection Team Vulnerability Report, Schlumberger Water Services (Canada) Inc. (November 2009);

• Delhi, Simcoe and Waterford Source Protection Study Preliminary Threats Assessment and Issues Identification Report #2, Schlumberger Water Services (Canada) Inc. (May 2010); and

• Wellhead Protection Area E Delineation and Vulnerability Scoring for GUDI Wells in Norfolk County, Stantec (March 2010).

• Town of Simcoe WHPA Delineation, Vulnerability Scoring and Threats Assessment, Matrix Solutions, Inc. (2017 in progress)

October 5, 2017 5-49 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.2.1 Simcoe Wellhead Protection Areas Three municipal well fields are located within the community of Simcoe. The Chapel Street well field consists of one well, the Cedar Street well field consists of five wells and an infiltration gallery well, and the Northwest well field consists of three wells.

In the early 2000s, a local scale Visual MODFLOW (Harbaugh 2005) model was developed to delineate groundwater quality WHPAs for Simcoe municipal wells. Later in 2009, a regional scale groundwater flow model was developed for all of Long Point Region for the Tier Two Water Budget Study (Matrix, 2009a) using FeFlow (DHI 2012a). In 2015, the Long Point Region Tier Three Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment was completed (Matrix 2015) which included a water quantity evaluation of the Delhi system. This work included the local refinement of areas around Delhi, Simcoe, and Waterford within the Tier Two regional scale groundwater flow model and the development of a new integrated groundwater/surface-water model using MikeSHE (DHI 2012b).

WHPAs have been re-delineated for all existing wells at Cedar Street, Chapel Street and Northwest well fields. The existing Long Point Tier Three groundwater flow model developed by Matrix (2015) has been updated to represent the updated well fields and refined to better match new pumping at the well field.

Modifying the existing three-dimensional (3D) groundwater flow model (FEFLOW) was the preferred approach for this study. This model contains hydraulic conductivity and recharge values representative of the aquifers and aquitards of the area and was calibrated to be best available data at the well field scale. The model is regional in extent (encompassing Long Point, Catfish Creek, and Kettle Creek conservation authorities), and as such, model boundary effects are not a concern at the well field scale.

The municipal production wells of the Northwest Wellfield draw their water from the bottom of a 15 to 30 m thick fine to medium-grained sand aquifer that is overlain in the north by a discontinuous and thin (<2 m) layer of fine-grained Wentworth Till. South of Northwest Well 2, the till is absent and the aquifer lies at ground surface and is therefore, is considered unconfined. The municipal aquifer thins from the Northwest Wellfield to the south towards the Chapel Street Wellfield. Boreholes logs in the area note that the Wentworth Till is absent in some areas, leading to connections between shallow ponds created from historic aggregate extraction operations, and the deeper municipal production aquifers.

Three overburden aquifers located in the Cedar Street Wellfield area are separated by aquitards. The uppermost surficial sand aquifer is part of the Norfolk Sand Plain and locally is approximately 6 m thick. It is underlain by a discontinuous layer of Wentworth Till. The Wentworth Till is not present at Cedar Street Well 1A, Cedar Street Infiltration Gallery, or areas west of Cedar Street Wells 2A and 3. Where the Wentworth Till is absent the sand aquifer and intermediate aquifer are connected and have a total thickness of approximately 12 m at the production wells. Underlying the intermediate aquifer is a thick unit of Wentworth and Port Stanley tills.

In the area surrounding Chapel Street Well 3, the municipal well obtains water from a 5 m thick aquifer that is overlain by approximately 10 m of fine-grained Wentworth Drift, and the well is located far from sensitive surface water features.

The Base Case scenario represents the Long Point Model as is, except for the update of pumping rates at the Simcoe municipal wells. The boundary conditions representing this

October 5, 2017 5-50 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report municipal pumping were initially updated to values consistent with those used in the previous WHPA study (SWS 2010b) and then refined further in consultation with Norfolk County staff. For example, Northwest Well 2 was identified as having reduced capacity and is unable to be remediated. Therefore its pumping rate was reduced to its functional capacity. The final pumping rates applied in the base case model are provided in Table 1 Table 5-14 and are compared to those used in 2010.

The rates are summarized in Table 5-14.

WHPAs for the Simcoe well fields were originally delineated using MODFLOW, (WHI et al., 2003). As a part of the current Schlumberger (2009) study, Simcoe’s WHPAs were updated to reflect the planned 25-year municipal pumping rates as provided by Norfolk County and summarized in Table 5-16.. The Schlumberger (2009) study also updated the original groundwater model to reflect infiltration galleries at the Cedar Street wellfield and the pumping well (Cedar Street infiltration well) dewatering these infiltration galleries.

Table 5-14: Simcoe Municipal Pumping Rates (Base Case scenario)

Well ID Pumping Rate (m3/day) Chapel St. 2,3083,437 Cedar 1A 1,8061,806 Cedar 2A 1,3051,305 Cedar 3 1,3051,305 Cedar 4 984984 Cedar 5 1,3051,305 Infiltration Gallery 742742 Northwest 2 2,2921,725 Northwest 3 2,2922,292 Total Wellfield Pumping 14,901

Prior to the delineation of capture zones, boundary conditions in the Long Point model were refined in the Northwest well field and Cedar St. well field to be consistent with the current interpreted operation of the water supply systems. The boundary condition representing pumping at Northwest Well 1 was removed from the model, reflecting the recent decommissioning of this well.

Boundary conditions were added in the Cedar St. well field to represent the operation of the infiltration gallery. In previous WHPA modelling, this feature has beenwas represented as a single infiltration well surrounded by areas of high hydraulic conductivity representing the horizontal drains. As discussed previously, t This feature is not a well but an area of shallow perforated pipes which are connected through 10 manholes. Water is pumped from a central pumping station as the infiltration gallery becomes flooded. During the Tier Three Assessment, the Safe Water Level (i.e., the minimum water level that must be maintained in order for pumping to occur) for the infiltration gallery was determined to be the average floor elevation of all the manholes, instead of the top of screen or top of open bedrock which would be typical of an overburden or bedrock well (Matrix 2015). A risk threshold would be triggered if the water level decreased below the manhole floors, resulting in no water infiltrating into the gallery and being able to be pumped.

October 5, 2017 5-51 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Recognizing the areal nature of the infiltration gallery, and that its function is dependent on the water level persisting above the Safe Water Level which has been defined over an area, this feature was simulated in the numerical model over an area represented by the distribution of the manholes. Specifically, the positions of the manholes were used to guide the placement of boundary conditions and simulation of infiltration gallery pumping in the numerical model. Total pumping from the infiltration gallery was distributed evenly across these boundary conditions.

The resulting WHPAs for Simcoe are shown on Map 5-13. The Cedar and Chapel Street wellfields are located close to each other and exhibit a single capture zone. The WHPAs extend predominantly westward with two individual lobes that point slighty northwestward and southwestward, aligned to the local westward groundwater flow. The 25-year WHPA for Cedar and Chapel Street wellfield has an area of 15.80 km2.The Northwest wellfield WHPA extends in a perdominatly westward direction, similar to the other Simcoe wellfields. The 25-year WHPA for the Northwest wellfield has an area of 6.03 km2.

Simcoe Map 5-13The

WHPAs for the Simcoe municipal wells, were developed using the USGS code MODFLOW with Visual MODFLOW. The model domain covers a 10 by 10 km area which encompasses the community of Simcoe. The following provides a summary of the Simcoe groundwater model based on hydrogeological information available at the time of the WHI (2003) study and the updates to include the infiltration gallery and well at the Cedar Street wellfield (Schlumberger, 2009).

Stratigraphy Overburden in the area consists of glaciolacustrine silt and clay, glaciofluvial outwash sand and gravel, and glaciofluvial ice-contact deposits consisting of sand and gravel, as well as some till and silt. Glaciofluvial ice-contact deposits are present in kames and eskers throughout the area.

Bedrock geology consists predominantly of the Dundee Formation, consisting mainly of dolomite and some mudstone. The bedrock was set as the bottom layer for the groundwater flow model.

The primary aquifer for the Simcoe municipal wells is situated within the sand and gravel deposits of the area. Many of these deposits are intercalated with silt and clay-rich sediments. The thickness of the aquifer varies from 5 to 25 m. Till units form discontinuous aquitards up to 50 m in thickness.

The Simcoe groundwater model consists of 5 layers based upon the Quaternary geology of the area. The layer structure of the model was defined by the development of cross-sections throughout the model domain and is based on the geology contained within the MOE’s Water Well Information System.

Groundwater Flow Boundaries Boundary conditions in the flow model consist of constant head boundaries in Layers 2, 3, 4 and 5 and river boundaries in Layers 1 and 2. River boundaries represent significant creeks and tributaries. All other boundaries between active and inactive zones in the model are no flow boundaries by default.

October 5, 2017 5-52 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Constant head boundaries were assigned along the northern and southern boundaries of the model to add the north-south flow component observed in hydraulic head maps. The boundary along the northern edge is primarily an inflow boundary, while the boundary in the south of the model is primarily an outflow boundary. The bottom boundary of the model is a no-flow boundary that corresponds to the base of the permeable bedrock.

River stage elevations were determined from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) for the area. Estimated river widths and depths were used to calculate river conductance.

Recharge Recharge values were defined using Quaternary geology maps and local knowledge of the area. Throughout the Norfolk Sand Plain recharge was considered to be between 250 and 300 mm/year. A recharge rate of 280 mm/year was applied across the model domain.

Table 5-17 below summarizes the layer structure of the Simcoe groundwater flow model, which is based on the Quaternary geology of the area. A porosity value of 0.25 was applied across the model.

Table 5-155-17: Simcoe Model Layers and Hydrogeologic Properties

3 Feature Kx Range (m/s) Lithologies

-6 -5 Sand, gravel, and clay (shallow water 1 Aquifer/Aquitard 8x10 to 9x10 glaciolacustrine deposits) -4 -4 Sand, gravel, and clay (shallow water 2 Aquitard/Aquifer 1x10 to 9x10 glaciolacustrine deposits) 3 Aquifer 8x10-4 to 1x10-3 Glaciolacustrine sands 4 Aquitard 5x10-5 to 5.5x10-5 Sandy till 5 Aquifer 5x10-6 Dundee Formation – limestone bedrock

The WHI et al. (2003) groundwater flow model was updated by Schlumberger (2009) to reflect infiltration galleries and an additional pumping well dewatering the infiltration galleries at the Cedar Street Wellfield. The Simcoe flow model calibration resulted in a normalized root mean squared error of 9.5%, which is close to the limit of 10% which is generally the accepted threshold for a model to be considered reasonably calibrated. Although the calibration is just satisfactory, a verification of the original model was accomplished through the successful simulation of pumping tests at the Chapel Street and Northwest well field. These transient simulations showed that the model-predicted draw-downs closely matched the measured data resulting from the six-hour pumping test (WHI et al., 2003).

The geological cross sections through the Simcoe well fields were also compared to the model layers and were found to be in good agreement.

Map 5-10 shows the 100 m proximity radius, and the 2, 5, and 25-year Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas for the Simcoe municipal well fields. The 25-year Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas cover an area 1.17 km2 for the Chapel Street well field, 5.63 km2 for the Cedar Street well field and 3.08 km2 for the Northwest well field. All Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas extend predominantly north-westward, parallel to the local groundwater flow.

October 5, 2017 5-53 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

WHPA-E for Wells Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water (GUDI) Delineation of additional WHPAs may be required for each well or wellfield that has been identified as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water under subsection 2(2) of O. Reg. 170/03 (referred to as GUDI wells). A WHPA-E is required for GUDI wells where the interaction between surface and groundwater has the effect of decreasing the travel time of water to the well. WHPA-F may also be delineated for GUDI wells where a drinking water issue has been identified and is believed to originate from a source outside of any other WHPA. The Cedar Street wellfield in Simcoe contains 5 overburden wells pumping from an unconfined aquifer and an infiltration gallery. The GUDI study for this wellfield identified a hydraulic connection between the wells, infiltration gallery and Kent Creek. The well locations relative to Kent Creek are shown on Map 5-14. The Northwest wellfield in Simcoe has twothree GUDI wells that appear to be hydraulically connected to Patterson Creek based on previous GUDI studies. Map 5-14 shows the location of the GUDI wells in the Northwest wellfield. WHPA-E delineations for the Cedar Street and Northwest wellfields in Simcoe were based on a 2 hour time of travel under estimated high flow conditions and included appropriate setbacks on land, according to the Technical Rules. A 2 hour response time, the minimum required by the Technical Rules, was deemed appropriate given the ability to respond quickly to spills or other contamination events by shutting down the wells remotely through the county’s SCADA system. The 2 hour time of travel distance in Kent Creek upstream of the Cedar Street wellfield was based on a statistical analysis of continuous flow monitoring data combined with dye tracer studies carried out at bankfull or near bankfull flow conditions. Continuous flow records on Kent Creek were available from Schroeter and Associates for the period from July 2005 to June 2009 and were used to calculate the 95th percentile of flow. Experience has shown that 95th percentile flow and bankfull conditions are not substantially different for natural watercourses. Dye tracer studies were carried out at flows similar to the 95th percentile flow calculated for Kent Creek and field observations indicated that water levels were at or near the top of bank (i.e. bankfull flow conditions). Based on the dye tracer study, the peak velocity in Kent Creek under bankfull conditions is 0.19 m/s, which corresponds to a 2 hour time of travel distance of 1,358 m upstream of the Cedar Street wellfield. WHPA-E for the Cedar Street wellfield was delineated to this distance from the presumed intake location, which is the point in Kent Creek nearest to the most upstream GUDI well, as shown on Map 5-14. According to the Technical Rules, WHPA-E also includes a setback on land to include the Conservation Authority Regulation Limit or 120 m, whichever is greater. According to the Technical Rules, the 120 m setback is to be measured from the high water mark, however this GIS layer is not readily available. The Water Virtual Flow – Seamless Provincial Data Set and Water Poly Segment data layers from the Ontario Land Information Warehouse were used to identify the extent of waterbodies for the purpose of defining the 120 m setback. For in-land rivers, it is unlikely that there will be significant change in the wetted perimeter of the watercourse under high water conditions compared to this layer and therefore, this approach is considered to be appropriate. There was no historical flow data available for Patterson Creek upstream of the Northwest wellfield in Simcoe and consequently, the 2 hour time of travel distance was based on a dye tracer study conducted at elevated flow conditions. Dye injections were carried out on two branches of Patterson Creek upstream of the Northwest wellfield in April 2009. Field observations during the dye tracer study suggested that Patterson Creek was not at bankfull flow and water levels were approximately 15 cm below the top of bank. A hydraulic model analysis was used to scale up the measured flow velocity to bankfull conditions by correcting for changes in velocity and depth over a range of flows in each branch of the creek. The estimated

October 5, 2017 5-54 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

2 hour time of travel at bankfull flow conditions includes an upstream distance of 2,315 m for the West branch of Patterson Creek and 2,018 m for the Main branch of Patterson Creek. WHPA-E for the Northwest wellfield was delineated to these distances from the presumed intake locations (i.e. the point in each branch of Patterson Creek closest to the most upstream well), as shown on Map 5-14.

A natural transport pathway, i.e. a small tributary to the Main branch of Patterson Creek, was identified as contributing water to the WHPA-E. WHPA-E was extended to include this tributary assuming it is hydraulically similar to the Main branch. WHPA-E for the Northwest wellfield also includes a setback on land to include the Conservation Authority Regulation Limit or 120 m, whichever is greater. According to the Technical Rules, the 120 m setback is to be measured from the high water mark, however this GIS layer is not readily available. The Water Virtual Flow – Seamless Provincial Data Set and Water Poly Segment data layers from the Ontario Land Information Warehouse were used to identify the extent of waterbodies for the purpose of defining the 120 m setback. For in-land rivers, it is unlikely that there will be significant change in the wetted perimeter of the watercourse under high water conditions compared to this layer and therefore, this approach is considered to be appropriate.

Data Gaps and Uncertainty in Wellhead Protection Area Delineation As a part of the Tier 3 Water budget, Simcoe’s WHPAs were updated to reflect current knowledge of the area. Based on differences between the model layers and the well logs, and on the uncertainty of the recharge, the uncertainty of the resulting Simcoe WHPAs is considered to be low.

Simcoe Vulnerability Scoring in Wellhead Protection Areas A vulnerability assessment using the surface to aquifer advection time (SAAT) method was completed to identify the vulnerability of the groundwater resources to surficial sources of contamination (SWS, 2010b; EarthFx, 2008). The SAAT time of travel values were used to create mapped vulnerability categories of low (value > 25 years), medium (5 < value ≤ 25 years) and high (value ≤ 5). The methodology is described in Section 3.1.1.

As shown on Map 5-15, the areas within and surrounding the Simcoe well fields have beenare mapped as predominantly highly vulnerable. One area of medium vulnerability area encompasses parts of the Chapel Street 2-year Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA. A larger area of medium and low vulnerability is located to the northnorthwest, covering most of the Northwest well field.

Vulnerability scores within wellhead protection zones were assigned following Part VII.2 in the Technical rules as shownsummarized in Table 5-15.

Table 5-15: Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA Vulnerability Scores Intrinsic Vulnerability Time of Travel Capture Zone Category 100-m 2-year 5-Year 25-year High 10 10 8 6 Medium 10 8 6 4 Low 10 6 2 2

October 5, 2017 5-55 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-17 shows the intrinsic vulnerability while Map 5-18 shows the vulnerability scores, which represent an intersection of the capture zones and the vulnerability categories.

Simcoe Transport Pathways and Adjusted Vulnerability Score It is recognized that anthropogenic activities such as large excavations, pits and quarries, private water wells, unused water wells, abandoned water wells, and the construction of underground services can compromise the natural protection of the overburden layers and increase the vulnerability of the underlying aquifers to surficial contamination.

To identify potential transport pathways, an aerial photograph review of two separate time periods (2002 and 2006) was completed by SWS (2010) for all WHPAs in Norfolk County. As part of this evaluation, both sets of aerial photographs were compared to identify major changes that had occurred between the two time periods. In addition, other compiled information was overlaid onto the aerial photographs to assist in a complete evaluation. This overlaid information included: land survey results, quarries, Norfolk County Threats Database information and transport pathways (agricultural tiles, rivers, ditches, swales, roads, MOE water well records, permits to take water and oil and gas well records). In addition, maps of the unserviced areas were prepared to outline the locations of potential septic beds and water wells.

Constructed or natural preferential pathways such as improperly abandoned boreholes or breaches in aquitards may be present within the WHPAs, and these pathways may allow contaminants to move rapidly from the ground surface to the underlying aquifer. Other preferential pathways may include pits and quarries, large diameter subsurface infrastructure such as storm and sanitary pipelines, and ditches.

Various potential transport pathways within the Simcoe wellfield Capture zones were identified using various databases and GIS layers, including MOECC Water Well Records, Oil and Gas Wells, Tile Drainage, Constructed Drains, Storm Sewers and Pits and Quarries. All identified potential features are mapped on Map 5-16.

The MOECC Technical Rules note that the low vulnerability areas can be increased to medium or high vulnerability or a medium vulnerability area can be increased to high due to the presence of one of the above noted anthropogenic transport pathways. Professional judgment is used to increase the vulnerability score based on the hydrogeological conditions, the type and nature of the pathway, and the potential cumulative impact of the pathways.

The initial vulnerability map for Simcoe is shown on Map 5-13. The Simcoe well fields include a variety of potential transport pathways including pits, oil and gas wells and private water wells. All features are presented on Map 5-19. The Simcoe WHPAs include zones of both medium and low vulnerability. As shown on Map 5-19, there were was two one areas of influence that increased the vulnerability score.

Vulnerability scores of 8 to 10 are found within the Chapel Street WHPAs (Map 5-19). Within the Cedar Street wellfield, the 2-year WHPA has a vulnerability score of 10 and the 5-year WHPA has a vulnerability score of 8. Vulnerability scores in the 25-year WHPA range from 2 to 6are mostly 6, with some 4 south of the Chapel St. wellfield. In the Northwest well field, the 2-year WHPA has a vulnerability score of 8 to 10 and the 5-year WHPA ranges from 8 to 2 with the majority of its area associated with a score of 2. Nearly the entireThe 25-year WHPA has a vulnerability score of 2 to 6. .

October 5, 2017 5-56 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Uncertainty and Limitations in Simcoe Vulnerability Scoring The uncertainty of the vulnerability score mapping is considered to be low, since the underlying vulnerability values are generally high.

There is very little uncertainty that the water level is close to the surface and the soil material between surface and water table has a high permeability. The uncertainty of the vulnerability category areas is, therefore, considered to be low.

October 5, 2017 5-57 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-12: Simcoe Serviced Area

October 5, 2017 5-58 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-13: Simcoe Wellhead Protection Area

October 5, 2017 5-59 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-14: Simcoe WHPA E

October 5, 2017 5-60 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-15: Simcoe WHPA Unadjusted Intrinsic Vulnerability

October 5, 2017 5-61 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-16: Simcoe Transport Pathways

October 5, 2017 5-62 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-17: Simcoe WHPA Adjusted Intrinsic Vulnerability

October 5, 2017 5-63 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-18: Simcoe WHPA Vulnerability Scoring

October 5, 2017 5-64 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-19: Simcoe Transport Pathways Area of Influence

October 5, 2017 5-65 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

WHPA-E Vulnerability Scoring

Vulnerability analysis of WHPA-E includes consideration for both the area and the source as described in the Technical Rules. The area vulnerability factor for a WHPA-E is prescribed to be the same as IPZ 2, i.e. between 7 and 9. The source vulnerability factors for GUDI wells in the Simcoe Northwest and Cedar Street wellfields have been assessed on the basis of Type C intake (i.e. the wellfields are hydraulically connected to in-land creeks) and therefore were assumed to be in the range of 0.9 to 1.0. The area vulnerability factors for the WHPA-E zones in Simcoe were assigned a value of 7 based on the following:

• Land area within the two WHPA-E zones is largely rural and undeveloped, much of the undeveloped areas are forested.

• There is a small area of low density residential development within 120 m of Kent Creek in the WHPA-E for the Cedar Street wellfield in Simcoe but stormwater infrastructure mapping indicates that this area drains to a point downstream of the wellfield.

• Soils within the two WHPA-E zones are typical of the Norfolk Sand Plain and are composed of sand and gravel deposits making them highly permeable.

• There are only three minor road crossings of Patterson Creek within WHPA-E for the Northwest wellfield. There are no road crossings over Kent Creek within WHPA-E for the Cedar Street wellfield.

• No transport pathways were identified for the WHPA-E for the Cedar Street wellfield. One natural transport pathway was identified for the Northwest wellfield.

These factors, taken together, suggest a low vulnerability of the source to contamination from spills and therefore, the lowest score was assigned to each WHPA-E. According to the Technical Rules, the source vulnerability factor for a surface water intake takes into consideration the depth of the intake from the water surface, the distance from land and historical water quality concerns. For a WHPA-E, the first two factors do not apply as there is no particular relevance to a GUDI well that is likely drawing surface water from a distributed area, rather than a point and only a small portion of the water getting to the well originates from surface water. There were no historical water quality concerns raised for any of the GUDI wells during the technical study. In addition, groundwater wells are known to be less vulnerable than surface water intakes to spills and other adverse conditions by virtue of the time delay between the surface water feature to the well, in-situ filtration through the soil and dilution of the surface water by groundwater from the rest of the well capture zone. For these reasons, the source vulnerability factor for the two GUDI wellfields in Simcoe was assigned the lowest value. Combining the area and source vulnerability scores, the overall vulnerability score for Northwest and Cedar Street WHPA-E zones is 6.3 (see Table 5-16).

October 5, 2017 5-66 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-16: Vulnerability Score Summary for the Simcoe WHPA-E Zones. Intake Area Source Vulnerability Location Protection Vulnerability Vulnerability Score Zone Factor Factor Simcoe Northwest WHPA-E 7 0.9 6.3 wellfield Simcoe Cedar Street WHPA-E 7 0.9 6.3 wellfield

Limitations of Data and Methods used in the WHPA-E Vulnerability Assessment Determination of the hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics of the surface water systems associated with each wellfield represented the most significant analytic component of the WHPA-E delineation, and arguably the largest potential source of error. Given the lack of available hydrologic or hydraulic models for the watercourse systems under investigation, an independent understanding of design flow conditions was developed. In-situ dye tracer analysis completed at bankfull or near bankfull conditions, statistical analysis of historic flow data, and simple single-section hydraulic analysis were all employed in the generation of design flow rates, the associated velocities, and the resultant 2-hour travel distances.

The comparable results for design flow conditions predicted by the dye tracer fieldwork results, under conditions observed to be at or near bankfull conditions, and the statistical flow analysis completed on historic Kent Creek data lends confidence to both sets of results. Further, the hydraulic modeling analysis completed to assess the relationship between various flow regimes and the associated water velocities confirmed a relative insensitivity on the velocity parameter. In other words, it was determined that a relatively large error in selection of a design flow regime translated into a relatively small impact on design velocities and, by association, the 2-hour travel distances.

Given the good agreement between the various analytic approaches, it is concluded that the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis represents a relatively low uncertainty.

Peer Review for the WHPA-E Vulnerability Assessment The vulnerability assessment of GUDI wells in Norfolk County was carried out by Stantec Ltd. (Stantec, 2010a) on behalf of Norfolk County. Technical and peer review for the surface water vulnerability assessment was completed, iteratively, throughout the development of the final reports by GRCA and Norfolk County staff. External peer review was provided by Dr. Hugh Whitely, University of Guelph. Peer review comments were addressed to Dr. Whitely’s satisfaction and peer review of the report was completed on March 8th, 2010.

5.2.2 Percent Managed Lands and Livestock Density Percent Managed Lands Managed Lands are lands to which nutrients are applied. Managed lands are categorized into two groups: agricultural managed land and non-agricultural managed land. Agricultural managed land includes areas of cropland, fallow and improved pasture that may receive nutrients. Non-agricultural managed land includes golf courses, sports fields, lawns and other grassed areas that may receive nutrients (primarily commercial fertilizer).

October 5, 2017 5-67 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

To determine the location and percentage of agriculturally managed lands, parcels with agricultural land use were identified on the aerial photography and digitized. All areas with wooded land, wetlands and water were cut out of these surfaces.

To assess the percentage of non-agricultural managed land, all non-agricultural parcels were first delineated. The green space area was then digitized in a representative subarea in this zone and the percentage of green space of the total area was calculated. The average of green space was found to be 60% within the residential subdivision properties, which covered the bulk of the Non Agricultural Managed Land. The combined Managed Land results are summarized in Table 5-23,

The combined Managed Land results are summarized in Table 5-23.

Managed lands within the Simcoe WHPAs are summarized in Table 5-17 and are shown on Map 5-20.

Table 5-17: Managed Land Calculations

Total Area of WHPA Managed Land Area Managed Land WHPA m² Acres m² acres % Simcoe North West WHPA A Well #2 31,37531,354 7.87.7 1,623 0.4 5 WHPA A Well #3 31,375 7.8 15,332 3.8 49 WHPA B 1,308,601 323.4 754,363 186.4 58 WHPA C 1,164,217 287.7 815,454 201.5 70 WHPA D 513,251 126.8 35,950 8.9 7 WHPA-E 2,359,922 583.1 1,123,449 277.6 47.6 Simcoe Cedar Street WHPA A 127,257 31.4 11,985 3.0 9 WHPA B 1,334,154 329.7 639,913 158.1 48 WHPA C 1,370,616 338.7 1,247,692 308.3 91 WHPA D 2,799,262 691.7 645,912 159.6 23 WHPA-E 732,674 181.0 153,039 37.82 20.9 Simcoe Chapel Street WHPA A 31,375 7.8 21,225 5.2 68 WHPA B 579,304 143.1 269,655 66.6 47 WHPA C 428,921 106.0 160,965 39.8 38 WHPA D 129,900 32.1 91,619 22.6 71 Agricultural Managed Non-agricultural Managed Land Managed WHPA Area Land Area Managed Land Area Area Land WHPA m2 Acres m2 Acres m2 Acres m2 Acres %

October 5, 2017 5-68 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Northwest Well Field A 31,354 7.7 9,282 2.3 13,699 3.4 22,981 5.7 73% (Well 1) A 31,354 7.7 0 0.0 19,806 4.9 19,806 4.9 63% (Well 2) B 442,001 109.2 306,463 75.7 68,435 16.9 374,898 92.6 85% C 991,996 245.1 859,660 212.4 80,823 20.0 940,484 232.4 95% D 4,536,773 1,121.1 2,565,137 633.9 527,628 130.3 3,092,765 764.2 68% Cedar St. A 156,033 38.6 0 0.0 35,966 8.9 35,966 8.9 23% B 2,201,825 544.1 367,703 90.9 921,142 227.6 1,288,845 318.5 59% Chapel St. A 31,075 7.7 0 0.0 19,009 4.7 19,009 4.7 61% B 764,375 188.9 83,336 20.6 312,997 77.3 396,333 97.9 52% Cedar St. / Chapel St. Combined C 3,422,342 845.7 1,700,469 420.2 880,189 217.5 2,580,658 637.7 75% 1,658. D 9,221,662 2,278.7 5,599,120 1,383.6 1,110,479 274.4 6,709,600 73% 0

Livestock Density Livestock density is defined as nutrient units per acre of agricultural managed land within a vulnerable area. A nutrient unit is defined as the number of animals that will give the fertilizer replacement value of the lesser of 43 kilograms of nitrogen or 55 kilograms of phosphate per year as nutrients.

Livestock density was calculated using the MOE 2009 guidance “Technical Bulletin: Proposed Methodology for Calculating Percentage of Managed Lands and Livestock Density for Land Application of Agricultural Source of Material, Non-Agricultural Source of Material and Commercial Fertilizers” for calculating Livestock Density in the Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas. Using aerial photography, livestock buildings were identified and square metre areas were measured for each structure. Each category of livestock was calculated into Nutrient Units as per the Barn/Nutrient Unit Relationship Table provided by the GRCA MOE (2009) and area weighted given the amount of Agricultural Managed Land that fell within each Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA zone. The sum of the total Nutrient Units for each Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA zone was then divided by the agricultural managed land area acreage to arrive at the NU/acre density for each Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA zone.

In Simcoe, two eight barns were identified in the Northwest Well Field that likely are used for dairy, beef, horses, and/or chickens. One of these farms did not actually touch the Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA. However it was found, that the farm owner also owned a land parcel approximately 500m to the west of the farm, and this parcel encroached the WHPA-These barns are located in WHPA-C and WHPA-D, with seven within WHPA-D. Livestock densities ranged fromwere 0.201 to 0.624 in the Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA-C and WHPA-D, respectivelysAreas. In the Cedar Street Well Field, three properties a horse barn wereas identified with an estimated livestock density of 1.9.15 in the WHPA–B. 25 year WHPA-CD while WHPA-A to C and WHPA-D did not include parcels that could be linked to livestock activityfor Cedar and Chapel wellfields combined had 4 properties in total with livestock densisties of 0.1 and 1.9 as presented on Table 5-18, Map 5-22 and Map 5-23.

Table 5-18: Livestock Density Calculations

October 5, 2017 5-69 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Simcoe - North West WHPA Total AML Acreage Total NU NU/Acre Notes WHPA A (100 Meter) 0.9 0 0 Dairy WHPA B (2 Year) 138.5 14.50 0.10 Dairy WHPA C (5 Year) 195.4 33.42 0.17 Dairy WHPA D (25 Year) 8.9 2.10 0.24 Dairy WHPA-E 254.8 24.5 0.01 Dairy, Horse Simcoe - Cedar Street WHPA Total AML Acreage Total NU NU/Acre Notes WHPA A (100 Meter) 0 0 0 No Animals WHPA B (2 Year) 73.1 0 0 No Animals WHPA C (5 Year) 289.7 0 0 No Animals WHPA D (25 Year) 144.5 21.15 0.15 Horse Barn WHPA-E 12.8 39.3 3.1 Poultry Simcoe - Chapel Street WHPA Total AML Acreage Total NU NU/Acre Notes WHPA A (100 Meter) 0 0 0 None WHPA B (2 Year) 0.6 0 0 None WHPA C (5 Year) 14.8 0 0 None WHPA D (25 Year) 18.8 0 0 None Animal Type Agricultural Managed WHPA Total NU NU/Acre Land Acreage (NU Conversion Factor)

Northwest Well Field A No animals 2.3 0.0 0.0 (Well 1) A No animals 0.0 0.0 0.0 (Well 2) B 75.7 0.0 0.0 No animals C 212.4 33.6 0.2 One property, assumed dairy (11 m2/NU) Seven properties: assumed dairy (11 D 633.9 402.6 0.6 m2/NU), beef (9 m2/NU), horses (26 m2/NU) and chickens (25 m2/NU) Cedar St. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 No animals Three properties: assumed chicken (25 B 90.9 169.4 1.9 2 2 m /NU) and mixed livestock (13 m /NU) Chapel St. A 0.0 0.0 0.0 No animals B 20.7 0.0 0.0 No animals Cedar St. / Chapel St. Combined One property, assumed mixed livestock C 420.2 35.7 0.1 2 (13 m /NU) Three properties: assumed swine (7 D 1,383.6 2,574.2 1.9 2 2 m /NU) and dairy (11 m /NU)

5.2.3 Percent Impervious Surface Area in Wellhead Protection Areas

October 5, 2017 5-70 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

To map impervious areas, roads, sidewalk and parking lots within the WHPA were digitized based on the 2006 20162015 aerial photograph. A one kilometer square was centered on the centroid of the WHPA and additional squares were added next to the central square, until the WHPA area was entirely covered by the grid. Map 5-24 and Map 5-25 illustrate the percent impervious surface. Impervious surfaces for the Northwest wellfield are less than 1 to <8%, while percent imperviousness for the Cedar Street wellfield and Chapel Street well range from less than 1% in rural areas, to up to 15% in the urban areas of Simcoe.8 to <80% surrounding the wellfield and 1 to <8% further out from the wellfields.

This methodology departs from Technical Rule 17 as the grid was centered on the centroid of the WHPA rather than the source protection area. The rationale for this departure is that the previous percent impervious surface was calculated prior to the release of the current Technical Rules (November 16th, 2009) and was consistent with the previous version of the Technical Rules (November 20th, 2008). The method of centering the grid on the vulnerable area is considered to be an equivalent approach. As per Technical Rule 15.1, the Director has provided confirmation agreeing to the departure. The Director’s letter of confirmation can be found in Appendix B. This method was retained for the current update to be consistent with the previous work.

October 5, 2017 5-71 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-20: Percent Manage d Lands within the Simcoe WHPA

October 5, 2017 5-72 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-21: Percent Managed Lands within the Simcoe WHPA E

October 5, 2017 5-73 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-22: Livestock Density within the Simcoe WHPA

October 5, 2017 5-74 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-23: Livestock Density within the Simcoe WHPA E

October 5, 2017 5-75 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-24: Impervious Surface within the Simcoe WHPA

October 5, 2017 5-76 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-25: Impervious Surface within the Simcoe WHPA E

October 5, 2017 5-77 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.2.4 Simcoe Water Quality Threats Assessment The Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006 defines a Drinking Water Threat as “an activity or condition 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, and includes an activity or condition that is prescribed by the regulation as a drinking water threat.”

The Technical Rules (MOE, 2009a) list five ways in which to identify a drinking water threat:

a) Through an activity prescribed by the Act as a Prescribed Drinking Water Threat; b) Through an activity identified by the Source Water Protection Committee as an activity that may be a threat and (in the opinion of the Director) a hazard assessment confirms that the activity is a threat; c) Through a condition that has resulted from past activities that could affect the quality of drinking water; d) Through an activity associated with a drinking water issue; and e) Through an activity identified through the events based approach (this approach has not been used in this Assessment Report).

Threats can fall into one of the following four categories:

• Chemical threats can include toxic metals, pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products and industrial solvents; • Pathogenic threats are microorganisms that could cause illness; and • Dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) are chemicals which are denser than water and do not dissolve in water, such as chlorinated solvents. • Through a condition that has resulted from past activities that could affect the quality of drinking water.

Significant threats to the Simcoe groundwater supply were assessed through the development of a desktop land use inventory.

The identification of a land use activity as a significant, moderate, or low drinking water threat depends on its risk score, determined by considering the circumstances of the activity and the type and vulnerability score of any underlying protection zones, as set out in the Tables of Drinking Water Threats available through www.sourcewater.ca. Information on drinking water threats is also accessible through the Source Water Protection Threats Tool: http://swpip.ca. For local threats, the risk score is calculated as per the Director’s Approval Letter, as shown in Appendix C. The information above can be used with the vulnerability scores shown in Error! Reference source not found. and to help the public determine where certain activities are or would be significant, moderate and low drinking water threats.

Table 5-19 provides a summary of the threat levels possible in the Simcoe Well Supply for Chemical, Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL), Pathogen, and Local Threats (Oil Pipelines). A checkmark indicates that the threat classification level is possible for the indicated threat type under the corresponding vulnerable area / vulnerable score; a blank cell indicates that it is not. The colours shown for each vulnerability score correspond to those shown in the maps.

October 5, 2017 5-78 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-19: Identification of Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Simcoe WHPAs

Threat Classification Level Vulnerable Vulnerability Threat Type Significant Moderate Low Area Score 80+ 60 to <80 >40 to <60 WHPA-A/B 10    WHPA-B/C 8    Chemicals WHPA-B/C/D 6   WHPA-C/D 2 & 4 WHPA-E 6.3   WHPA-A/B/C Any Score  Handling / Storage of WHPA-D 6   DNAPLs WHPA-D 2 & 4 WHPA-E 6.3  WHPA-A/B 10   WHPA-B 8   Pathogens WHPA-B 6  WHPA-C/D Any Score WHPA-E 6.3   WHPA-A/B 10  WHPA-B/C 8  Local Threat WHPA-B/C/D 6  (Oil Pipelines) WHPA-C/D 2 & 4 WHPA-E 6.3

Activities that Are or Would be Drinking Water Threats in the Wellhead Protection Areas and Intake Protection Zones Ontario Regulation 287/07, pursuant to the Act, provides a list of Prescribed Drinking Water Threats that could constitute a threat to drinking water sources. In addition, there is a local threat that has been identified in the Lake Erie Source Protection Region, the transportation of oil and fuel products through a pipeline.

A spill of oil and fuel products could result in the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons or BTEX in groundwater. The conveyance of oil by way of an underground pipeline that would be designated as transmitting or distributing “liquid hydrocarbons”, including “crude oil”, “condensate”, or “liquid petroleum products”, and not including “natural gas liquids” or “liquefied petroleum gas”, within the meaning of Ontario Regulation 210/01 under the Technical Standards and Safety Act or is subject to the National Energy Board Act, was approved as a local threat. The letter of approval from the Director of the Source Protection Programs Branch and table of hazard ratings is found in Appendix C.

Table 5-20 lists the activities that are prescribed drinking water quality threats and the three local threat. Listed beside the drinking water quality threats are the typical land use activities that are associated with the threat.

October 5, 2017 5-79 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Land Use Inventory Methodology A land use threats assessment was completed through the review of existing data within Delhi’s WHPAs (Matrix, 2017) and summarized in Table 5-20. Limited site specific information was collected as a part of this assessment and most identified threats were considered potential, requiring further review and site specific assessments to confirm their presence.

To associate the drinking water quality threats listed in Table 5-20, Norfolk County compiled a land use inventory. The inventory was based on a review of multiple data sources which included previous groundwater-related work undertaken by the County, public records, local knowledge and windshield surveys..

Table 5-20: Drinking Water Quality Threats

Prescribed Drinking Water Quality Threats Land Use/Activity Ontario Regulation 287/07 s.1.1.(1) 1 The establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste Landfills – Active, Closed disposal site within the meaning of Part V of the Environmental Hazardous Waste Disposal, Protection Act. Liquid Industrial Waste 2 The establishment, operation or maintenance of a system that Sewage Infrastructures collects, stores, transmits, treats or disposes of sewage. Septic Systems, etc. 3 The application of agricultural source material to land. e.g. manure, whey, etc. 4 The storage of agricultural source material. e.g. manure, whey, etc. 5 The management of agricultural source material. aquaculture 6 The application of non-agricultural source material to land. Organic Soil Conditioning Biosolids 7 The handling and storage of non-agricultural source Organic Soil Conditioning material. Biosolids 8 The application of commercial fertilizer to land. Agriculture Fertilizer 9 The handling and storage of commercial fertilizer. General Fertilizer Storage 10 The application of pesticide to land. Pesticides 11 The handling and storage of pesticide. General Pesticide Storage 12 The application of road salt. Road Salt Application 13 The handling and storage of road salt. Road Salt Storage 14 The storage of snow. Snow Dumps 15 The handling and storage of fuel. Petroleum Hydrocarbons 16 The handling and storage of a dense non-aqueous phase DNAPLs liquid. 17 The handling and storage of an organic solvent Organic Solvents 18 The management of runoff that contains chemicals used in the De-icing de-icing of aircraft. 21 The use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an Agricultural Operations outdoor confinement area or a farm-animal yard. Local Drinking Water Quality Threats Land Use/Activity The conveyance of oil by way of an underground pipeline that Oil pipeline would be designated as transmitting or distributing “liquid hydrocarbons”, including “crude oil”, “condensate”, or “liquid petroleum products”, and not including “natural gas liquids” or “liquefied petroleum gas”, within the meaning of the Ontario Regulation 210/01 under the Technical Standards and Safety Act or is subject to the National Energy Board Act.1 1: As confirmed by the letter from the Director of the Source Protection Programs Branch in Appendix C.

October 5, 2017 5-80 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

The datasets used to form the basis of the threats inventory are provided in .

Table 5-21: Data Sources for Threats Assessment

Data Type Source Purpose Windshield survey of properties Carried out as part of technical Identify/confirm potential threats surrounding reservoir studies in August 2009 within IPZs To identify threats in vulnerable areas because these areas were Field surveys completed by Windshield survey perceived to have the greatest SWS. potential to impact sources of drinking water. To determine additional information which could lead to Well Operator Interviews Completed by SWS. the identification of significant threats Completed by WHI, 2003 in the The database was used to Historic Norfolk County Threats Norfolk Municipal Groundwater evaluate potential historical Database Study. threats. To aid in the determination of SWS reviewed aerial land use activities including Photography from 2006, Google managed lands and impervious Historic Aerial Photographs Maps (2009), and Street view surfaces. To determine any (2009). potential threats due to land use and land use changes. LESPR staff reviewed aerial photography from 2010, Google Aerial Photographs Identify/confirm potential threats. Maps (2013), and Google Street View (2013). Windshield survey and field LESPR staff carried out as part visits of some properties in Identify/confirm potential threats. of threat review in 2013/2014 WHPAs To aid in the determination of land use activities including Matrix reviewed Google Maps Aerial Photographs managed lands and impervious and Street View (2016) surfaces. To identify any potential threats. To identify potential and historic Environmental Databases ERIS Ecolog Report threats in vulnerable areas.

A classification system was used to link potential contaminants associated with each drinking water threat based on the identified land use. Each land use activity was classified using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The NAICS is a system for classifying business establishments and industrial processes using a unique code in a consistent hierarchical manner. The system helps to determine chemicals or other material that may be onsite based on the land use activity identified.

Potential threats were identified based on the land use activity that was identified and the chemicals or materials associated with the land use activity. In many cases, assumptions as to the presence of an activity were made. Observations and assumptions are summarized in Table 5-25.

October 5, 2017 5-81 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-25: Assumptions

Observation Assumption DWT Reg Ref No Agricultural property with Presence of septic system and septic system 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, residence and holding tank, storage and application of commercial 1511, 15, 9, 4, 2, 10, outbuildings – buildings fertilizer, storage and handling of fuel, application of 8, 3 located in WHPA ASM, application and storage of pesticidesStorage and handling of pesticides, fuel, commercial fertilizer, agricultural source material, septic system; application of pesticide, commercial fertilizer, agricultural source material. Agricultural property with Circumstances related to storage and handling of 3, 8, 10 residence and chemicals and septic systems are not applied as outbuilding – buildings there is no building in the vulnerable area. Those not in WHPA circumstances related to application of ASM, commercial fertilizer and pesticides are applied if agricultural managed land is within the WHPA.Circumstances related to storage and handling or septic systems are not applied. Those related to application are applied. Agricultural property Circumstances related to storage and handling or 3, 8, 10 without farm buildings septic systems are not applied. Those related to and structures application are applied Residence where no Heating oil tank is present– associated fuel storage 15 natural gas line is and handling threats are appliedOil furnace Oil presentResidence with furnace no gas line No sanitary sewer Septic system is present 2 infrastructure Lawn/turf Potential application of commercial fertilizer (ID 8 dependent on the percent of managed land and the application of NU to the surrounding properties). Waste Disposal The establishment, operation or maintenance of a 1 waste disposal site within the meaning of Part V of the Environmental Protection Act. Commercial/Industrial The handling and storage of a dense non-aqueous 16 phase liquid. Gas Station The handling and storage of fuel. 15 Storm sewer piping Storm sewer piping is not considered to be part of a 2 storm water management facilty. Rural residential Presence of septic system and septic system 2, 8, 9, 15 property with single holding tank, storage and application of commercial family detached home or fertilizer, storage and handling of fuel rural recreational property with building (e.g., club), not on municipal water Maintained lawn Application of commercial fertilizer 8 surrounding municipal well

October 5, 2017 5-82 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Site specific information was collected for some locations in the current inventory. Many threats identified through this assessment are considered potential and require further site specific assessments to confirm their presence.

Norfolk County Historic Threats Database A historic threats database (version 4.1) was compiled in the scope of the Norfolk Municipal Groundwater Study, which was completed by WHI et al. during May of 2003. This database was used as part of the current investigation to evaluate potential historic threats within the County.

Table 5-29: Data Categories

Source Category Number of Locations Ministry of the Environment, Potentially PCB sites 17 Contaminated Sites Databases Ministry of the Environment, Potentially Contaminant Sources 111 Contaminated Sites Databases Ministry of Agriculture and Food Intensive Livestock 86 Ministry of the Environment, Potentially Contaminated Sites Databases Waste Disposal Sites 36 Ministry of the Environment, Potentially Spills 69 Contaminated Sites Databases

5.2.5 Condition-based Threatss Evaluation The Technical Rules (Part XI.3) require a list of conditions resulting from a part activity where the following groundwater-related conditions are present:

• The presence of a non-aqueous phase liquid in groundwater in a highly vulnerable aquifer, significant groundwater recharge area or wellhead protection areaWHPA;

• The presence of a contaminant listed in Table 2 of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards and is present at a concentration that exceeds the potable groundwater standard set out for the contaminant in that Table, and the presence of the contaminant in groundwater could result in the deterioration of the groundwater for use as a source of drinking water.

• The presence of a contaminant in sediment, if the contaminant is listed in Table 1 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards and is present at a concentration that exceed the sediment standard set out for the contaminant in that Table, and the presence of the contaminant in sediment could result in the deterioration of the surface water for use as a source of drinking water.

To identify potential threats from Conditions within the WHPAs, multiple data sources were reviewed including aerial and roadside imagery; interviews with municipal staff; historical and current federal, provincial and private environmental databases; and the historic 2003 Norfolk County Threats Database.

A total of 17 potential contaminant releases were found in WHPA-B, C, or D, and are considered non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL). Three of these NAPL releases (resulting from past activities) were identified as potentially impacting groundwater and should therefore be

October 5, 2017 5-83 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report further assessed as Condition-based threats according to Technical Rule 126. The remainder of the releases may potentially be considered Condition-based threats if the contaminants are also found in groundwater, or if the contaminant is listed in the applicable tables of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards, and present at a concentration that exceeds the applicable standards.

These circumstances could not be determined from the data available at the time of the conditions-based threats assessment and therefore the remaining contaminant releases cannot formally be considered Conditions. This is noted as a data gap that requires more refinement.

A summary of contaminant releases are presented in Table 5-29. All of the contaminants documented in this table are found in a WHPA-B, C, or D, and are considered non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPL). Three NAPL releases resulting from past activities were identified as impacting groundwater and are therefore considered Condition-based threats (flagged with “GW” in Table 5-29) according to Technical Rule 126. The remainder of the releases listed in Table 5- 29 may potentially be considered Condition-based threats if the contaminants were also found in groundwater, or if the contaminant is listed in the applicable tables of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards, and present at a concentration that exceeds the applicable standards. These circumstances could not be determined from the available data and therefore the remaining contaminant releases cannot formally be considered Conditions. This is noted as a data gap that requires more refinement.

Table : Summary of Contaminant Releases in Simcoe

Source Documented Release Vulnerable Area

Contamination surrounding a Norfolk County regional garage at 568 Queensway W, Simcoe. Includes BTEX, Municipal Simcoe Cedar St. - PHC fraction F1-F3, ethylbenzene, 1,3- Interviews WHPA-B dichloropropoene, ethylene dibromide, carbon tetrachloride, vinyl chloride, and toluene.GW

th Simcoe Northwest - Diesel fuel release at 300 14 St., Simcoe. WHPA-D TSSA Historic Incident Database Simcoe Cedar Discovery of a petroleum product at 270 Union St., St/Chapel St. – WHPA- Simcoe D

th Simcoe Northwest - Diesel fuel release (1,800 L) at 300 14 St., Simcoe WHPA-D Release of lubrication oil (2,000 L) from tank to lot and Simcoe Cedar ditch at 390 Second Ave, Simcoe St/Chapel St. - WHPA-D Simcoe Cedar St. - Release of gasoline (1,800 L) from storage tank to Ontario Spills WHPA-B Database ground at 447 Queensway West, Simcoe Simcoe Cedar St. - Release of motor oil (60 L) from storage tank to ground GW WHPA-B at 405 Queensway West, Simcoe

Release of readi-mix fuel to soil and water well 458 Simcoe Cedar St. - Queensway West, Simcoe GW WHPA-B

October 5, 2017 5-84 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table : Summary of Contaminant Releases in Simcoe

Source Documented Release Vulnerable Area Simcoe Cedar St. - Release of unknown quantity of gasoline to ground at WHPA-B 456 Queensway West, Simcoe Simcoe Cedar St. - Release of toluene solvent (202 L) to gravel at Simcoe WHPA-B Roads Garage Queensway West (HWY 3) Simcoe Cedar Release of waste oily liquid (500 L) to ground at 175 St/Chapel St. - WHPA-D Union St., Simcoe Simcoe Cedar Release of diesel fuel (200 L) to pavement at 365 West St/Chapel St. - WHPA-C St., Simcoe

Release of diesel fuel (80-100 L) to pavement at 150 Simcoe Cedar Chapel St., Simcoe St/Chapel St. - WHPA-C Simcoe Cedar St Release of gasoline from underground storage tank at WHPA-B and Cedar 128 Metcalfe Rd., Simcoe St./Chapel St. - WHPA- C Simcoe Cedar Release of hydraulic oil (25 L) to paved parking lot at St/Chapel St. - WHPA-D 150 West St. Simcoe Cedar St. - Release of diesel fuel. Address not available but WHPA-B believed to be 568 Queensway W, Simcoe.

Release of latex white traffic paint (175 L) to ground. Simcoe Cedar St. - Address not available but believed to be 568 WHPA-B Queensway W, Simcoe. GW – documented groundwater impacts

The Technical Rules (Part XI.5) outline the method to determine if a Condition-based threat is a significant, moderate or low drinking water threat. Under Technical Rule 140, in order for a Condition to be a significant threat, the risk score of the Condition must be equal to or greater than 80. The risk score is calculated as the product of the vulnerability score of the WHPA and the hazard rating of the condition. According to Rule 139, the hazard rating of a Condition that results from a past activity is,

1. if there is evidence that the Condition is causing off-site contamination that has the potential to deteriorate the quality of water of the aquifer drinking water source or the surface water drinking water source, the hazard rating is 10;

2. if the Condition is on a property where a well, intake or monitoring location related to a drinking water system to which clause 15(2)(e) of the Act applies is located, the hazard rating is 10; and

3. if subrules (1) or (2) do not apply to the Condition, the hazard rating is 6.

October 5, 2017 5-85 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

The three above noted Condition-based threats are not located on properties where a drinking water system well, intake or monitoring location is located, and only the Condition at 568 Queensway W. is known to have evidence of off-site contamination that has the potential to deteriorate the quality of drinking water. There was no site specific data available to confirm whether the two other Conditions have evidence of off-site contamination and thus they were assigned a hazard rating of 6 while the Condition at 568 Queensway W. was assigned a hazard rating of 10. As these three Conditions are within the Simcoe - Cedar St. WHPA-B (with vulnerability score of 10), the risk score for the Condition at 568 Queensway W. is 100 and is a significant Condition-based threat, while the other two have a risk score of 60 and are moderate threats.

No data was available that would have allowed determining off-site migration from potentially contaminated sites. Therefore, no significant, conditions-based threats were identified. MOE datasets related to past spills and Records of Site Condition were not assessed and this is noted as a data gap..

No conditions resulting from past activities were identified as per Technical Rule 126 in the WHPA.

5.2.6 Simcoe - Enumeration of Significant Threats North West Wellfield Fifteen Eleven significant prescribed drinking water threats were identified in the Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA of the Simcoe North West wellfield. These threats are listed in Table 5-22. Most activities that pose or could pose identified as a potential significant threat are related to of an agricultural land use type.

Table 5-21: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in Simcoe North West WHPAs

1 2 Number of Vulnerable PDWT # Threat Subcategory Activities Area Waste Disposal Site – Storage of Hazardous Waste at 1 1 WHPA-B Disposal Sites

Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Septic System Holding 2 2 WHPA-A Tank WHPA-A 3 Application Of Agricultural Source Material (ASM) To Land 4 WHPA-B WHPA-B 4 Storage Of Agricultural Source Material (ASM) 1

Application Of Pesticide To LandCommercial Fertilizer to WHPA-A 108 4 Land WHPA-B

Handling and Storage Of FuelApplication of Pesticide to 1510 23 WHPA-AB Land

October 5, 2017 5-86 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Handling and Storage of Dense Non-aqueous Phase Liquids 16 1 WHPA-B (DNAPLs)

Total number of Activities 1511 Total number of properties 74

1: Prescribed Drinking Water Threat Number refers to the prescribed drinking water threats listed in O. Reg 287/07 s.1.1.(1). 2: Where applicable, waste, sewage, and livestock threat numbers are reported by sub-threat; fuel and DNAPL by Prescribed Drinking Water Threat category. Note: Certain types of activities on residential properties that are incidental in nature and that are significant drinking water threats are not enumerated. These threats include the application of commercial fertilizer on residential properties, the storage of organic solvents (dense non-aqueous phase liquids) on residential properties, and the storage of fuel (e.g., heating fuel tanks) on residential properties in natural gas serviced areas. Note: Storm sewer piping is not considered to be part of a storm water management facilty.

Cedar Street Wellfield One hundred and seventythirty-one activities for fifty seventwelve prescribed drinking water threats were identified in the Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA of the Simcoe Cedar Street wellfieldCedar Street WHPAs. These threats are as listed in Table 5-23. The majority of the activities that pose or could pose apotentially significant threats are agricultural, relating to the identified nitrate Issue Contributing Area.

Table 5-22: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in Simcoe Cedar Street WHPAs

1 2 Number of Vulnerable PDWT # Threat Subcategory Activities Area Waste Disposal Site – Storage of Hazardous Waste at Disposal Sites 6 WHPA-B 1 Waste Disposal Site – Storage of wastes described in 15 WHPA-B clauses (p), (q), (r), (s), (t), or (u) of the definition of hazardous wastes WHPA-A Sewage System Or Sewage Works – Sanitary Sewers and 1 WHPA- related pipes BICA 2 WHPA-B Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Septic System 3922 ICA Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Septic System Holding WHPA-B 21 Tank ICA WHPA-B 3 Application Of Agricultural Source Material (ASM) To Land 168 ICA WHPA-B 4 Storage of Agricultural Source Material (ASM) 143 ICA WHPA-B 8 Application of Commercial Fertilizer to Land 1711 ICA WHPA-B 9 Handling and Storage of Commercial Fertilizer 75 ICA 10 Application Of Pesticide To Land 36 WHPA-B 11 Storage of A Pesticide 6 WHPA-B 13 Handling of FuelStorage Of Road Salt 14 WHPA-B

October 5, 2017 5-87 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-22: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in Simcoe Cedar Street WHPAs

1 2 Number of Vulnerable PDWT # Threat Subcategory Activities Area WHPA-A Handling and Storage of Fuel 152 WHPA-B Handling and Storage Of A Dense Non Aqueous Phase 621 WHPA-B 16 Liquid (DNAPL) 17 Storage Of A Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquid 121 WHPA-B (DNAPL)Handling and Storage of an Organic Solvent Management or handling of Agricultural Source Material – ICAWHPA- 2117 Agricultural Source Material Generation (grazing and 122 B pasturing)Storage of an Organic Solvent Total Number of Activities 131171 Total Number of Properties 6457

1: Prescribed Drinking Water Threats Number refers to the prescribed drinking water threat listed in O. Reg 287/07 s.1.1.(1). 2: Where applicable, waste, sewage, and livestock threat numbers are reported by sub-threat; fuel and DNAPL by Prescribed Drinking Water Threat category. Note: Certain types of activities on residential properties that are incidental in nature and that are significant drinking water threats are not enumerated. These threats include the application of commercial fertilizer on residential properties, the storage of organic solvents (dense non-aqueous phase liquids) on residential properties, and the storage of fuel (e.g., heating fuel tanks) on residential properties in natural gas serviced areas. Note: Storm sewer piping is not considered to be part of a storm water management facilty.

Chapel Street Wellfield Sixty-fiveFour activities for nine three prescribed drinking water threats were found in the Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA of the Simcoe identified within Chapel Street wellfieldWHPAs. The results are summarized in. These threats are listed in Table 5-24.

Most of the wellhead protection zone is located within a residential area of Simcoe, however most of the activities that pose or could pose a significant threat are due to the nitrate Issue Contributing Area.

Table 5-23: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in Simcoe Chapel Street WHPAs

1 2 Number of Vulnerable PDWT # Threat Subcategory Activities Area Waste Disposal Site – Storage of wastes described in WHPA-A clauses (p), (q), (r), (s), (t), or (u) of the definition of 12 192 WHPA-B hazardous wastesSewage System Or Sewage Works - ICA Septic System Sewage System Or Sewage Works – Sanitary Sewers and WHPA-BA 2 related pipesSewage System Or Sewage Works – Septic 91 ICAWHPA- System Holding Tank B WHPA-A Sewage System Or Sewage Works – Sanitary Sewers and 1 WHPA-B related pipes ICA 3 Application Of Agricultural Source Material (ASM) To Land 91 WHPA-B

October 5, 2017 5-88 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-23: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in Simcoe Chapel Street WHPAs

1 2 Number of Vulnerable PDWT # Threat Subcategory Activities Area ICA WHPA-B 4 Storage of Agricutural Source Material 8 ICA 8 Application of Commercial Fertilizer to Land 9 ICA 9 Handling and Storage of Commercial Fertilizer 3 ICA 14 Storage of Snow 1 ICA WHPA-A 15 Handling and Storage Of Fuel 3 WHPA-B Handling and Storage Of A Dense Non Aqueous Phase 16 2 WHPA-C Liquid (DNAPL) Management or handling of Agricultural Source Material – 21 Agricultural Source Material Generation (grazing and 1 ICA pasturing) Total Number of Activities 654 Total Number of Properties 373

1: Prescribed Drinking Water Threats Number refers to the prescribed drinking water threat listed in O. Reg 287/07 s.1.1.(1). 2: Where applicable, waste, sewage, and livestock threat numbers are reported by sub-threat; fuel and DNAPL by Prescribed Drinking Water Threat category. Note: Certain types of activities on residential properties that are incidental in nature and that are significant drinking water threats are not enumerated. These threats include the application of commercial fertilizer on residential properties, the storage of organic solvents (dense non-aqueous phase liquids) on residential properties, and the storage of fuel (e.g., heating fuel tanks) on residential properties in natural gas serviced areas. Note: Storm sewer piping is not considered to be part of a storm water management facilty. Data Gaps and Uncertainty in Threats Assessment In many cases the results of the desktop inventory did not include all required information to determine whether the circumstances for the drinking water threats were met. Where information was missing to determine the circumstances under which a threat occurred, a conservative assumption was used. This led to a significant number of threats, many of which need to be confirmed by a more detailed analysis including interviews with land owners.

Given the conservative approach that was chosen in this study, the uncertainty that current land uses, posing a threat to the drinking water, were missed, is low. At the same time it is likely that many of the threats that were identified as significant are not a threat in reality. The uncertainty of the current threats assessment of land uses based on the desktop inventory is high.

Information to assess conditions resulting from past activities is a data gap.

5.2.7 Simcoe Drinking Water Quality Issues Evaluation The objective of the Issues evaluation is to identify drinking water Issues where the existing or trending concentration of a parameter or pathogen at an intake, well or monitoring well would result in the deterioration of the quality of water for use as a source of drinking water. The parameter or pathogen must be listed in Schedule 1, 2 or 3 of the Ontario Drinking Water

October 5, 2017 5-89 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Quality Standards (ODWQS) or Table 4 of the Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (Technical Rules XI.1 (114 – 117)).

Once a drinking water Issue is identified, the objective is to identify all sources and threats that may contribute to the issue within an Issue contributing area and manage these threats appropriately. If at this time the Issue contributing area can not be identified or the Issue can not be linked to threats then a work plan must be provided to assess the possible link.

If an Issue is identified for an intake, well or monitoring well, then all threats related to a particular Issue within the Issue Contributing Areas are classified as significant drinking water threats, regardless of the vulnerability.

The Simcoe water supply system serves the community of Simcoe. It is composed of three well fields, namely the: Chapel St., Cedar St. and Northwest wells. The Chapel St. well field contains one well, while the Cedar St. well field contains five wells and including an infiltration gallery and the Northwest Well Field contains three two wells. In addition to these existing wells, two three decommissioned municipal wells (Northwest 1 Well, First Avenue and Wellington Street Wells) are found in Simcoe.

Water treatment for the Simcoe municipal wells consists of addition of hydrofluosilicic acid, UV disinfection, disinfection using sodium hypochlorite and iron and manganese removal using sodium permanganate and sodium silicate.

Water treatment consists of addition of hydrofluosilicic acid, UV disinfection, disinfection using sodium hypochlorite and iron and manganese removal using sodium permanganate.

The following is a summary of the analytical results with respect to water sampling quality in atfor the Simcoe municipal Wwells:

Schedule 1 Parameters and Pathogens Weekly samples analysed for E. coli and total coliforms were available from 2005 to 20092016. Occurrences of total coli detects were found to be most frequent in the Cedar St. Wells where total coli were detected 36 329 times over the entire 12 year period of available data and E. coli one 48 times. All other wells only accounted for additional 13four detects of total coli and no E. coli were encountered. The well operator confirmed that the disinfection system provides the appropriate treatment for this low number of microbes.

Schedule 2 Parametersand 3 Parameters

Chapel St. Well Field All 2009 quarterly nitrate levels were above the 50% MAC screening benchmark and nitrate also occasionally was above the same benchmark in the previous years. Similarly, from 2010 to 2016, nitrate exceeded the 50% MAC in all quarterly sampling, except in 2010 where 3 of the 4 sampling events showed exceedances above the 50% MAC. Nitrate was therefore identified as an Issue for the Chapel St. well field as per Technical Rule 114.

All 2009 quarterly nitrate levels were above the 50% MAC screening benchmark and nitrate also occasionally was above the same benchmark in the previous years. Nitrate was therefore identified as an Issue as per Technical Rule 114.

October 5, 2017 5-90 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Tritium and gross alpha and gross beta activity information was available from a single sample collected in 2001. All activities were close to or below the detection limit indicating that no further analysis of Schedule 3 parameters was required.

Cedar St. Well Field Nitrate was found to be very close and above the 50% MAC limit and exceeded this benchmark limit frequently. Nitrate was therefore identified as an Issue as per Technical Rule 114.

Nofolk County staff identified trichloroethylene (TCE) and chloroform as two parameters that have been detected at Cedar St. Well 3 and Well 2, respectively.. County staff believe there is a link to contamination found surrounding the Norfolk County Garage in Simcoe. TCE concentrations at Well 3 have ranged from 0.6 to 0.8 ug/L since March 2017, which is under the MAC of 5 ug/L (Schedule 2). Chloroform at Well 2 has ranged from 0.6 to 1.4 ug/L since May 2016. While chloroform is not a parameter in Schedule 2 or 3 of the ODWQS, or Table 4 of the Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines, it has a prescribed potable groundwater site condition standard of 2.4 ug/L under Table 2 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards. Both parameters are currently being sampled on a monthly basis.

Nitrate was found to be very close and above the 50% MAC limit and exceeded this benchmark limit occasionally. Nitrate was therefore identified as an Issues as per Technical Rule 114. Tritium activity was available from one sample, and gross alpha and gross beta activity information was available from three samples. All activities were close to below the detection limit indicating that no further analysis of Schedule 3 parameters was required.

Northwest Well Field The Simcoe Northwest Well Field is composed of two wells named Northwest 2 and Northwest 3 (NW2 and NW3). Northwest 1 has been decommissioned. Water quality results from the Simcoe NW3 Well exceeded the ODWQS standards for benzo(a)pyrene and dichloromethane on December 19, 2001. Both parameters have not been detected since, and the elevated concentrations are thuswere therefore considered to be a single event. Both parameters were not noted. It is also noted, that a sample collected on the same day in Delhi also detected an exceedance of benzo(a)pyrene and also was not detected in the following years. The simultaneous occurrence of an exceedance at a considerable distance apart from each other could indicate cross contamination of the samples. Given the low detection limits, and the exposure of sampling bottles to bad air quality could suffice to generate a detected concentration in the water sample.

In 2015, lead was detected on one occasion in the distribution system at a concentration of 17.5 ug/L (MAC = 10 ug/L). After the system was flushed, all subsequent samples were within guidelines.

Nitrate was documented in annual reporting at more than 50% MAC at the northwest booster or reservoir POE on 4 occasions in 2011 and 1 occasion in 2015; however, Norfolk County staff indicate that they have not had nitrate issues in the Northwest well field and the results are were likely erroneous.

The Simcoe Northwest Well Field is composed of three two wells named Northwest 1, Northwest 2 and Northwest 3 (NW1, NW2 and NW3). Water quality results from the Simcoe NW3 Well exceeded the ODWQS standards for benzo(a)pyrene and dichloromethane on December 19, 2001. Both parameters have not been detected since, and the elevated

October 5, 2017 5-91 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report concentrations are thus considered to be a single event. Both parameters were not noted. It is also noted, that a sample collected on the same day in Delhi also detected an exceedance of benzo(a)pyrene and also was not detected in the following years. The simultaneous occurrence of an exceedance at a considerable distance apart from each other could indicate cross contamination of the samples. Given the low detection limits, and the exposure of sampling bottles to bad air quality could suffice to generate a detected concentration in the water sample.

No elevated values of gross alpha and gross beta were found in the available analysis which made the analysis of further elements of Schedule 3 (radioactive) parameter unnecessary. Three samples with tritium activity analysis were available and the activity remained below the detection limit of 1,000 Becquerel/L.

Schedule 3 Parameters

Chapel St. Well Field Tritium and gross alpha and gross beta activity information was available from a single sample collected in 2001. All activities were close to or below the detection limit indicating that no further analysis of Schedule 3 parameters was required.

Cedar St. Well Field Tritium activity was available from one sample, and gross alpha and gross beta activity information was available from three samples. All activities were close to below the detection limit indicating that no further analysis of Schedule 3 parameters was required.

Northwest Well Field No elevated values of gross alpha and gross beta were found in the available analysis which made the analysis of further elements of Schedule 3 (radioactive) parameters unnecessary. Three samples with tritium activity analysis were available and the activity remained below the detection limit of 1,000 Becquerel/L.

Table 4 Parameters

Chapel St. Well Field The Chapel St. Well was found to exceeded ODWQS standards for hardness, manganese and dissolved organic carbon on December 19, 2001. Only this one set of sampling results was provided for hardness and dissolved organic carbon results at Chapel St. The dissolved organic carbon peak can was also be found in other wells such as the North West and the former First Avenue Well Fields. Organic carbon was therefore noted as a concern. Hardness and manganese were also considered to be above the screening benchmark frequently and were also noted as a concern.

The Chapel St. Well was found to exceed ODWQS standards for hardness, manganese and dissolved organic carbon on December 19, 2001. Only this one set of sampling results was provided for hardness and dissolved organic carbon results at Chapel St. The dissolved organic carbon peak can also be found in other wells such as the North West and the former First Avenue Well Fields. Organic carbon was therefore noted as a concern. Hardness and manganese were also considered to be above the screening benchmark frequently and were also noted as a concern.

Cedar St. Well Field

October 5, 2017 5-92 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Organic nitrogen, hardness, manganese, total dissolved solids and dissolved organic carbon exceeded the ODWQS operational guidelines and aesthetic objectives at the Simcoe Cedar St. wells on December 19, 2001. Only this one set of sampling results was provided for organic nitrogen, hardness, manganese, dissolved organic carbon and total dissolved solids. In the absence of samples, which may have exonerated the mentioned elevated levels, all parameters were noted as a concern.

Sodium was consistently above the Health Advisory level of 20 mg/L in the past years and this parameter was therefore noted as a concern.

Organic nitrogen, hardness, manganese, total dissolved solids and dissolved organic carbon exceeded the ODWQS operational guidelines and aesthetic objectives at the Simcoe Cedar St. Wells on December 19, 2001. Only this one set of sampling results was provided for organic nitrogen, hardness, manganese, dissolved organic carbon and total dissolved solids. In the absence of samples, which may have exonerated the mentioned elevated levels, all parameters were noted as a concern.

Sodium was consistently above the Health Advisory level of 20 mg/L in the past years and this parameter was therefore noted as a concern.

Northwest Well Field Exceedances of the operational guidelines and aesthetic objectives at wells NW2 and NW3 occurred most frequently for water hardness, colour, iron and manganese, while intermittent exceedances of the aesthetic objective for dissolved organic carbon and turbidity and organic nitrogen were also observed at NW2. The parameters hardness, iron and manganese were therefore noted as a concern.

Dissolved organic nitrogen, organic carbon and turbidity at NW1 and NW2 also rarely exceeded the ODWQS standards with all samples from March 2003 to 2009 falling below the acceptable limit and these parameters where therefore not noted as a concern.

No complaints in respect to odours in the drinking water of Simcoe were mentioned in the drinking water reports or by the well operator and therefore this parameter was not noted.

Exceedances of the operational guidelines and aesthetic objectives at wells NW1, NW2 and NW3 occurred most frequently for water hardness, colour, iron and manganese, while intermittent exceedances of the aesthetic objective for dissolved organic carbon and turbidity and organic nitrogen were also observed at NW1 and NW2. In total, 80% or more of the samples taken for hardness, iron, manganese and colour exceeded ODWQS standards, with the exception of iron and colour at NW3 which exceeded less than 40% of the time. The parameters hardness, iron and manganese were therefore noted as a concern.

Dissolved organic nitrogen, organic carbon and turbidity at NW1 and NW2 also rarely exceeded the ODWQS standards with all samples from March 2003 onwards falling below the acceptable limit and these parameters where therefore not noted as a concern.

No complaints in respect to odours in the drinking water of Simcoe were mentioned in the drinking water reports or by the well operator and therefore this parameter was not noted.

October 5, 2017 5-93 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Simcoe Issues Summary Iron and manganese are constantly above the ODWQS Aesthetic Objective; however, the drinking water is already treated for these constituents. Both parameters were therefore identified as elevated parameters but they were not identified as Issues under Technical Rule 114.

TCE and Chloroform have both been detected in the Cedar St. well field. TCE concentrations are were detected well below the 50% MAC threshold and do not appear to be increasing. As a result, TCE is not considered an Issue. Chloroform is also not increasing and is not a parameter of interest from Schedule 1, 2 or 3 of the ODWQS or Table 4 of the Technical Support Document. It is a parameter in Table 2 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards with a standard of 2.4 ug/L for potable groundwater; however, observed concentrations only exceed 50% of this standard on one occasion. Therefore chloroform is not considered an Issue.

Nitrate concentrations were consistently close to the 50% MAC threshold of 5 mg/L in the Chapel St. and Cedar St well fields and occasionally exceeded it. Following the guidance of MOE Technical Bulletin “Threats Assessment and Issues Evaluation, February 2010”, a parameter can also be considered an Issue if half of the MAC is frequently exceeded. Given the un-treatability of this parameter, nitrate was therefore identified as an Issue in the Chapel St. and Cedar St. well fields under Technical Rule 114.

Issue Contributing Area for Nitrate for Chapel St. and Cedar St. Well Fields There are many potential natural and anthropogenic sources of nitrate within the delineated Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas. The Issue Contributing Area (ICA) for both of these wellfields has beenwas defined as the area within the wellhead protection areaWHPAsareas that is currently contributing water to the wells, i.e., using current pumping rates, as opposed to the future rates used to delineate the wellhead protection areaWHPAsareas (Schlumberger Water Services, 2011Matrix, 2017). A list of significant drinking water threats, as defined by the Ministry of the Environment Drinking Water Threat Tables associated with nitrate (as present in the Chapel and Cedar Street wellfields) is provided below. The ICAsssue Contributing Areas for the Chapel Street and Cedar Street wellfields are shown on Map 5-26.

• Application Of Agricultural Source Material To Land • Application Of Commercial Fertilizer To Land • Application Of Non-Agricultural Source Material To Land (Including Treated Septage) • Application Of Untreated Septage To Land • Waste Disposal Site - Landfilling (Municipal Waste) • Waste Disposal Site - Landfilling (Solid Non Hazardous Industrial or Commercial) • Storage, Treatment And Discharge Of Tailings From Mines • Management Or Handling Of Agricultural Source Material - Agricultural Source Material (ASM) Generation • Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Discharge Of Untreated Stormwater From A Stormwater Retention Pond • Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Sanitary Sewers and related pipes • Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Septic System • Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Septic System Holding Tank • Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent Discharges (Includes Lagoons)

October 5, 2017 5-94 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

• Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Storage Of Sewage (E.G. Treatment Plant Tanks) • Storage Of Agricultural Source Material (ASM) • Storage Of Commercial Fertilizer • Storage of Non-Agricultural Source Material (NASM) • Storage Of Snow

After a desktop assessment of the potential sources of nitrate in these areas, properties where nitrate could contribute to the issue contributing areaICA, including where agricultural source material is applied and septic systems in WHPA-B to D were enumerated in Table 5-23 and Table 5-24.

October 5, 2017 5-95 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-26: Simcoe Well Supply Issue Contributing Areas (Chapel St. and Cedar St.)

October 5, 2017 5-96 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.3 Waterford Well Supply Waterford is a small community of approximately 3,315 located to the north of the Community of Simcoe. The serviced area is shown on Map 5-24.The municipal water supply for Waterford consists of two shallow groundwater wells (Thompson Road Wells 3 and 4). The primary aquifer supplying the Waterford wells consists of local unconfined gravel and sand deposits surrounding the community. The thickness of the aquifer ranges from 4 to 8 m. The wells are surrounded by aggregate ponds on the west, and a wetland complex on the east. The Waterford supply wells have been previously classified as groundwater under the influence of surface water (GUDI) (Lotowater, 2002).

Technical studies to support vulnerable area delineation, threat assessment and issue identification for the Waterford municipal drinking water system are described in the following reports:

• Norfolk County Source Water Protection Team Vulnerability Report, Schlumberger Water Services (Canada) Inc. (November 2009);

• Delhi, Simcoe and Waterford Source Protection Study Preliminary Threats Assessment and Issues Identification Report #2, Schlumberger Water Services (Canada) Inc. (May 2010); and

• Wellhead Protection Area E Delineation and Vulnerability Scoring for GUDI Wells in Norfolk County, Stantec (March 2010).

• Waterford WHPA Delineation, Vulnerability Scoring and Threats Assessment, Matrix Solutions, Inc. (2017 in progress)

5.3.1 Waterford Wellhead Protection Areas The Waterford municipal wellfield consists of two wells, Well 3 and Well 4, which are 11 and 13 m deep respectively. Pumping rates for Well 3 and Well 4 were not adjusted from the WHI et al. (2003) study and remain at 3,279 m3/day and 2,946 m3/day, respectively. The Waterford municipal wells have been identified as operating under GUDI conditions (Lotowater, 2002). The WHPA-E analysis is discussed in Section 5.3.2.

A regional finite element (FEFLOW) groundwater model was used to generate Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas for the Waterford municipal wells. The model covers an area of 2,900 km2 and encompasses the entire Long Point Region Conservation Authority. The following provides a summary of the FEFLOW groundwater model based on hydrogeological information available at the time of the WHI et al. (2003) study. During the modelling nearby ponds were not included to determine the presented capture zones. The modellers indicated that the sediment in the area of the Waterford wells is quite coarse and permeable. This caused the tracking of particles to terminate in the ponds, and in their professional opinion, this was not representative of actual conditions. By not including the ponds in the model, the developed capture zones are more conservative and reasonably reflect actual conditions.

In the early 2000s, a local scale Visual MODFLOW (Harbaugh 2005) model was developed to delineate groundwater quality WHPAs for Waterford municipal wells. Later in 2009, a regional scale groundwater flow model was developed for all of Long Point Region for the Tier Two Water Budget Study (Matrix, 2009a) using FeFlow (DHI 2012a). In 2015, the Long Point Region

October 5, 2017 5-97 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Tier Three Water Budget and Local Area Risk Assessment was completed (Matrix 2015) which included a water quantity evaluation of the Delhi system. This work included the local refinement of areas around Delhi, Simcoe, and Waterford within the Tier Two regional scale groundwater flow model and the development of a new integrated groundwater/surface-water model using MikeSHE (DHI 2012b).

WHPAs have been re-delineated for the existing Thompson Road Wells 3 and 4. The existing Long Point Tier Three groundwater flow model developed by Matrix (2015) has been updated to be more refined and to better match new pumping test results at the wellfield.

Modifying the existing three-dimensional (3D) groundwater flow model (FEFLOW) was the preferred approach for this study. This model contains hydraulic conductivity and recharge values representative of the aquifers and aquitards of the area and was calibrated to be best available data at the well field scale. The model is regional in extent (encompassing Long Point, Catfish Creek, and Kettle Creek conservation authorities), and as such, model boundary effects are not a concern at the well field scale.

The Waterford municipal production wells are completed in a 6 m thick discontinuous sand and gravel aquifer that is part of the Norfolk Sand Plain. The aquifer is overlain by Wentworth Till. The till is absent in some areas resulting in a hydraulic connection between the municipal supply aquifer and the nearby Waterford Ponds. The municipal production aquifer thins in the areas north and south of the well field and pinches out to the west where the Wentworth Till thickens. Underlying the production aquifer is a 15 m thick unit of fine-grained silty clay to sand interpreted as the Port Stanley Till (Matrix, 2015).

The Waterford capture zones and WHPAs delineated for this study areare based on a Base Case scenario model and three alternative uncertainty scenarios developed as part of a sensitivity analysis.

The Base Case scenario represents the Long Point Model as is, except for the update of pumping rates at the Waterford municipal wells. The boundary conditions representing this municipal pumping were updated to values consistent with those used in the previous WHPA study (SWS 2010b). These values were discussed with Norfolk County staff and represent the maximum permitted pumping rate for each well. Well 3 was assigned a pumping rate of 3,270 m3/day and Well 4 was assigned a pumping rate of 2,946 m3/day.

A sensitivity analysis was performed to quantify the magnitude of uncertainty in the model predictions, given the inherent uncertainty in the model input parameters. Some groundwater flow model input parameters have lower degrees of certainty than others. For example, boundary conditions have a higher degree of certainty (i.e., locations of features are known; pumping rates are known/well documented), while hydraulic parameters (e.g., porosity, hydraulic conductivity) have greater uncertainty. A set of sensitivity scenarios was designed to assess the impact of parameter uncertainty on the delineated capture zones.

The sensitivity analysis involved 1) adjusting the calibrated base case model parameters and evaluating the change in particle tracking results used to delineate the capture zones and 2) evaluating the change in particle tracking results under an alternative conceptualization.

The pumping rates for the Waterford municipal system are summarized in Table 5-25.

October 5, 2017 5-98 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-25: Waterford Municipal Pumping Rates

Well ID Pumping Rate (m3/day) Waterford 3 3,270 Waterford 4 2,946 Total Wellfield Pumping 6,216

WHPAs for the Waterford municipal wells are shown on Map 5-28. The WHPAs extend predominantly westward and extend beneath a tributary of Nanticoke Creek and local wetlands that run along the river course. The WHPAs also overlap the Waterford ponds located to the north and west of the wells. The 25-year WHPA has an area of 3.27 km2.

Stratigraphy Overburden in the area consists of glaciolacustrine sandy silt and some clay, glaciofluvial outwash sand and gravel, and glaciofluvial ice-contact deposits consisting of sand and gravel, as well as some till and silt. Glaciofluvial ice-contact deposits are present in kames and eskers throughout the area.

Bedrock geology consists mainly of limestone and dolostone rocks of Silurian to Devonian age. The regional FEFLOW model consists of three bedrock layers. The uppermost layer, the Dundee Formation (coloured limestone with dolomite) overlies the Salina Formation (interbedded limestone and shale), which overlies the Guelph-Eramosa Formation (medium bedded dolostone). The Guelph Formation was set as the bottom layer of the regional groundwater model.

The primary aquifer for the Waterford municipal wells is situated within the gravel and sand deposits of the area. The thickness of the aquifer ranges from 4 to 8 m.

The layer structure of the groundwater model was defined through the examination of cross-sections throughout the study area. The resulting model consists of 8 layers based upon the Quaternary geology of the area.

Groundwater Flow Boundaries Boundary conditions in the flow model consist of constant head boundaries and river boundaries. River boundaries were only assigned in Layer 1. River boundaries represent significant creeks and tributaries. All other boundaries between active and inactive zones in the model are no flow boundaries by default.

Constant head boundaries were assigned along the northwestern and southwestern boundaries of the model to simulate the north-south flow component observed in water level maps. The boundary along the northwestern edge is primarily an inflow boundary, while the boundary in the south of the model is primarily an outflow boundary. The bottom bedrock boundary conditions of the model are transfer boundaries to allow flow in and out of the model domain.

River stage elevations were determined from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) for the area. Estimated river widths and depths were used to calculate river conductance.

October 5, 2017 5-99 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Recharge Recharge values were assigned based on Quaternary geology and local knowledge of the area. A recharge rate of 230 mm/year was assigned to sand deposits, recharge of 100 mm/year was assigned to till units, and a recharge of 50 mm/year was assigned to clay overburden sediments.

Hydraulic Conductivity and Porosity Table 5-25 below summarizes the layer structure of the groundwater flow model in the Waterford area, which is based on the Quaternary geology of the area.

Table 5-255-30: Waterford Model Layers and Hydrogeologic Properties

Layer Feature Kx Range (m/s) Lithologies 1 Aquifer 5x10-4 Sand and gravel (shallow water glaciolacustrine deposits) 2 Aquitard 8x10-8 Silt Till – Port Stanley Till 3 Aquifer 8x10-5 Glaciolacustrine sands 4 Aquitard 8x10-7 Sandy till – Catfish Creek Till 5 Aquifer 5x10-4 Contact Zone combined with fractured limestone 6 Aquifer 1x10-4 Dundee Formation – Fractured Limestone 7 Aquifer 6x10-5 Dundee Formation – Limestone 8 Aquitard 1x10-6 Salina Formation 9 Aquifer 5x10-5 Guelph-Eramosa Formation

The normalized root mean squared error calibration statistic, which is generally considered a good indicator of calibration quality, was 5.19% and is well within the acceptable limit of 10% (WHI et al., 2003). Seven scenarios with different combinations of reduced or increased model input parameters were simulated, and the results showed that most combinations generated an unacceptably poor calibration; however, the capture zones were predicted to have a similar shape and size for the different sensitivity cases.

Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas for the Waterford municipal wells are shown on Map 5-28. The Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas extend predominantly westward and extend beneath a tributary of Nanticoke Creek and local wetlandswetlands that run along the river course. The Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas also overlap the Waterford ponds located to the north and west of the wells.

WHPA-E for Wells under the Direct Influence of Surface Water (GUDI)

Delineation of additional WHPA’s may be required for each well or wellfield that has been identified as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water under subsection 2(2) of O. Reg. 170/03 (referred to as GUDI wells). WHPA-E is required for GUDI wells where the interaction between surface and groundwater has the effect of decreasing the travel time of water to the well. The Waterford wells are drilled into overburden and the GUDI study for these wells suggests that there is a hydraulic connection between the wells and surface waterbodies (nearby ponds). The municipal supply wells for Waterford and the nearby ponds are shown in Map 5-30. The Assessment Report Technical Rules state that WHPA-E is to be delineated in accordance with the rules for delineating an IPZ-2, as though the intake for the system were located at the

October 5, 2017 5-100 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

point of interaction between surface and groundwater (if known) or a point within the waterbody closest to the well. In the case of the Waterford wells, the GUDI connection appears to be one or more surface water ponds near the wells. Since these waterbodies are not flowing, defining a 2 hour time of travel becomes very complicated. Although they are relatively small, the surface area and volume of the ponds are considered sufficient to offer at least 2 hours time of travel to the wells. The WHPA-E for the Waterford GUDI wells was therefore conservatively delineated by including the area of all four ponds immediately west of the wells and setbacks on land. Groundwater flow direction in the vicinity of the Waterford wells is west to east, therefore only the surface water ponds to the west of the wells are expected to contribute to the wells (Stantec, 2010a). The Technical Rules require a setback on land around the ponds to include the Conservation Authority Regulation Limit or 120 m, whichever is greater. This approach did not seem appropriate for the Waterford ponds due to the complex nature of the Regulation Limit, relatively flat topography and general direction of drainage from the north and west. For this reason, a setback of up to 120 m was applied to include areas that are thought to drain toward the ponds. The setback on land was extended out to the Conservation Authority Regulation Limit on the west side of the ponds to include areas that may drain toward the ponds, as shown on Map 5-30. As per Technical Rule 15.1, the Director has provided confirmation agreeing to the departure. The Director’s letter of confirmation can be found in Appendix B.

5.3.2 Waterford Vulnerability Scoring in Wellhead Protection Areas A vulnerability assessment using the surface to aquifer advection time (SAAT) method was completed to identify the aquifer vulnerability of the groundwater resources to surficial sources of contamination (SWS, 2010b; EarthFx, 2008). The SAAT time of travel values were used to create mapped vulnerability categories of low (value > 25 years), medium (5 < value ≤ 25 years) and high (value ≤ 5). The Surface to Aquifer Advection Time (SAAT) methodology was used to assess vulnerability in Norfolk County as described in EarthFX, 2008. The methodology is described in Section 3.1.1.

As shown on Map 5-29, the entire Waterford area has been mapped as highly vulnerable. In this area of Norfolk County, the water table is shallow, leading to less geologic protection of the aquifer. The Waterford aquifer appears to be protected by a silt and clay layer with a thickness of approximately 2 m; however, the continuity of this layer is unknown. The delineation for the WHPA-E for the Waterford well is shown on Map 5-31

Vulnerability scores within WHPAswellhead protection zones were assigned following Part VII.2 in the Technical rules as summarizedhown in Table 5-26. Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA Vulnerability Scores.

Table 5-24: WHPA Vulnerability Scores Intrinsic Vulnerability Time of Travel Capture Zone Category 100-m 2-year 5-Year 25-year High 10 10 8 6 Medium 10 8 6 2 Low 10 6 4 2

Map 5-29 shows the intrinsic vulnerability while Map 5-31 shows the vulnerability scores, which represent an intersection of the capture zones and the vulnerability categories. Since the

October 5, 2017 5-101 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report vulnerability category is uniform, the vulnerability scores follow the capture zone delineations, where the 2-year capture zone results in a score of 10 (high), and the 5-year capture zone results in a score of 8 and the 25-year capture zone in a score of 6.

As shown on Map 5-29, the entire Waterford area has been mapped as highly vulnerable. In this area of Norfolk County, the water table is shallow, leading to less geologic protection of the aquifer. The Waterford aquifer appears to be protected by a silt and clay layer with a thickness of approximately 2 m; however, the continuity of this layer is unknown. The delineation for the WHPA-E for the Waterford well is shown on. Vulnerability scoring of the Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas is shown in Map 5-33.

5.3.3 Waterford Transport Pathways and Adjusted Vulnerability Score Constructed or natural preferential pathways such as improperly abandoned boreholes or breaches in aquitards may be present within the WHPAs, and these pathways may allow contaminants to move rapidly from the ground surface to the underlying aquifer. Other preferential pathways may include pits and quarries, large diameter subsurface infrastructure such as storm and sanitary pipelines, and ditches.

Various potential transport pathways within the Waterford WHPAs Delhi Capture zones were identified using various databases and GIS layers, including MOE Water Well Records, Oil and Gas Wells, Tile Drainage, Constructed Drains, Storm Sewers and Pits and Quarries. All identified potential features are mapped on Map 5-32.

The MOECC Technical Rules note that the low vulnerability areas can be increased to medium or high vulnerability or a medium vulnerability area can be increased to high due to the presence of one of the above noted anthropogenic transport pathways. Professional judgment is used to increase the vulnerability score based on the hydrogeological conditions, the type and nature of the pathway, and the potential cumulative impact of the pathways. However, because the vulnerability in the Delhi WHPAs is already high, additional preferential pathways cannot increase the vulnerability any further.

It is, however, recognized that anthropogenic activities such as large excavations, pits and quarries, private water wells, unused water wells, abandoned water wells, and the construction of underground services can compromise the natural protection of the overburden layers and increase the vulnerability of the underlying aquifers to surficial contamination.

To identify potential transport pathways, an aerial photograph review of two separate time periods (2002 and 2006) was completed by SWS (2010) for all WHPAs in Norfolk County. As part of this evaluation, both sets of aerial photographs were compared to identify major changes that had occurred between the two time periods. In addition, other compiled information was overlaid onto the aerial photographs to assist in a complete evaluation. This overlaid information included: land survey results, quarries, Norfolk County Threats Database information and transport pathways (agricultural tiles, rivers, ditches, swales, roads, MOE water well records, permits to take water and oil and gas well records). In addition, maps of the unserviced areas were prepared to outline the locations of potential septic beds and water wells.

Transport pathways within the Waterford well field include several pits within the 2-year and 5-year Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas as shown in Map 5-32. SinceSince the entire Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA already has a high vulnerability ranking, the vulnerability of

October 5, 2017 5-102 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report zones near transport pathways cannot be further increased and therefore, transport pathways do not impact the final vulnerability scores.

Uncertainty and Limitations in Simcoe Vulnerability Scoring The uncertainty of the vulnerability score mapping is considered to be low, since the underlying vulnerability values are generally high.

There is very little uncertainty that the water level is close to the surface and the soil material between surface and water table has a high permeability. The uncertainty of the vulnerability category areas is, therefore, considered to be low.

5.3.4 WHPA-E Vulnerability Scoring Vulnerability analysis of WHPA-E includes consideration for both the area and the source as described in the Technical Rules. The area vulnerability factor for a WHPA-E is prescribed to be the same as IPZ 2, i.e. between 7 and 9. The source vulnerability factor for the Waterford wellfield was assessed based on a Type D intake, as it is under the influence of one or more small ponds. A Type D intake may have a source vulnerability factor between 0.8 and 1.0. The area vulnerability factor for the WHPA-E zones in Waterford was assigned a value of 7 based on the following: • Land area within the WHPA-E zone is largely rural and undeveloped, much of the undeveloped areas are forested. • Soils within the WHPA-E zone are typical of the Norfolk Sand Plain and are composed of sand and gravel deposits making them highly permeable. • There are no road crossings within WHPA-E for the ponds near the Waterford wells. • No transport pathways were identified for the WHPA-E for the Waterford wellfield.

These factors, taken together, suggest a low vulnerability of the source to contamination from spills and therefore, the lowest score was assigned to each WHPA-E. According to the Technical Rules, the source vulnerability factor for a surface water intake takes into consideration the depth of the intake from the water surface, the distance from land and historical water quality concerns. For a WHPA-E, the first two factors do not apply as there is no particular relevance to a GUDI well that is likely drawing surface water from a distributed area, rather than a point and only a small portion of the water getting to the well originates from surface water. There were no historical water quality concerns raised for any of the GUDI wells during the technical study. In addition, groundwater wells are known to be less vulnerable than surface water intakes to spills and other adverse conditions by virtue of the time delay between the surface water feature to the well, in-situ filtration through the soil and dilution of the surface water by groundwater from the rest of the well capture zone. For these reasons, the source vulnerability factor for all three GUDI wellfields in Norfolk County was assigned the lowest value. The source vulnerability factor for the Waterford wellfield was given a source vulnerability score of 0.8. Combining the area and source vulnerability scores, the overall vulnerability score for Waterford is 5.6 (Table 5-27).

Table 5-25: Vulnerability Score Summary for the Waterford WHPA-E Zone Intake Area Source Vulnerability Location Protection Vulnerability Vulnerability Score

October 5, 2017 5-103 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Zone Factor Factor Waterford wellfield WHPA-E 7 0.8 5.6

Limitations of Data and Methods used in the WHPA-E Vulnerability Assessment The methods used to delineate the WHPA-E zones were generally consistent with MOE guidance and the Technical Rules, with the exception noted for the Waterford wellfield. The WHPA-E for Waterford did not include all areas within the Conservation Authority Regulation Limit, because this would have included a large area that does not have any connection to the wellfield.

Determination of the hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics of the surface water systems associated with the wellfield represented the most significant analytic component of the WHPA- E delineation, and arguably the largest potential source of error. Given the lack of available hydrologic or hydraulic models for the watercourse systems under investigation, an independent understanding of design flow conditions was developed.

Given the low sensitivity to error with the other approach taken for delineating the WHPA-E in Waterford, it is concluded that the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis represents a relatively low uncertainty.

Peer Review for the WHPA-E Vulnerability Assessment The vulnerability assessment of GUDI wells in Norfolk County was carried out by Stantec Ltd. (2010a) on behalf of Norfolk County. Technical and peer review for the surface water vulnerability assessment was completed, iteratively, throughout the development of the final reports by GRCA and Norfolk County staff. External peer review was provided by Dr. Hugh Whitely, University of Guelph. Peer review comments were addressed to Dr. Whitely’s satisfaction and peer review of the report was completed on March 8th, 2010.

5.3.5 Percent Managed Lands and Livestock Density Percent Managed Lands Managed Lands are lands to which nutrients are applied. Managed lands can be categorized into two groups: agricultural managed land and non-agricultural managed land. Agricultural managed land includes areas of cropland, fallow and improved pasture that may receive nutrients. Non-agricultural managed land includes golf courses, sports fields, lawns and other grassed areas that may receive nutrients (primarily commercial fertilizer).

To determine the location and percentage of agriculturally managed lands in the wellhead protection areaWHPAsareas, parcels with agricultural land use were identified on the aerial photography and digitized. All areas with wooded land, wetlands and water were cut out of these surfaces. To assess the percentage of Non Agricultural Land, all non agricultural parcels were first delineated. The green space area was then digitized in a representative subarea in this zone and the percentage of green space of the total area was calculated. The average of green space was found to be 60% within the residential subdivision properties, which covered the bulk of the Non Agricultural Land.

The results are summarized in Table 5-28 , Map 5-33 and Map 5-34.

October 5, 2017 5-104 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-26: Managed Land Calculations Waterford Total Area of WHPA Managed Land Area Managed Land WHPA m² Acres m² acres % WHPA A 49,677 12.3 4,479 1.1 9 WHPA B 711,981 175.9 137,305 33.9 19 WHPA C 1,005,231 248.4 411,489 101.7 41 WHPA D 3,353,419 828.6 1,808,168 446.8 54 WHPA-E 678,680 167.7 85,054 21.02 12.5 Non-agricultural Agricultural Managed Land Managed WHPA Area Managed Land Managed Land Area Area Land WHPA Area m2 Acres m2 Acres m2 Acres m2 Acres %

A 49,654 12.3 0 0.0 5,045 1.2 5,045 1.2 10% B 686,398 169.6 17,499 4.3 40,629 10.1 58,128 14.4 8% C 724,173 178.9 129,809 32.1 111,069 27.4 240,878 59.5 33% D 1,808,160 446.8 1,007,621 249.0 99,928 24.7 1,107,549 273.7 61% Livestock Density Livestock density is defined as nutrient units per acre of agricultural managed land within a vulnerable area. A nutrient unit is defined as the number of animals that will give the fertilizer replacement value of the lesser of 43 kilograms of nitrogen or 55 kilograms of phosphate per year as nutrients.

Livestock density was calculated using the MOE 2009 guidance “Technical Bulletin: Proposed Methodology for Calculating Percentage of Managed Lands and Livestock Density for Land Application of Agricultural Source of Material, Non-Agricultural Source of Material and Commercial Fertilizers” for calculating Livestock Density in the Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas. Using aerial photography, livestock buildings were identified and square metre areas were measured for each structure. Each category of livestock was calculated into Nutrient Units as per the Barn/Nutrient Unit Relationship Table provided by the GRCA MOE (2009) and area weighted given the amount of Agricultural Managed Land that fell within each Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA zone. The sum of the total Nutrient Units for each Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA zone was then divided by the agricultural managed land area acreage to arrive at the NU/acre density for each Wellhead Protection AreaWHPA zone.

In Waterford, one single barn was identified in WHPA C, that is likely used for livestock as indicated by the presence of a fenced-in dirt area and the presence of a manure pileassumed as a hose barn and a livestock density of 0.4109 NU/acre was determined. Is WHPA D, two barns were identified and assumed to be mixed livestock with a livestock density of 0.08 NU/acre. The livestock densities for all Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas are summarized in Table 5-29, Map 5-35 and Map 5-36.

Table 5-27: Livestock Density (NU/Acre) CalculationsNutrient Unit Calculations Waterford Total AML Livestock WHPA AcreageAgricultural Total NU Density Notes Managed Land (NU/Acre)

October 5, 2017 5-105 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Acerage WHPA A (100 Meter) 00 0 0 No Animals WHPA B (2 Year) 22.54.3 0 0 No Animals One barn, WHPA C (5 Year) 99.232.1 13.30 0.410 assume horsesNo Animals Beef BarnTwo WHPA D (25 Year) 432.8249.0 18.939.88 0.089 barns, assume mixed livestock WHPA-E 3.7 0 0 No Animals

5.3.6 Percent Impervious Surface Area in Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas To map impervious areas, roads, sidewalk and parking lots within the WHPA were digitized based on the 2006 20165 aerial photograph. A one kilometer square was centered on the centroid of the WHPA and additional squares were added next to the central square, until the WHPA area was entirely covered by the grid. Map 5-37 and Map 5-38 illustrate the percent impervious surfaces for the Waterford wellfields. Percent imperviousness ranges from 0% to just over 80%, with the majority of percentages ranging between 10 to 81% impervious surfacesurface cover. WHPA E percent imperviousness is all less than 1%.

This methodology departs from Technical Rule 17 as the grid was centered on the centroid of the WHPA rather than the source protection area. The rationale for this departure is that the previous percent impervious surface was calculated prior to the release of the current Technical Rules (November 16th, 2009) and is was consistent with the previous version of the Technical Rules (November 20th, 2008). The method of centering the grid on the vulnerable area is considered to be an equivalent approach. As per Technical Rule 15.1, the Director has provided confirmation agreeing to the departure. The Director’s letter of confirmation can be found in Appendix B. This method was retained for the current update to be consistent with the previous work.

October 5, 2017 5-106 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-27: Serviced Areas for the Waterford Water Supply

October 5, 2017 5-107 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-28: Waterford WHPA

October 5, 2017 5-108 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-29: Waterford WHPA E

October 5, 2017 5-109 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-30: Waterford WHPA Unadjusted Intrinsic Vulnerability

October 5, 2017 5-110 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-31: Waterford WHPA Vulnerability Scoring

October 5, 2017 5-111 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-32: Waterford Transport Pathways

October 5, 2017 5-112 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-33: Percent Managed Lands within the Waterford WHPA

October 5, 2017 5-113 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-34: Managed Lands within the Waterford WHPA E

October 5, 2017 5-114 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-35: Livestock Density within the Waterford WHPA

October 5, 2017 5-115 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-36: Livestock Density within the Waterford WHPA E

October 5, 2017 5-116 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-37: Impervious Surface within the Waterford WHPA

October 5, 2017 5-117 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-38: Impervious Surface within the Waterford WHPA E

October 5, 2017 5-118 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.3.7 Waterford Water Quality Threats Assessment The Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006 defines a Drinking Water Threat as “an activity or condition 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, and includes an activity or condition that is prescribed by the regulation as a drinking water threat.”

The Technical Rules (MOE, 2009a) list five ways in which to identify a drinking water threat:

a) Through an activity prescribed by the Act as a Prescribed Drinking Water Threat; b) Through an activity identified by the Source Water Protection Committee as an activity that may be a threat and (in the opinion of the Director) a hazard assessment confirms that the activity is a threat; c) Through a condition that has resulted from past activities that could affect the quality of drinking water; d) Through an activity associated with a drinking water issue; and e) Through an activity identified through the events based approach (this approach has not been used in this Assessment Report).

Threats can fall into one of the following four categories:

• Chemical threats can include toxic metals, pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products and industrial solvents; • Pathogenic threats are microorganisms that could cause illness; and • Dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) are chemicals which are denser than water and do not dissolve in water, such as chlorinated solvents. • Through a condition that has resulted from past activities that could affect the quality of drinking water.

Significant threats to the Waterford groundwater supply were assessed through the development of a desktop land use inventory.

The identification of a land use activity as a significant, moderate, or low drinking water threat depends on its risk score, determined by considering the circumstances of the activity and the type and vulnerability score of any underlying protection zones, as set out in the Tables of Drinking Water Threats available through www.sourcewater.ca. Information on drinking water threats is also accessible through the Source Water Protection Threats Tool: http://swpip.ca. For local threats, the risk score is calculated as per the Director’s Approval Letter, as shown in Appendix C. The information above can be used with the vulnerability scores shown in Map 5-30 and Map 5-31 to help the public determine where certain activities are or would be significant, moderate and low drinking water threats.

Table 5-30 provides a summary of the threat levels possible in the Waterford Well Supply for Chemical, Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL), Pathogen, and Local Threats (Oil Pipelines). A checkmark indicates that the threat classification level is possible for the indicated threat type under the corresponding vulnerable area / vulnerable score; a blank cell indicates that it is not. The colours shown for each vulnerability score correspond to those shown in Map 5-30 and Map 5-31.

October 5, 2017 5-119 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-28: Identification of Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Waterford WHPAs Threat Classification Level Vulnerable Vulnerability Threat Type Significant Moderate Low Area Score 80+ 60 to <80 >40 to <60 WHPA-A/B 10    WHPA-C 8    Chemicals WHPA-D 6   WHPA-E 5.6  WHPA-A/B/C Any Score  Handling / Storage of WHPA-D 6   DNAPLs WHPA-E 5.6  WHPA-A/B 10   Pathogens WHPA-C/D Any Score WHPA-E 5.6  WHPA-A/B 10  Local Threat WHPA-C 8  (Oil Pipelines) WHPA-D 6  WHPA-E 5.6

Activities that Are or Would be Drinking Water Threats in the Wellhead Protection Areas and Intake Protection Zones Ontario Regulation 287/07, pursuant to the Act, provides a list of prescribed drinking water threats that could constitute a threat to drinking water sources. In addition, there is one local threat that has been identified in the Lake Erie Source Protection Region, the transportation of oil and fuel products through a pipeline.

A spill of oil and fuel products could result in the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons or BTEX in groundwater. The conveyance of oil by way of an underground pipeline that would be designated as transmitting or distributing “liquid hydrocarbons”, including “crude oil”, “condensate”, or “liquid petroleum products”, and not including “natural gas liquids” or “liquefied petroleum gas”, within the meaning of Ontario Regulation 210/01 under the Technical Standards and Safety Act or is subject to the National Energy Board Act, was approved as a local threat. The letter of approval from the Director of the Source Protection Programs Branch and table of hazard ratings is found in Appendix C.

Table 5-31 lists the activities that are prescribed drinking water quality threats and the three local threat. Listed beside the drinking water quality threats are the typical land use activities that are associated with the threat.

Land Use Inventory Methodology A land use threats assessment was completed through the review of existing data within Waterford’s WHPAs (Matrix, 2017) and summarized in Table 5-31. Limited site specific information was collected as a part of this assessment and most identified threats were considered potential, requiring further review and site specific assessments to confirm their presence.

October 5, 2017 5-120 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

To associate the drinking water quality threats listed in Table 5-31, Norfolk County compiled a land use inventory. The inventory was based on a review of multiple data sources which included previous groundwater-related work undertaken by the County, public records, local knowledge and windshield surveys.

Table 5-29: Drinking Water Quality Threats

Prescribed Drinking Water Quality Threats Land Use/Activity Ontario Regulation 287/07 s.1.1.(1) 1 The establishment, operation or maintenance of a waste disposal Landfills – Active, Closed site within the meaning of Part V of the Environmental Protection Hazardous Waste Disposal Act. Liquid Industrial Waste 2 The establishment, operation or maintenance of a system that Sewage Infrastructures collects, stores, transmits, treats or disposes of sewage. Septic Systems, etc. 3 The application of agricultural source material to land. e.g. manure, whey, etc. 4 The storage of agricultural source material. e.g. manure, whey, etc. 5 The management of agricultural source material. aquaculture 6 The application of non-agricultural source material to land. Organic Soil Conditioning Biosolids 7 The handling and storage of non-agricultural source Organic Soil Conditioning material. Biosolids 8 The application of commercial fertilizer to land. Agriculture Fertilizer 9 The handling and storage of commercial fertilizer. General Fertilizer Storage 10 The application of pesticide to land. Pesticides 11 The handling and storage of pesticide. General Pesticide Storage 12 The application of road salt. Road Salt Application 13 The handling and storage of road salt. Road Salt Storage 14 The storage of snow. Snow Dumps 15 The handling and storage of fuel. Petroleum Hydrocarbons 16 The handling and storage of a dense non-aqueous phase liquid. DNAPLs 17 The handling and storage of an organic solvent Organic Solvents 18 The management of runoff that contains chemicals used in the de- De-icing icing of aircraft. 21 The use of land as livestock grazing or pasturing land, an outdoor Agricultural Operations confinement area or a farm-animal yard.

Local Drinking Water Quality Threats Land Use/Activity The conveyance of oil by way of an underground pipeline that would be Oil pipeline designated as transmitting or distributing “liquid hydrocarbons”, including “crude oil”, “condensate”, or “liquid petroleum products”, and not including “natural gas liquids” or “liquefied petroleum gas”, within the meaning of the Ontario Regulation 210/01 under the Technical Standards and Safety Act or is subject to the National Energy Board Act.1 1: As confirmed by the letter from the Director of the Source Protection Programs Branch in Appendix C.

The datasets used to form the basis of the threats inventory are provided in Table 5-32.

October 5, 2017 5-121 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-325-37: Data Sources for Threats Assessment

Data Type Source Purpose Windshield survey of properties Carried out as part of technical Identify/confirm potential threats surrounding reservoir studies in August 2009 within IPZs Windshield survey Field surveys completed as To identify threats in vulnerable completed by SWS. areas because these areas were perceived to have the greatest potential to impact sources of drinking water. Well Operator Interviews Completed by SWS. To determine additional information which could lead to the identification of significant threats Historic Norfolk County Threats Completed by WHI, 2003 in The database was used to Database the Norfolk Municipal evaluate potential historical Groundwater Study. threats. Historic Aerial Photographs SWS reviewed an aerial To aid in the determination of Photography from 2006, land use activities including Google Maps (2009), and managed lands and impervious Street view (2009). surfaces. To determine any potential threats due to land use and land use changes. Aerial Photographs LESPR staff reviewed aerial Identify/confirm potential threats. photography from 2010, Google Maps (2013), and Google Street View (2013). Windshield survey of properties in LESPR staff carried out as part Identify/confirm potential threats. WHPAs & IPZs of threat review in 2013/2014 Aerial Photographs Matrix reviewed Google Maps To aid in the determination of and Street View (2016) land use activities including managed lands and impervious surfaces. To identify any potential threats. Environmental Databases ERIS Ecolog Report To identify potential and historic threats in vulnerable areas.

A classification system was used to link potential contaminants associated with each drinking water threat based on the identified land use. Each land use activity was classified using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The NAICS is a system for classifying business establishments and industrial processes using a unique code in a consistent hierarchical manner. The system helps to determine chemicals or other material that may be onsite based on the land use activity identified.

Potential threats were identified based on the land use activity that was identified and the chemicals or materials associated with the land use activity. In many cases, assumptions as to the presence of an activity were made. Observations and assumptions are summarized in Table 5-33.

Table 5-335-38: Land Use Activity AssumptionsAssumptions

October 5, 2017 5-122 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

DWT Reg Observation Assumption Ref No Agricultural property with Presence of septic system and septic system holding 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, residence and outbuildings – tank, storage and application of commercial fertilizer, 11, 1511, 15, buildings located in storage and handling of fuel, application of ASM, 9, 4, 2, 10, 8, WHPAAgricultural property application and storage of pesticidesStorage and 3 with residence and handling of pesticides, fuel, commercial fertilizer, outbuildings agricultural source material, septic system; application of pesticide, commercial fertilizer, agricultural source material. Agricultural property with Circumstances related to storage and handling of 3, 8, 103, 8, residence and outbuilding – chemicals and septic systems are not applied as 10 buildings not in WHPA there is no building in the vulnerable area. Those Agricultural property with circumstances related to application of ASM, residence and outbuilding – commercial fertilizer and pesticides are applied if buildings not in WHPA agricultural managed land is within the WHPA.Circumstances related to storage and handling or septic systems are not applied. Those related to application are applied. Agricultural property without Circumstances related to storage and handling or 3, 8, 10 farm buildings and structures septic systems are not applied. Those related to application are applied Residence where no natural Heating oil tank is present– associated fuel storage 1515 gas line is presentResidence and handling threats are appliedOil furnace Oil with no gas line furnace No sanitary sewer Septic system 2 infrastructure Lawn/turf Potential application of commercial fertilizer (ID 8 dependent on the percent of managed land and the application of NU to the surrounding properties). Waste Disposal The establishment, operation or maintenance of a 1 waste disposal site within the meaning of Part V of the Environmental Protection Act. Commercial/Industrial The handling and storage of a dense non-aqueous 16 phase liquid. Gas Station The handling and storage of fuel. 15 Storm sewer piping Storm sewer piping is not considered to be part of a 2 storm water management facilty. Rural residential property with Presence of septic system and septic system holding 2, 8, 9, 15 single family detached home or tank, storage and application of commercial fertilizer, rural recreational property with storage and handling of fuel building (e.g., club), not on municipal water Maintained lawn surrounding Application of commercial fertilizer 8 municipal well

Limited site specific information was collected for the current inventory. Most threats identified through this assessment are considered potential and require further site specific assessments to confirm their presence.

Norfolk County Historic Threats Database A historic threats database (version 4.1) was compiled in the scope of Norfolk Municipal Groundwater Study, which was completed by WHI et al. during May of 2003. This database was

October 5, 2017 5-123 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report used as part of the current investigation to evaluate potential historic threats within the County. Historic threats in the database were classified into five categories, as presented in Table 5-42. Among these five categories, there were 38 unique activities (specific land use categories) with 319 occurrences as presented in Table 6 5-42.

Table 5-42: Data Categories

Source Category Number of Locations Ministry of the Environment, Potentially PCB sites 17 Contaminated Sites Databases Ministry of the Environment, Potentially Contaminant Sources 111 Contaminated Sites Databases Ministry of Agriculture and Food Intensive Livestock 86 Ministry of the Environment, Potentially Waste Disposal Sites 36 Contaminated Sites Databases Ministry of the Environment, Potentially Spills 69 Contaminated Sites Databases

5.3.8 Condition-based Threats Evaluation The Technical Rules (Part XI.3) require a list of conditions resulting from a past activity where the following groundwater-related conditions are present:

• The presence of a non-aqueous phase liquid in groundwater in a highly vulnerable aquifer, significant groundwater recharge area or wellhead protection areaWHPA;

• The presence of a contaminant listed in Table 2 of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards, and is present at a concentration that exceeds the potable groundwater standard set out for the contaminant in that Table,; and the presence of the contaminant in groundwater could result in the deterioration of the groundwater for use as a source of drinking water.

• The presence of a contaminant in sediment, if the contaminant is listed in Table 1 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards and is present at a concentration that exceed the sediment standard set out for the contaminant in that Table, and the presence of the contaminant in sediment could result in the deterioration of the surface water for use as a source of drinking water.

To identify potential conditions within the WHPAs, multiple data sources were reviewed including aerial and roadside imagery; historical and current federal, provincial and private environmental databases; interviews with municipal staff; and the historic 2003 Norfolk County Threats Database. No significant, cCondition-based threats were identified in this review, and therefore no conditions resulting from past activities in the WHPA were identified as per Technical Rule 126.

No data was available that would have allowed determining off-site migration from potentially contaminated sites. Therefore, no significant, conditions-based threats were identified. MOE datasets related to past spills and Records of Site Condition were not assessed and this is noted as a data gap.

October 5, 2017 5-124 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Enumeration of Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in the Waterford Wellhead Protection Areas

Twelve activities for five seven prescribed drinking water threats were identified in the Waterford Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAs. These threats and their associated reference numbers are listed in Table 5-34. The activities that pose or could pose a threat are of type agricultural and residential.

Table 5-30: Significant Drinking Water Quality Threats in Waterford WHPAs

1 2 Number of Vulnerable PDWT # Prescribed Drinking Water Threat Activities Area Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Sanitary Sewers and WHPA-A 1 2 related pipes WHPA-B 2 Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Septic System 24 WHPA-B 2 Sewage System Or Sewage Works - Septic System Holding 31 WHPA-B Tank 3 Application Of Agricultural Source Material (ASM) To Land 2 WHPA-BC Handling and Storage Of Agricultural Source Material 1 WHPA-BC 4 (ASM)of a Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) 1016 Application Of Pesticide To LandStorage of a Dense Non 1 WHPA-B Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Management Or Handling Of Agricultural Source Material - WHPA-A Agricultural Source Material (ASM) Generation (Grazing and 21 WHPA-B pasturing)Handling and Storage Of Fuel 1519 Management Or Handling Of Agricultural Source Material - Agricultural Source Material (ASM) Generation (Yards or 1 WHPA-B confinement) Total Number of Activities 12 Total Number of Properties 7 1: Prescribed Drinking Water Threat Number refers to the prescribed drinking water threats listed in O. Reg 287/07 s.1.1.(1). 2: Where applicable, waste, sewage, and livestock threat numbers are reported by sub-threat; fuel and DNAPL by Prescribed Drinking Water Threat category. Note: Certain types of activities on residential properties that are incidental in nature and that are significant drinking water threats are not enumerated. These threats include the application of commercial fertilizer on residential properties, the storage of organic solvents (dense non-aqueous phase liquids) on residential properties, and the storage of fuel (e.g., heating fuel tanks) on residential properties in natural gas serviced areas. Note: Storm sewer piping is not considered to be part of a storm water management facilty.

5.3.9 Data Gaps and Uncertainty in Threats Assessment In many cases the results of the desktop inventory did not include all required information to determine whether the circumstances for the drinking water threats were met. Where information was missing, to determine the circumstances under which a threat occurred, a conservative assumption was used. This led to a number of threats that need to be confirmed by a more detailed analysis including interviews with land owners. Given the conservative approach that was chosen in this study, the uncertainty that current land uses, posing a threat to the drinking water, were missed, is low. At the same time it is likely that some of the threats that were identified as significant may not be a significant threat in reality. The uncertainty of the current threats assessment of land uses based on the desktop inventory is high.

Information to assess conditions resulting from past activities is a data gap.

October 5, 2017 5-125 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.3.10 Waterford Drinking Water Quality Issues Evaluation The objective of the Issues evaluation is to identify drinking water Issues where the existing or trending concentration of a parameter or pathogen at an intake, well or monitoring well would result in the deterioration of the quality of water for use as a source of drinking water. The parameter or pathogen must be listed in Schedule 1, 2 or 3 of the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards (ODWQS) or Table 4 of the Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines (Technical Rules XI.1 (114 – 117)).

Once a drinking water Issue is identified, the objective is to identify all sources and threats that may contribute to the issue within an Issue contributing area and manage these threats appropriately. If at this time the Issue contributing area can not be identified or the Issue can not be linked to threats then a work plan must be provided to assess the possible link.

If an Issue is identified for an intake, well or monitoring well, then all threats related to a particular Issue within the Issue Contributing Areas are classified as significant drinking water threats, regardless of the vulnerability.

The drinking water system serving the Community of Waterford consists of two wells, Well #3 and Well #4, and two pump houses. Water treatment consists of sodium hypochlorite and sodium permanganate addition for iron and manganese treatment and the addition of a poly aluminum chloride coagulant to reduce particulate matter.

The drinking water system serving the Community of Waterford consists of two wells, Well #3 and Well #4, and two pump houses. Well #3 has a depth of 10.6 m and Well #4 is 13 m deep. Water treatment consists of sodium permanganate addition for iron and manganese treatment, sodium hypochlorite for disinfection and the addition of a poly aluminum chloride coagulant to reduce particulate matter.

Schedule 1 Parameters and Pathogens Weekly samples analysed for E. coli and total coliforms were available from 2005 to 2009. Total coli were detected only two times in each of the wells 3 and 4 and no E. coli was detected. The well operator confirmed that the disinfection system easily treats this low number of microbes.

Weekly sample analytical results were also available from 2010 to 2016. During this time E. coli and total coli were detected once in 2010 at Well #3 and once in 2012 in both wells 3 and 4.

No Schedule 1 parameters were therefore noted.

Weekly samples analysed for E. coli and total coliforms were available from 2005 to 2009. Total coli were detected only two times in each of the wells #3 and #4 and no E. coli was detected. The well operator confirmed that the disinfection system easily treats this low number of microbes. No Schedule 1 parameters were therefore noted.

Schedule 2 and 3 Parameters Results from this data set indicated that samples were taken on two dates from Waterford Well #4 (February 21, 2001 and May 23, 2001) for dichloromethane. Of these two samples, the later sample collected on May 23, 2001 was above the ODWQS maximum acceptable concentration. No confirmatory sampling for dichloromethane was evident in the current data set following this exceedance. However, no further detects for dichloromethane was found in either well up to this date.

October 5, 2017 5-126 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

In the sample collected on May 23, 2001, nitrite was found at the MAC level of 0.5 mg/L. Since organic nitrogen was also high in this sample, but nitrate was found to be below detection limit, the elevated nitrite level appears to indicate the beginning oxidation process of the organic nitrogen to nitrite. Since none of the following samples showed elevated nitrite levels in this well field, this occurrence was considered to be a single event and was not noted.

Few samples including radioactive parameters (gross alpha and gross beta) were available, and all of them were from treated water (Reservoir). All activities were below or close to the detection limit of these parameters which made a more detailed analysis of Schedule 3 parameters unnecessary.

Schedule 3 Parameters

Few samples including radioactive parameters (gross alpha and gross beta) were available, and all of them were from treated water (Reservoir). All activities were below or close to the detection limit of these parameters which made a more detailed analysis of Schedule 3 parameters unnecessary.

Table 4 Parameters One sample was also analyzed for organic nitrogen at Waterford Well #4 on May 23, 2001. This sample was found to exceed ODWQS operational guidelines with a concentration of 0.38 mg/L. No confirmatory samples were taken following this measured exceedance.

Elevated values in respect to the screening benchmark were frequently found for manganese and hardness. In general, manganese concentrations varied from 0.08 to 0.36 mg/L, while hardness varied from 191 to 488 mg/L. Concentrations of both manganese and hardness at Well #4 were relatively consistent, while more variability was noted in the results from Well #3.

Consistent exceedances were also noted for temperature at Well #4, while occasional exceedances were noted at Well #3.

Aluminum concentrations were consistently lower than the ODWQS operational guidelines at Well #3, with the exception of one exceedance on May 23, 2001. This occurrence was interpreted as a single occurrence and was not noted.

Sodium concentrations were occasionally approaching 20 mg/L, the point at which a medical officer would be notified so that doctors can advise patients on sodium restricted diets, but still much less than the aesthetic objective of 200 mg/L.

The temperature was elevated repeatedly in Well #4 and was therefore noted.

No complaints in respect to odours in the drinking water of Waterford were mentioned in the drinking water reports or by the well operator and therefore this parameter was not noted.

Waterford Drinking Water Quality Issues Evaluation Summary The levels of iron and manganese both exceed the ODWQS Aesthetic Objective; however, the drinking water is already treated for these constituents. Both parameters were therefore, identified as an elevated parameter.

October 5, 2017 5-127 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Hardness is frequently above the ODWQS Operational Guidelines. Given the natural origin and the lack of a health threat, the parameter was identified as an elevated parameter. Therefore, no Issues were identified in Waterford.

October 5, 2017 5-128 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.4 Port Dover Water Treatment Plant The Port Dover Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is a large municipal residential drinking water system, and as such is a Type I system as defined by the Technical Rules (2009a).

Port Dover has one Type A (Great Lakes) intake located 457 m offshore at a depth of 2.9 m.

The Port Dover WTP withdraws raw water from Lake Erie and provides drinking water to the community of Port Dover and the municipal bulk water depot, serving a population of approximately 7,089 (Map 5-39). The WTP has a design capacity of 11,400 cubic metres per day. Water treatment includes chlorine disinfection, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, zebra Mussel control and taste / odour control.

The vulnerability assessment, threats assessment and issues identification is based on the following report “CH2MHILL. 2010. Updated Surface Water Vulnerability Assessments and Initial Threats Inventory for the Port Dover and Port Rowan Water Treatment Plants”.

5.4.1 Intake Protection Zone 1 Intake protection zones (IPZ) 1 and 2 (Map 5-40) were delineated for the intake in accordance with Part VI of the Technical Rules set by the Ministry of the Environment (November 2009).

An IPZ 1 represents the most vulnerable and immediate area around an intake and, for a type A intake, is defined as a circle that has a radius of 1,000m centred on the crib of the intake. Where the 1,000m circle intersected land, only the portion of the land within the Conservation Authority Regulation Limit or within 120m, whichever was greater, was included.

5.4.2 Intake Protection Zone 2 An IPZ-2 is defined as an area surrounding the intake that takes into account characteristics of the local conditions including local water currents, shoreline features and local tributaries. An IPZ 2 accommodates the following:

• The area within each surface water body that may contribute water to the intake where the time to the intake is sufficient for operator response to an adverse condition, the minimum time of travel requirement is 2 hours.

• Areas within storm sewersheds and other drainages that drain toward the intake; and

• A setback of not more than 120m inland or the Conservation Authority Regulation Limit whichever is greater if the area abuts land.

An IPZ-2 was delineated for the Port Dover WTP intake using a time of travel of 2 hours. A 2 hour time of travel was deemed sufficient for operators to respond to an adverse situation based on: interviews with water treatment plant operators, a 24 hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week alarm answering system that notifies County staff when there is an adverse water quality condition and the ability to remotely shut down the water treatment plant. The County also indicated that operators strive to respond to alarms or emergency situations within one hour. Based on these factors, the County felt that the Intake Protection Zone (IPZ) 2 should be delineated for 2 hours, which is the minimum time allowed under the Technical Rules.

The DHI (Danish Hydraulic Institute) software MIKE-3, a three dimensional (3-D) hydrodynamic and water quality model, was used to simulate the currents in Lake Erie. Wind speed and current

October 5, 2017 5-129 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

data were collected from an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) from April to December 2006 to capture seasonal variation. This dataset, along with other Environment Canada data from several buoys in Lake Erie near Long Point and Port Colborne, was used to calibrate the model and select representative high wind and current speed events for modelling. Three high wind/current events were chosen as representative and used to delineate the IPZ in an easterly direction: July, October and December and two events in May were chosen to delineate the IPZ in a westerly direction. Current speeds in the selected representative events ranged from 0.06 to 0.18 m/s and plotted on a compass rose diagram to describe the lake current movement about the intake. The distance required for a two-hour time of travel was then determined based on these modeled current events.

Hydrodynamic lake modeling showed that the shoreline was beyond the two hour time limit given the strong along-shore currents in the vicinity of Port Dover and therefore, it was not necessary to investigate upland transport pathways (e.g. sewersheds, streams etc.). However, one event that was modeled showed one 2 hour time-of-travel estimate extend eastward just beyond the IPZ-1 boundary and south (offshore) of the mouth of the Lynn River. Upon closer inspection using aerial photography, the discharge plume from the Lynn River was evident and it was assumed that under certain river hydrologic events the discharge from the Lynn River may enter the IPZ-1 and influence the intake. Given these circumstances and the high uncertainty due to the lack of river hydraulic modeling, a precautionary approach was taken to delineate an IPZ-2 for Port Dover that extends up the Lynn River. Further investigation is needed to confirm the delineation of the IPZ-2 for Port Dover.

5.4.3 Intake Protection Zone 3 Investigation and modeling of an identified threat within the upland area indicated that it does not pose a threat to the Port Dover WTP intake and therefore, an IPZ-3 was not delineated for the Port Dover WTP. Currently, the Source Protection Committee is not aware of any additional potential drinking water threats beyond IPZ-1 and IPZ-2 that could impact the Port Dover intake and would necessitate the delineation of an IPZ-3.

5.4.4 Information Sources for Vulnerability Assessment The most up-to-date information was used for determining the area and source vulnerability scores. Table 5-32 outlines the data sources and purposes for which the data were used.

Table 5-31: Summary of Data Sources Used in the Delineation of the Vulnerable Areas and the Vulnerability Assessment

Data Type Source Purpose Lake Erie bathymetry Raw depth sounding released by US Development of hydrodynamic National Oceanic and Atmospheric model to determine in-water Administration (NOAA) in 1999 extent of IPZ 2 Location of Lake Erie Ontario Ministry of Natural Development of hydrodynamic shoreline GIS dataset Resources (MNR) Ontario Base Map model to determine in-water theme extent of IPZ 2 Wind speed and direction Atmospheric Environment Service Development of hydrodynamic (AES) station at Long Point and Port model to determine in-water Colborne extent of IPZ 2 Climate data (air temperature, Erie International Airport Input for hydrodynamic relative humidity, and cloud modeling cover)

October 5, 2017 5-130 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-31: Summary of Data Sources Used in the Delineation of the Vulnerable Areas and the Vulnerability Assessment

Data Type Source Purpose

Lake current data Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler ADCP deployed at 80°12’12”; (ADCP) 42°45’48” as part of study for calibration of hydrodynamic model from November 2, 2006 to December 19, 2006 Lake Erie water levels, Long Point Region Conservation Vulnerability characterization shoreline erosion Authority Shoreline Management characteristics, wave, Plan sediment, erosion rates Drawings, technical Norfolk County Describes location, depth of information regarding intake; intake Engineering reports Watercourse mapping MNR Identify watercourses/ transport pathways that may impact IPZ Conservation Area Long Point Region Conservation Determine land area to be Regulation Limit GIS dataset Authority included in IPZ 2006 orthoimagery with 30 Norfolk County General mapping and cm resolution identification of surface features Water treatment plant Water treatment plant operator Identify operational concerns operator interviews; spill and obtain local knowledge reporting process; plant shut down process; shut down response time; treatment Issues/complaints etc. Sediment Sampling Sediment Sampling Report – Assessment of Issues and information Binational Toxics Strategy 2002; conditions Environment Canada report Raw water quality MOE Drinking Water Surveillance Assess vulnerability of intake Program, Norfolk County and identify concerns Lot fabric information Norfolk County / MNR Available through Land Information Ontario National Pollutant Release Environment Canada Identify potential threats Inventory (NPRI) data

5.4.5 Vulnerability Assessment Vulnerability analysis of the IPZ-1 includes consideration for both the area and the source as described in the Technical Rules. The area vulnerability factor for an IPZ-1 is prescribed as 10.

The Port Dover IPZ-2 area vulnerability factor was scored a 9 given the following rationale:

• High sloping banks along Lake Erie at the WTP; • The IPZ-2 area contains approximately 20% land which has been considered a small percentage; • High level of impermeability along shoreline increasing the potential for runoff; and • Identified storm sewer transport pathways

October 5, 2017 5-131 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

In addition to the physical location, land cover/runoff potential, and transport pathways that are evaluated for scoring the area vulnerability, consideration was also given for the 27 hours of available storage that the County has for the town of Port Dover.

The Port Dover WTP intake is located 457 m offshore at a depth of 2.9 m. The length and depth of the intake is relatively near and shallow, respectively, when compared to other Great Lake intakes. Relatively few water quality concerns have been raised by operators. Occasional high turbidity, aluminum and organic nitrogen levels have been flagged as concerns in the raw water requiring further monitoring. These factors result in a source vulnerability score of 0.6. Table 5-33 summarizes the vulnerability scores for the Port Dover WTP.

Table 5-32: Vulnerability Scoring for Port Dover WTP Intake Area Vulnerability Factor Source Vulnerability Score Vulnerability Intake IPZ-1 IPZ-2 IPZ-1 IPZ-2 1 1 IPZ-3 Factor 1 1 IPZ-3 [10] [7-9] 1 [5-7] [3.5-6.3] [0.5 – 0.7] Port Dover WTP 10 9 n/a 0.6 6 5.4 n/a

1 Represents range of potential scoring for Great Lakes water source –Technical Rules (MOE, 2009a)

5.4.6 Percent Managed Lands and Livestock Density within Intake Protection Zones The percent managed lands in the IPZ 1 for Port Dover is 3.4% while the percent managed lands in IPZ-2 is 4.4% (see Map 5-41). There is no livestock in either IPZ-1 or IPZ-2 for Port Dover (see Map 5-42)

5.4.7 Percent Impervious Surfaces within the Intake Protection Zone Map 5-43 shows the percent impervious surfaces in IPZ-1 and IPZ-2 for Port Dover.

Methodology To calculate the percent impervious surface, information on land cover classification from the Southern Ontario Land Resource Information system (SOLRIS) was used. This provided land use information, including road and highway transportation routes, as continuous 15x15 metre grid cells across the entire Source Protection Area. All the cells that represent highways and other impervious surfaces used for vehicular traffic were re-coded with a cell value of 1 and all other land cover classifications were given a value of 0, to identify impervious surface areas.

Then, a focal sum moving window average was applied using the Spatial Analyst module of the ArcGIS software. For each 15x15 metre cell, the total number of neighbouring grid cells coded as impervious, within a 1x1 kilometre search area, was calculated. This total was then converted into the percentage of impervious surface by land area, using the area of each cell (225 sq. m) and the area of the moving window (1 sq. km). This provides a 1x1 kilometre moving window calculation of percent impervious surface, represented in 15x15 metre spatial increments. This dataset was calculated for the entire Source Protection Area, but was clipped to show those results only in the Wellhead Protection AreaWHPAsAreas and Intake Protection Zones. The analysis is more representative of road density and is better than the method described in the Technical Rules. As per Technical Rule 15.1, the Director has confirmed their agreement with the departure. The Director‘s letter of confirmation can be found in Appendix B.

October 5, 2017 5-132 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Known Limitations and Data Gaps Impervious surfaces such as parking lots, pedestrian walkways and other related surfaces that may receive salt application were not considered as data was not available for these features within the study area.

Table 5-33: Input Data for Impervious Surfaces in Intake Protection Zones

Data Input Description Source Purpose Road areas Road and highway Sub-license from Ontario Continuous 15 x 15 metre (raster) transportation routes as Ministry of Natural cells represent surface represented by the Resources (MNR) areas of all highways and Southern Ontario Land other impervious land Resource Information surfaces used for System (SOLRIS) version vehicular traffic 1.2 May 2008, 15 metre raster cell format

IPZ Intake Protection Zone Lake Erie Source Boundary of reporting unit (polygon) Protection Region

October 5, 2017 5-133 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-39: Port Dover Service Area

October 5, 2017 5-134 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-40: Port Dover Intake Protection Zone

October 5, 2017 5-135 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-41: Percent Managed Lands within the Port Dover Intake Protection Zone

October 5, 2017 5-136 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-42: Livestock Density within the Port Dover Intake Protection Zone

October 5, 2017 5-137 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-43: Impervious Surfaces within the Port Dover Intake Protection Zone

October 5, 2017 5-138 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.4.8 Uncertainty and Limitations of Data and Methods There was a high level of confidence in the datasets used to delineate the IPZ-1; therefore, a low level of uncertainty was assigned and no limitations were identified.

Hydrodynamic modeling was used for the delineation of the IPZ-2 and although there is inherent uncertainty with large in-lake modeling, an overall low level of uncertainty was assigned to the modeling which identified one modeling event that extended outside the IPZ-1 and the resulting need for an IPZ-2. A precautionary approach was used to delineate an IPZ-2 that took into consideration the modeling event that fell outside the IPZ-1 along with the assumed influence of the Lynn River as seen on aerial photographs. Given the lack of in-river hydrodynamic modeling completed to understand the influence of the Lynn River on the IPZ-1 and IPZ-2, an overall high level of uncertainty was assigned to the IPZ-2 for Port Dover.

5.4.9 Threat Assessment The Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006 defines a Drinking Water Threat as “an activity or condition 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, and includes an activity or condition that is prescribed by the regulation as a drinking water threat.”

The Technical Rules (MOE, 2009a) list five ways in which to identify a drinking water threat:

a) Through an activity prescribed by the Act as a Prescribed Drinking Water Threat; b) Through an activity identified by the Source Water Protection Committee as an activity that may be a threat and (in the opinion of the Director) a hazard assessment confirms that the activity is a threat; c) Through a condition that has resulted from past activities that could affect the quality of drinking water; d) Through an activity associated with a drinking water issue; and e) Through an activity identified through the events based approach (this approach has not been used in this Assessment Report).

Threats can fall into one of the following four categories:

• Chemical threats can include toxic metals, pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products and industrial solvents; • Pathogenic threats are microorganisms that could cause illness; and • Dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) are chemicals which are denser than water and do not dissolve in water, such as chlorinated solvents. • Through a condition that has resulted from past activities that could affect the quality of drinking water.

Significant threats to the Port Dover water supply were assessed through the development of a desktop land use inventory.

The identification of a land use activity as a significant, moderate, or low drinking water threat depends on its risk score, determined by considering the circumstances of the activity and the type and vulnerability score of any underlying protection zones, as set out in the Tables of Drinking Water Threats available through www.sourcewater.ca. Information on drinking water threats is also accessible through the Source Water Protection Threats Tool: http://swpip.ca. For local threats, the risk score is calculated as per the Director’s Approval Letter, as shown in

October 5, 2017 5-139 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Appendix C. The information above can be used with the vulnerability scores shown in Map 5-40 to help the public determine where certain activities are or would be significant, moderate and low drinking water threats.

Table 5-35 provides a summary of the threat levels possible in the Port Dover Intake Protection Zones for Chemical, Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL), Pathogen, and Local Threats (Oil Pipelines). A checkmark indicates that the threat classification level is possible for the indicated threat type under the corresponding vulnerable area / vulnerable score; a blank cell indicates that it is not. The colours shown for each vulnerability score correspond to those shown in the map.

Table 5-34: Identification of Drinking Water Threats in the Port Dover Intake Protection Zones Threat Classification Level Vulnerable Vulnerability Threat Type Significant Moderate Low Area Score 80+ 60 to <80 >40 to <60 IPZ-1 6   Chemicals IPZ-2 5.4  Handling & Storage of IPZ-1 6  DNAPLs IPZ-2 5.4  IPZ-1 6   Pathogens IPZ-2 5.4  Local Threat IPZ-1, 2 Any Score (Oil Pipelines)

Because the highest vulnerability score is 6, no significant drinking water threats are possible in the Port Dover Intake Protection Zones.

5.4.10 Intake Protection Zone 3 No IPZ-3 has been delineated for the Port Dover WTP. The Source Protection Committee is currently not aware of any potential drinking water threats beyond IPZ-1 and IPZ-2 that could impact the Port Dover intake and would necessitate the delineation of an IPZ-3. If modelling is completed and shows this could be the case this information would be included in an updated Assessment Report.

5.4.11 Conditions Assessment The potential presence of conditions associated with past activities was assessed based on local knowledge through discussions with Norfolk County municipal staff. MOE datasets related to past spills, Records of Site Condition and potentially contaminated sites were not assessed and this is noted as a data gap. There were no conditions identified for the Port Dover WTP intake.

5.4.12 Preliminary Issues Identification and Parameters of Concern Municipal water treatment plant operators have indicated very few concerns regarding the operation of the water treatment plant. Although the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards (ODWQS) are for treated water, they can be used to flag parameters that could be a concern. A preliminary assessment of the Drinking Water Surveillance Program (DWSP) data indicates that

October 5, 2017 5-140 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

the following parameters exceeded the ODWQS in one or more samples for the period between 1998 and 2007:

• Aluminum • Dissolved Organic Carbon • Hardness • Iron • Manganese • Organic Nitrogen • pH • Temperature • Turbidity

Based on DWSP data for Port Dover raw water, none of the human health-based ODWQS were exceeded. Operational guidelines were exceeded for aluminum, hardness, organic nitrogen, and pH on one or more occasion based on the DWSP dataset. Aesthetic objectives for dissolved organic carbon, manganese, temperature and turbidity were also exceeded in one or more raw water sample. All of these parameters are associated with naturally occurring processes in Lake Erie, although in some cases, anthropogenic activities may play a role in the elevated levels observed. All raw water samples taken for the DWSP exceeded the organic nitrogen operational guideline (for treated water) of 0.150 mg/L. These levels may be related to algae blooms, agricultural runoff and/or wastewater inputs to Lake Erie. Given the high frequency of elevated concentrations of organic nitrogen, organic nitrogen has been identified as a preliminary issue that may be attributed to both natural and anthropogenic sources. Additional monitoring of the raw water is recommended before it can be decided whether organic nitrogen is identified as an issue under Technical Rule 114.

5.4.13 Uncertainty/Limitations of Data and Methods Used for Issues Evaluation In general, the available data were of sufficient quality and quantity to evaluate Issues. Raw water quality data for parameters listed on schedule 1, 2 and 3 and Table 4 of the Ontario Drinking Water Standards were provided for the years 1998-2007. Although there were data for most of the parameters from the schedules and Table, some parameters were not sampled for. The analysis may benefit from improved frequency and consistency of sampling data as well as a more complete scan for all parameters on the schedules of the ODWS.

5.5 Port Rowan Water Treatment Plant The Port Rowan Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is a large municipal residential drinking water system and, as such, is a Type I system as defined by the Technical Rules (2009a).

The Port Rowan WTP has one Type A (Great Lakes) intake located approximately 365m off- shore into the Long Point inner Bay. The intake crib is at a depth of 0.9m.

The Port Rowan WTP is located on the shores of Lake Erie in the town of Port Rowan. The WTP has a design capacity of 3,000 cubic metres per day that serves a population of approximately 1,100 6552,312 from the towns of Port Rowan and St. Williams. The distribution system is shown in Map 5-44.

The Port Rowan WTP is a conventional treatment plant (package plant) that receives raw water from Lake Erie. The treatment process consists of prescreening, chlorine and ultra violet

October 5, 2017 5-141 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

disinfection, pH adjustment, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, zebra mussel control, and taste and odour control.

The vulnerability assessment, threats assessment and Issues identification is based on the following report “CH2MHILL 2010. Updated Surface Water Vulnerability Assessments and Initial Threats Inventory for the Port Dover and Port Rowan Water Treatment Plants,”

5.5.1 Intake Protection Zone 1 Intake protection zones (IPZ) 1 and 2 were delineated for the intake in accordance with Part VI of the Technical Rules set by the Ministry of the Environment (November 2009).

An IPZ-1 represents the most vulnerable and immediate area around an intake and, for a type A intake, is defined as a circle that has a radius of 1,000m centred on the crib of the intake (Map 5-45). Where the 1,000m circle intersected land, only the portion of the land within the Conservation Authority Regulation Limit or within 120m, whichever was greater, was included.

5.5.2 Intake Protection Zone 2 An IPZ-2 is defined as an area surrounding the intake that takes into account characteristics of the local conditions including local water currents, shoreline features and local tributaries. An IPZ-2 accommodates the following:

• The area within each surface water body that may contribute water to the intake where the time to the intake is sufficient for operator response to an adverse condition, the minimum time of travel requirement is 2 hours. • Areas within storm sewersheds and other drainages that drain toward the intake; and • A setback of not more than 120m inland or the Conservation Authority Regulation Limit, whichever is greater, if the area abuts land.

An IPZ-2 was delineated for the Port Rowan WTP intake using a time of travel of 2 hours. A 2 hour time of travel was deemed sufficient for operators to respond to an adverse situation based on: interviews with water treatment plant operators, a 24 hour a day, 7-day a week alarm answering system that notifies County staff when there is an adverse water quality condition and the ability to remotely shut down the water treatment plant. The County also indicated that operators strive to respond to alarms or emergency situations within one hour. Based on these factors, the County felt that the Intake Protection Zone (IPZ) 2 should be delineated for 2 hours, which is the minimum time allowed under the Technical Rules.

The DHI software MIKE-3, a three dimensional (3-D) hydrodynamic and water quality model, was used to simulate the currents in Lake Erie. Wind speed and current data were collected from an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) from April to December 2006 to capture seasonal variation. This dataset, along with other Environment Canada data from several buoys in Lake Erie near Long Point and Port Colborne, was used to calibrate the model and select representative high wind and current speed events for modelling. The location of the Port Rowan intake is in the inner Long Point bay where there were very different current patterns than Port Dover. There is neither evidence of an eddy nor any dominant current direction. Nonetheless, three high wind/current events were chosen as representative and used to delineate the IPZ in an easterly direction: July, October and December and two events in May were chosen to delineate the IPZ in a westerly direction. Current speeds in the selected representative events ranged from 0.01 to 0.05 m/s and plotted on a compass rose diagram to describe the lake current movement

October 5, 2017 5-142 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

about the intake. The distance required for a two-hour time of travel was then determined based on these modeled current events.

Lake hydrodynamic modelling showed that the two hour time of travel about the intake did not reach the shoreline and therefore, it was not necessary to investigate upland transport pathways (e.g. sewersheds, streams etc.). Further, the modeling showed that the two-hour travel time fell completely within the IPZ-1. Since the Technical Rules state that an IPZ-2 shall not include an area of land or water that lies within an IPZ-1 that has been delineated for that surface water intake, an IPZ-2 for Port Rowan was not delineated.

5.5.3 Information Sources for Vulnerability Assessment The most up-to-date information was used for determining the area and source vulnerability scores. Table 5-36 outlines the data sources and purposes for which the data were used.

Table 5-35: Summary of Data Sources Used in the Delineation of the Vulnerable Areas and the Vulnerability Assessment.

Data Type Source Purpose Lake Erie bathymetry Raw depth sounding released by Development of hydrodynamic US National Oceanic and model to determine in-water Atmospheric Administration extent of IPZ-2 (NOAA) in 1999 Location of Lake Erie shoreline Ontario Ministry of Natural Development of hydrodynamic GIS dataset Resources (MNR) Ontario Base model to determine in-water Map theme extent of IPZ-2 Wind speed and direction Atmospheric Environment Service Development of hydrodynamic (AES) station at Long Point model to determine in-water extent of IPZ-2 Climate data (air temperature, Erie International Airport Input for hydrodynamic modeling relative humidity, and cloud cover) Lake current data Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler ADCP deployed at 80°12’12”; (ADCP) 42°45’48” as part of study for calibration of hydrodynamic model from November 2, 2006 to December 19, 2006 Lake Erie water levels, Long Point Region Conservation Vulnerability characterization shoreline erosion Authority Shoreline Management characteristics, wave, Plan sediment, erosion rates Drawings, technical Norfolk County Describes location, depth of information regarding intake; intake Engineering reports Watercourse mapping MNR Identify watercourses/ transport pathways that may impact IPZ Conservation Area Regulation Long Point Region Conservation Determine land area to be Limit GIS dataset Authority included in IPZ 2006 orthoimagery with 30 cm Norfolk County General mapping and resolution identification of surface features Water treatment plant operator Water treatment plant operator Identify operational concerns interviews; spill reporting and obtain local knowledge process; plant shut down

October 5, 2017 5-143 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-35: Summary of Data Sources Used in the Delineation of the Vulnerable Areas and the Vulnerability Assessment.

Data Type Source Purpose process; shut down response time; treatment Issues/complaints etc. Sediment Sampling Sediment Sampling Report – Assessment of Issues and information Binational Toxics Strategy 2002; conditions Environment Canada report Raw water quality MOE Drinking Water Surveillance Assess vulnerability of intake Program, Norfolk County and identify concerns Lot fabric information Norfolk County / MNR Available through Land Information Ontario National Pollutant Release Environment Canada Identify potential threats Inventory (NPRI) data

5.5.4 Vulnerability Assessment Vulnerability analysis of the IPZ-1 includes consideration for both the area and the source as described in the Technical Rules. The area vulnerability factor for an IPZ-1 is prescribed to be 10.

The Port Rowan WTP intake is located 365 m off the shore line at a depth of 0.9 m. The length and depth of the intake is relatively near and very shallow, respectively, when compared to other Great Lake intakes. During summer months, the shallow water in the vicinity of the intake has resulted in higher temperatures and pH in the raw source water. The warmer water temperatures, in combination with available nutrients such as phosphorus also promotes algae growth which has clogged the intake cribs on a regular basis. Occasional high turbidity, aluminum and organic nitrogen levels have been flagged as concerns in the raw water requiring further monitoring. These factors result in a source vulnerability score of 0.7. Table 5-37 summarizes the vulnerability for the Port Rowan WTP.

Table 5-36: Vulnerability Scoring for the Port Rowan WTP Intakes Area Vulnerability Factor Source Vulnerability Score Vulnerability Intake IPZ-1 IPZ-2 IPZ-1 IPZ-2 IPZ-3 Factor IPZ-3 [10]1 [7-9]1 [0.5 – 0.7]1 [5-7]1 [3.5-6.3]1 Port Rowan WTP 10 n/a n/a 0.7 7 n/a n/a 1 Represents range of potential scoring for Great Lakes water source –Technical Rules (MOE, 2009a)

5.5.5 Managed Lands and Livestock Density within Intake Protection Zones The percent managed lands in the IPZ 1 for Port Rowan is 4.3% (see Map 5-46) while there is no livestock in the IPZ (see Map 5-47).

5.5.6 Percent Impervious Surfaces within the Intake Protection Zone Map 5-48 shows the percent impervious surfaces in IPZ-1 for Port Rowan.

October 5, 2017 5-144 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Methodology To calculate the percent impervious surface, information on land cover classification from the Southern Ontario Land Resource Information system (SOLRIS) was used. This provided land use information, including road and highway transportation routes, as continuous 15x15 metre grid cells across the entire Source Protection Area. All the cells that represent highways and other impervious surfaces used for vehicular traffic were re-coded with a cell value of 1 and all other land cover classifications were given a value of 0, to identify impervious surface areas.

Then, a focal sum moving window average was applied using the Spatial Analyst module of the ArcGIS software. For each 15x15 metre cell, the total number of neighbouring grid cells coded as impervious, within a 1x1 kilometre search area, was calculated. This total was then converted into the percentage of impervious surface by land area, using the area of each cell (225 sq. m) and the area of the moving window (1 sq. km). This provides a 1x1 kilometre moving window calculation of percent impervious surface, represented in 15x15 metre spatial increments. This dataset was calculated for the entire Source Protection Area, but was clipped to show those results only in the Wellhead Protection Areas and Intake Protection Zones. The analysis is more representative of road density and is better than the method described in the Technical Rules. As per Technical Rule 15.1, the Director has confirmed their agreement with the departure. The Director‘s letter of confirmation can be found in Appendix B.

Known Limitations and Data Gaps Impervious surfaces such as parking lots, pedestrian walkways and other related surfaces that may receive salt application were not considered as data was not available for these features within the study area.

Table 5-37: Input Data for Impervious Surfaces in Intake Protection Zones

Data Input Description Source Purpose Road areas Road and highway Sub-license from Continuous 15 x 15 metre (raster) transportation routes as Ontario Ministry of cells represent surface represented by the Southern Natural Resources areas of all highways and Ontario Land Resource (MNR) other impervious land Information System (SOLRIS) surfaces used for vehicular version 1.2 May 2008, 15 traffic metre raster cell format

IPZ Intake Protection Zone Lake Erie Source Boundary of reporting unit (polygon) Protection Region

5.5.7 Uncertainty and Limitations of Data and Methods There was a high level of confidence in the datasets used to delineate the IPZ-1; therefore, a low level of uncertainty was assigned and no limitations were identified.

Hydrodynamic modeling was used for the delineation of the IPZ-2 and although there is inherent uncertainty with large in-lake modeling, an overall low level of uncertainty was assigned to the modeling which delineated the extent of the 2 hour time of travel about the intake. Since the modeling showed that the IPZ-2 was wholly contained within the IPZ-1, there is no IPZ-2 for the Port Rowan WTP.

October 5, 2017 5-145 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-44: Port Rowan Service Area

October 5, 2017 5-146 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-45: Port Rowan WTP Surface Water Intake Protection Zone

October 5, 2017 5-147 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-46: Percent Managed Lands within the Port Rowan Intake Protection Zone

October 5, 2017 5-148 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-47: Livestock Density within the Port Rowan Intake Protection Zone

October 5, 2017 5-149 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Map 5-48: Impervious Surfaces within the Port Rowan Intake Protection Zone

October 5, 2017 5-150 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

5.5.8 Threat Assessment The Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006 defines a Drinking Water Threat as “an activity or condition 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, and includes an activity or condition that is prescribed by the regulation as a drinking water threat.”

The Technical Rules (MOE, 2009a) list five ways in which to identify a drinking water threat:

a) Through an activity prescribed by the Act as a Prescribed Drinking Water Threat; b) Through an activity identified by the Source Water Protection Committee as an activity that may be a threat and (in the opinion of the Director) a hazard assessment confirms that the activity is a threat; c) Through a condition that has resulted from past activities that could affect the quality of drinking water; d) Through an activity associated with a drinking water issue; and e) Through an activity identified through the events based approach (this approach has not been used in this Assessment Report).

Threats can fall into one of the following four categories:

• Chemical threats can include toxic metals, pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products and industrial solvents; • Pathogenic threats are microorganisms that could cause illness; and • Dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) are chemicals which are denser than water and do not dissolve in water, such as chlorinated solvents. • Through a condition that has resulted from past activities that could affect the quality of drinking water.

Significant threats to the Port Rowan water supply were assessed through the development of a desktop land use inventory.

The identification of a land use activity as a significant, moderate, or low drinking water threat depends on its risk score, determined by considering the circumstances of the activity and the type and vulnerability score of any underlying protection zones, as set out in the Tables of Drinking Water Threats available through www.sourcewater.ca. Information on drinking water threats is also accessible through the Source Water Protection Threats Tool: http://swpip.ca. For local threats, the risk score is calculated as per the Director’s Approval Letter, as shown in Appendix C. The information above can be used with the vulnerability scores shown in Map 5-45 to help the public determine where certain activities are or would be significant, moderate and low drinking water threats.

Table 5-42 provides a summary of the threat levels possible in the Port Rowan Intake Protection Zone for Chemical, Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL), Pathogen, and Local Threats (Oil Pipelines). A checkmark indicates that the threat classification level is possible for the indicated threat type under the corresponding vulnerable area / vulnerable score; a blank cell indicates that it is not. The colours shown for each vulnerability score correspond to those shown in the map.

October 5, 2017 5-151 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Table 5-38: Identification of Drinking Water Threats in the Port Rowan Intake Protection Zone Threat Classification Level Vulnerable Vulnerability Threat Type Significant Moderate Low Area Score 80+ 60 to <80 >40 to <60 Chemicals / Handling &   IPZ-1 7 Storage of DNAPLs   Pathogens IPZ-1 7

Local Threat IPZ-1 Any Score (Oil Pipelines)

Because the highest vulnerability score is 7, no significant drinking water threats are possible in the Port Rowan Intake Protection Zones.

5.5.9 Intake Protection Zone 3 A complete failure of the Port Rowan municipal sewage treatment lagoons was identified as a possible threat on the landscape to the Port Rowan WTP intake. The Port Rowan municipal sewage lagoons are located outside the IPZ-1 limits and therefore, hydrodynamic modeling was completed of the catastrophic failure of these lagoons to determine whether this land use activity is a threat to the WTP intake.

The MIKE-3 hydrodynamic and water quality model was employed to determine whether E. coli levels from the catastrophic failure of the lagoons reached the WTP intake at levels that posed a threat to the intake. Modeling results illustrated elevated E. coli levels at the Port Rowan intake; however, the levels at the intake were within the current range experienced at the water treatment plant. Norfolk County staff indicated that these levels did not pose a treatability concern. Therefore, it was concluded that the municipal sewage treatment lagoons are not a threat to the water treatment plant and no IPZ-3 needed to be delineated.

5.5.10 Conditions Assessment The potential presence of conditions associated with past activities was assessed based on local knowledge through discussions with Norfolk County municipal staff. MOE datasets related to past spills and potentially contaminated sites were not assessed and this is noted as a data gap. There were no conditions identified for the Port Rowan WTP intake.

5.5.11 Preliminary Issues Identification and Parameters of Concern Municipal water treatment plant operators have indicated very few concerns regarding the operation of the water treatment plant with the exception of detections of trihalomethanes (THM) in the treated water supply. Trihalomethanes are a disinfection byproduct that is produced when chlorine or bromine is used to treat water with elevated organic matter. THM have been reported in the treated water, with some samples exceeding the Maximum Allowable Concentration (MAC) of 0.100 mg/L.

October 5, 2017 5-152 Long Point Region SPA Draft Updated Assessment Report

Although the Ontario Drinking Water Standards (ODWS) are for treated water, they can be used to flag parameters that could be a concern. A preliminary assessment of the Drinking Water Surveillance Program (DWSP) data indicates that the following parameters exceeded the ODWS in one or more samples for the period between 1998 and 2007:

• Aluminum • Dissolved Organic Carbon • Colour • Hardness • Manganese • Organic Nitrogen • pH • Temperature • Turbidity Based on DWSP data for Port Rowan’s raw water, none of the human health-based ODWS were exceeded. Operational guidelines were exceeded for aluminum, hardness, organic nitrogen, and pH on one or more occasion based on the DWSP dataset. Aesthetic objectives for dissolved organic carbon, colour, manganese, temperature and turbidity were also exceeded in one or more raw water sample. All of these parameters are associated with naturally occurring processes in Lake Erie, although in some cases, anthropogenic activities may play a role in the elevated levels observed. All raw water samples taken for the DWSP exceeded the organic nitrogen operational guideline (for treated water) of 0.150 mg/L. These levels may be related to algae blooms, agricultural runoff and/or wastewater inputs to Lake Erie. Given the high frequency of elevated concentrations of organic nitrogen, additional monitoring of the raw water is recommended before it can be decided whether organic nitrogen should be identified as an issue under Technical Rule 114.

5.5.12 Uncertainty/Limitations of Data and Methods Used for Issues Evaluation In general, the available data were of sufficient quality and quantity to evaluate Issues. Raw water quality data for parameters listed on schedule 1, 2 and 3 and Table 4 of the Ontario Drinking Water Standards were provided for the years 1998-2007. Although there were data for most of the parameters from the schedules and Table, some parameters were not sampled. The analysis may benefit from improved frequency and consistency of sampling data as well as a more complete scan for all parameters on the schedules of the ODWS.

October 5, 2017 5-153