APPENDIX X: Issues Identification and Conditions Analysis

Transcription

1 APPENDIX X: Issues Identification and Conditions Analysis

2 Essex Region Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Issues Analysis Post Phase 2 Report - Issues Analysis for Essex Region Source Protection Area Water Treatment Plants Draft December 2010

3 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND SCOPE STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS BACKGROUND PHASE 2 ISSUES IDENTIFICATION DATA COLLECTION DATA SOURCES Introduction Water Quality Reports Databases LITERATURE REVIEW DATA GAPS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY APPROACH METHODOLOGY ALGAE INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY CONCLUSION ALUMINUM INTRODUCTION DATA ANALYSIS TRIBUTARY ANALYSIS BACKGROUND LEVELS ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES OF ALUMINUM i

4 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 6.6 SUMMARY CONCLUSION AMMONIA INTRODUCTION DATA ANALYSIS TRIBUTARY ANALYSIS BACKGROUND LEVELS ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES OF AMMONIA SUMMARY CONCLUSION IRON INTRODUCTION DATA ANALYSIS TRIBUTARY ANALYSIS BACKGROUND LEVELS ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES OF IRON SUMMARY CONCLUSION ORGANIC NITROGEN INTRODUCTION DATA ANALYSIS TRIBUTARY ANALYSIS BACKGROUND LEVELS SOURCES OF ORGANIC NITROGEN SUMMARY CONCLUSION TURBIDITY INTRODUCTION DATA ANALYSIS DWSP Analysis Weather Analyses TRIBUTARY ANALYSIS BACKGROUND LEVELS ii

5 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 10.5 SUMMARY CONCLUSION WHEATLEY WTP INTRODUCTION SUMMARY REFERENCES List of Tables TABLE 2.1: SUMMARY OF ESSEX REGION WTPS DRINKING WATER QUALITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS TABLE 3.1: DATA GAPS FOR ISSUES ASSESSMENT TABLE 5.1: MICROCYSTIN RWQ ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE 6.1: ALUMINUM RWQ ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE 6.2: PWQMN ALUMINUM SAMPLING RESULTS TABLE 6.3: TOTAL ALUMINUM CONCENTRATION IN THE GREAT LAKES TABLE 7.1: UN-IONIZED AMMONIA (NH 3 ) RWQ ANALYSIS SUMMARY (µg/l) TABLE 7.2: PWQMN TOTAL AMMONIA SAMPLING RESULTS TABLE 7.3: AGRICULTURAL CENSUS FOR MUNICIPALITIES IN ESSEX COUNTY TABLE 8.1: IRON RWQ ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE 8.2: PWQMN IRON SAMPLING RESULTS TABLE 8.3: TOTAL IRON CONCENTRATION IN THE GREAT LAKES (µg/l) TABLE 9.1: ORGANIC NITROGEN RWQ ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE 10:1 TURBIDITY RWQ ANALYSIS SUMMARY TABLE 10.2: PWQMN TURBIDITY SAMPLING RESULTS TABLE 11.1: PWQMN SAMPLING RESULTS FOR THE WHEATLEY WTP TABLE 12.1: SUMMARY OF ESSEX REGION WTPS DRINKING WATER QUALITY ISSUES AND CONCERNS List of Figures FIGURE 6.1: PROVINCIAL WATER QUALITY MONITORING NETWORK STATIONS FIGURE 6.2: SOILS OF ESSEX COUNTY FIGURE 6.3: AVERAGE ALUMINUM CONCENTRATION (2005 TO PRESENT) iii

6 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS FIGURE 6.4: PERCENT OF ALUMINUM SAMPLES EXCEEDING BENCHMARK (2005 TO PRESENT) FIGURE 6.5: ALUMINUM LEVELS IN EFFLUENT OF FIVE SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO STPS FIGURE 6.6: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS FIGURE 7.1: AVERAGE TOTAL AMMONIA CONCENTRATION (2005 TO PRESENT) FIGURE 7.2: 2006 AGRICULTURE CENSUS PERCENT OF LAND IN CROPS FIGURE 8.1: IRON CONCENTRATIONS AT BELLE RIVER AND LAKESHORE WTPS FIGURE 8.2: AVERAGE IRON CONCENTRATIONS (2005 TO PRESENT) FIGURE 8.3: PERCENT OF IRON SAMPLES EXCEEDING BENCHMARK (2005 TO PRESENT) FIGURE 9.1: AVERAGE ORGANIC NITROGEN CONCENTRATIONS (2005 TO PRESENT) FIGURE 9.2: PERCENT OF ORGANIC NITROGEN SAMPLES EXCEEDING BENCHMARK (2005 TO PRESENT) FIGURE 9.3: NITROGEN CYCLE FIGURE 10.1: RAINFALL/TURBIDITY DATA OVER TIME FOR THE STONEY POINT WTP FIGURE 10.2: RAINFALL/TURBIDITY DATA OVER TIME FOR THE AMHERSTBURG WTP FIGURE 10.3: TURBIDITY VS. RAINFALL CORRELATION FOR THE STONEY POINT WTP FIGURE 10.4: TURBIDITY VS. RAINFALL CORRELATION FOR THE AMHERSTBURG WTP FIGURE 10.5: TURBIDITY OVER TIME FOR THE STONEY POINT WTP FIGURE 10.6: TURBIDITY OVER TIME FOR THE AMHERSTBURG WTP FIGURE 10.7: 2009 SNOW MELT VERSUS TURBIDITY FOR THE AMHERSTBURG WTP FIGURE 10.8: AVERAGE TURBIDITY (2005 TO PRESENT) FIGURE 10.9: PERCENT OF TURBIDITY SAMPLES EXCEEDING BENCHMARK (2005 TO PRESENT) Appendix APPENDIX 2.1: RAW WATER QUALITY BENCHMARKS AND METHODOLOGY APPENDIX 3.1: DWSP DATA APPENDIX 3.2: PWQMN DATA APPENDIX 5.1: MICROCYSTIN DATA iv

7 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 1.0 Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA), to further address potential water quality issues previously identified within the ERCA Source Protection area. This report is intended to: Evaluate recent Drinking Water Surveillance Program (DWSP) data; Confirm previously reported issues; Review available data for source loadings; Review available information to provide insight into potential sources; and Identify natural and/or anthropogenic sources of parameters. The Issues Evaluation Work Plan identifies the tasks and requirements for this work. It should be noted that the potential water quality issue of E.coli will be addressed in a separate report. 1.2 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS This document has been prepared exclusively for the use of the client and the project identified herein. The material herein reflects Stantec's professional judgment given the information available at the time of preparation and the requirements of the Clean Water Act, Source Water Protection Regulation, and guidance from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Recommendations presented in this report should not be construed as legal advice. 1.1

8 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 2.0 Background 2.1 PHASE 2 ISSUES IDENTIFICATION Potential source water issues were previously identified in the Stantec report Phase 2 Issues Identification Technical Memorandum dated January 2010 (Phase 2 report). The approved benchmarks and methodology to undertake issues evaluations are provided in Appendix 2.1. The basis for this report considers the guidelines from the approved methodology. The Phase 2 report identified drinking water quality issues for the following water treatment plants (WTP): Stoney Point WTP; Belle River WTP; A.H. Weeks WTP; Amherstburg WTP; Harrow-Colchester South WTP; Union Area WTP; and Wheatley WTP. The parameters identified may be attributed to both naturally occurring conditions and anthropogenic sources. The effort outlined in this report targets desktop investigation additional to that completed to date to determine if the concentrations present in the source water are being solely or mostly contributed to by anthropogenic sources. The following parameters were identified as issues in the Phase 2 report: Aluminum; Iron; Organic nitrogen; and Turbidity. In addition to the identified parameters, ammonia and algae were additionally listed as concerns for some of the treatment plant operators. The potential drinking water issue of E.coli will be addressed in a separate report. The Belle River WTP was decommissioned in January 2009 when the new Lakeshore WTP was put into operation. The new intake however was not commissioned until May Raw water quality data was separated based on the date the new intake was put into service and issues 2.1

9 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS were reevaluated based on these data. Previous identified issues are listed for the Belle River WTP however water quality data were evaluated for only the Lakeshore WTP. Table 2.1 summarizes the Essex Region WTPs and associated parameters that are to be examined further in this report. Table 2.1: Summary of Essex Region WTPs Drinking Water Quality Issues and Concerns Parameter of Concern Stoney Point WTP Belle River WTP** A.H. Weeks WTP Amherstburg WTP Harrow Colchester South WTP Union Area WTP Wheatley WTP* West Shore WSS Algae Yes - No data Yes Aluminum Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No data No data Ammonia Yes Yes - - Yes Yes No data No data Iron - Yes No data No data Organic No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No data Nitrogen data Turbidity Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No data *Wheatley WTP does not participate in DWSP and therefore analysis was conducted on available data provided by the Utilities Commission. Available parameters analyzed were E. coli, total coliforms, colour, ph, turbidity, and temperature. **The Belle River WTP was decommissioned in January 09 when the Lakeshore WTP was put into service.. 2.2

10 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 3.0 Data Collection 3.1 DATA SOURCES Introduction Public and private data sources were accessed in order to complete the required work tasks. Several of these data sources were provided by the Essex Region and the individual Municipalities while others were accessed through publicly available resources. The following is a compilation of data sources utilized by Stantec for this report. This section describes the data sources and in what capacity they were used Water Quality Drinking Water Surveillance Program (DWSP): DWSP is a voluntary program operated by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) in cooperation with municipalities to gather scientific data on drinking water quality in Ontario. DWSP data contains most of the parameters listed in the provincial standards, guidelines and objectives and its samples are representative of raw water at the intakes. DWSP is a voluntary program operated by the MOE since 1986 in cooperation with municipalities to provide data on drinking water quality in Ontario. Participating WTPs provide samples of raw and treated water from the WTP on a quarterly basis to the MOE for analyses. The MOE provides complete analytical support to the program. Data collected by DWSP is used to monitor contaminant levels and trends in raw and finished water, define and track the occurrence of new contaminants, provide data in support of standard setting and to assess treatment efficiency. Un-summarized (actual results rather than average values) sample DWSP data were provided by the individual municipalities. These data are included in Appendix 3.1. Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network data: PWQMN collects surface water quality information from rivers and streams at approximately 400 locations across Ontario. These data were used to analyze water quality data upstream of the WTPs and to determine if potential sources contributing to issues may be located upstream in the watershed. These data are included in Appendix Reports Annual Reports: Annual sewage treatment plant (STP) reports, where available, were reviewed for effluent exceedances and potential treatment concerns. 3.1

11 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Certificates of Approval (CofA): CofAs were reviewed in order to confirm processes and chemicals that may be used at local area STPs, wastewater lagoons and any other sewage works. Environmental Compliance Reports: These reports provide information about discharges of contaminants to air and water that exceed limits permitted by Ontario regulations or conditions within (provisional) certificates of approval for industrial and municipal facilities (also known as non-compliance). The discharges are generally reported to the MOE by the facilities. Some discharges may be identified by the MOE. These reports are publicly available for the years on the MOE s web site. Government Reports: Federal and Provincial agencies review guidelines for regulated parameters and their associated allowable measures. Reports published with these findings may provide insight as to potential sources for parameters of concern and the fate or toxicity of the parameter Databases Canadian Water and Wastewater Association (CWWA) Directory of Contaminants Database: Web based database outlining chemicals and metals likely to be present in various industrial/commercial land use activities. Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA): This program is the provincial response to address levels of persistent toxic substances in industrial direct discharges entering Ontario s waterways. The MISA Industrial Regulations are divided into nine industrial sectors and include monitoring and reporting requirements. These regulations are available on the MOE s website for the years and are required under the Environmental Protection Act, MISA data were reviewed for industries that may be a point source for an identified parameter of concern. National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI): The NPRI is Canada's legislated, publicly-accessible inventory of pollutants released, disposed of, and sent for recycling by facilities across the country. Industrial, institutional and commercial facilities which meet NPRI reporting requirements are required to report under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (EC, 2008a). This online database is hosted by Environment Canada and currently encompasses data from NPRI data were reviewed for pollutants that may be released to source water within the Essex region. 3.2

12 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 3.2 LITERATURE REVIEW Peer reviewed literature searches were conducted for parameter loadings, background levels and any additional information that may have been relevant to the work tasks. Specific titles and references have been included where appropriate. 3.3 DATA GAPS At the time of writing there were no new raw water quality data available for the Wheatley WTP. Turbidity was previously identified as an issue based on available process data. In an effort to provide an indication of potential issues at the WTP, tributary sampling data was reviewed for Muddy Creek and Lebo Drain. Results of this analysis are provided in the relevant parameter sections. Table 3.1: Data Gaps for Issues Assessment Data gap Wheatley WTP Raw Water Data West Shore WSS Raw Water Data ERCA Monitoring Program Sampling Data Flow Data STP Effluent Data for metals of concern MOE Reports and Studies Purpose Issues identification Issues identification Determine if parameters are occurring uptributary Turbidity analysis Determine if STPs are contributing to the issues identified at the WTPs Provide additional information on parameter background levels within the Essex Region, provide potential anthropogenic sources of parameters 3.3

13 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 4.0 Analysis Methodology 4.1 APPROACH The client group has previously identified that field work was not an option to determine sources of issues and as such the work completed was based upon a desktop analysis of available information. 4.2 METHODOLOGY Previously identified drinking water quality issues illustrated downward trending in the previous analysis. It was therefore deemed important to reevaluate the most up to date DWSP data available in an effort to ensure that the previously identified issues were to continue to be considered issues. Circumstances at the Belle River and Amherstburg WTPs have changed since the previous round of reporting and also warranted review of the most current DWSP data. The following outlines the steps used to reevaluate existing issues evaluate concerns and identify potential sources that may be contributing to the issues and concerns: 1. Obtain raw water sampling data at the intake for the seven Essex County WTPs. Additional DWSP data were received for the Stoney Point, Lakeshore, A.H. Weeks, Amherstburg, Harrow Colchester South, and Union Area WTPs. No new information was available for the Wheatley WTP. Review new data and confirm if parameter continues to exceed the identified benchmark. If not, it is recommended to no longer be considered a drinking water quality issue. If still exceeding, review if exceedances are considered recent or historical (spanning all testing years). 2. If analysis results are: Recent Exceedances Review of current PWQMN data to determine if parameter is located in contributing tributaries; Review available information for anthropogenic sources that may be contributing to the parameter of concern; and Review available databases that may provide insight as to a potential source for the parameter of concern. 4.1

14 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Historical Exceedances Review of PWQMN historical data to determine previous tributary levels; Review background lake levels; Determine if there is a similar issue at nearby intakes; and Compare parameter values to WTP levels in other Source Protection Regions. 3. Review for Anthropogenic sources of parameter: 1. Review CWWA database for list of industries associated with specific parameter; 2. Review NPRI and MISA databases for local industries that may be discharging the parameter; and 3. Review literature for other potential sources. 4. Summary Conclusion based on previous results. 4.2

15 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 5.0 Algae 5.1 INTRODUCTION A significant Algal bloom occurred in the Western Lake Erie basin during August Subsequently, a program was initiated in Essex region during the fall where positive results for cyanobacteria were indentified in the raw water at WTP intakes. It was requested that further investigation into algae be undertaken. 5.2 BACKGROUND Cyanobacterial Toxins Cyanobacteria is the scientific name for blue-green algae, or "pond scum" and is made up of cells which store naturally produced poisons or cyanobacterial toxins. A mass of cyanobacteria in a body of water is called a bloom. When this mass rises to the surface of the water, it is known as surface scum or a surface water bloom. Cyanobacterial toxins include neurotoxins, hepatotoxins, skin irritants and other toxins. These toxins are usually released into water when the cells rupture or die; some active release of toxins can also occur from young, growing cells. Hepatotoxins are known to attack the liver and tend to be more widespread in surface water supplies. Microcystins are the most common of the hepatotoxins and are most often responsible for poisoning animals and humans who come into contact with toxic blooms. About 50 different microcystins have been isolated. Microcystin- LR appears to be one of the microcystins most commonly found in water supplies around the world and is one of the seven most toxic. For this reason, most research in this area has focused on this particular toxin (Health Canada, 2002). Cyanobacteria Production The growth of cyanobacteria and the formation of blooms are influenced by physical, chemical, and biological factors. As a result of the interplay of these factors, there may be large year-toyear fluctuations in the levels of cyanobacteria and their toxins. Cyanobacterial blooms persist in water supplies that contain adequate levels of macronutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus) and micronutrients (such as iron and molybdenum). They tend to be found in water with temperatures generally between 15 and 30 C and ph levels between 6 and 9. Blooms usually occur in late summer or early fall and are most common in smaller or shallow lakes, reservoirs, sloughs, or dugouts. In many cases, blooms tend to recur within the same bodies of water year after year. The amount of daylight needed to optimize growth depends on the species. In addition, some cyanobacteria, can regulate their buoyancy in response to available light. This characteristic allows cyanobacteria to migrate to where nutrient and light levels are at their highest. However, at night cells are unable to adjust their buoyancy and often float to the surface, forming a surface scum. This scum literally appears overnight and may drift downwind and settle at lee shores and quiet bays, where the cyanobacteria may eventually die and release their toxins. 5.1

16 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Turbulence and high water flows are unfavourable to the growth of cyanobacteria, as they interfere with the organisms' ability to maintain a position in the water column. Heavy rain storms can increase runoff and nutrient levels in the water, which encourages the formation of blooms. Toxin Production There is no simple method to distinguish the toxic from the non-toxic cyanobacteria forms. It has generally been found that 50-75% of bloom isolates are capable of producing toxins. The factors inducing the production of toxins by cyanobacteria are not well known. The two main factors that have been shown to affect toxin production are light and temperature. The optimum temperature for toxin production in cyanobacteria is between 20 C and 25 C which suggests that cyanobacteria are most toxic during periods with warm weather. Light intensity more than light quality is an important factor in toxin production. The toxicity of cyanobacteria decreases with water depth. However, when mixing of water from different depths occurs, especially during periods of high winds, this may not be true. Some laboratory studies have shown that ph, nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations, and carbon availability could also influence the growth of microcystins. As toxin production varies greatly among different strains of the same species, genetic differences and metabolic processes may also be important in the production of these toxins. Studies have shown that the ability to produce toxins can vary temporally and spatially at a particular site or within the bloom itself. Exposure to Microcystins The major route of human exposure to cyanobacterial toxins is the consumption of drinking water. A minor exposure route is the recreational use of lakes and rivers. However, for microcystin-lr absorption through skin contact is unlikely, as the toxin does not readily cross cell membranes. Studies have shown through the analysis of raw water and treated water that it appears that conventional water treatment methods may be only partially successful in removing the microcystin-lr toxins. It has been determined that the typical threshold value of cyanobacteria for consumer taste and odour complaints is 2000 cells/ml. However, with microcystins the absence of taste and odour should not be equated with the absence of toxins as studies have found samples that tested positive for taste and odour problems also tested positive for the presence of microcystins (WHO, 2003a). 5.3 DATA ANALYSIS The MOE has set the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standard (ODWQS) for microcystin-lr at mg/l because of its potential to harm human health. This is believed to be protective against exposure to total microcystins that may also be present. Total microcystins includes all microcystin variants that are occurring free in the water and are bound to or inside cyanobacterial cells. The analysis of microcystins in drinking water is an emerging area of research, and there are few "standard methods" available. If a result of >0.001 mg/l microcystin-lr is found in a raw water sample, it is generally recommended that testing be performed on treated samples from the same site. Analysis of the samples collected in the Essex Region study area was completed by the Central Ontario Analytical Laboratory using the Elisa methodology. 5.2

17 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS A limited number of samples have been collected since September 2009 at the following WTPs: Amherstburg WTP; Lakeshore WTP; Stoney Point WTP; Union Area WTP; A.H. Weeks WTP; and Harrow-Colchester South WTP. Table 5.1 summarizes the microcystin data collected for each of the WTPs. Complete data analysis for each WTP is included in Appendix 5.1. Table 5.1: Microcystin RWQ Analysis Summary WTP Sampling Timeframe Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value (mg/l) Amherstburg WTP Aug Sept (0%) Lakeshore WTP July Sept (14%) Stoney Point WTP July Sept (0%) Union Area WTP Sept 2009 Aug (0%) A.H. Weeks WTP August (0%) Harrow-Colchester South WTP Sept 2009 Oct (7%) West Shore WSS Wheatley WTP It should be noted that the West Shore Water Supply System (Pelee Island) has not provided any sampling data but has provided photos taken in August The plant manager has indicated that in the last two years there have been frequent occurrences of algae blooms in near shore waters of Pelee Island. The species of these algae is uncertain however could be capable of producing high concentrations of toxins. This should be addressed with further analysis. 5.4 SUMMARY CONCLUSION It is difficult to make conclusions with the limited amount of sampling that has been completed to date. However in general, preliminary values recorded at all WTPs tend to be below the standard. This work should be considered a starting point for microcystin analysis. Further monitoring could be performed for the presence of cyanobacteria. Weather could also be monitored for conditions known to be conducive to bloom formation. 5.3

18 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 6.0 Aluminum 6.1 INTRODUCTION The amount of anthropogenic aluminum released nationally in Canada is small compared with estimated natural aluminum releases; however anthropogenic releases can dominate locally near strong point sources (Environment Canada, 2008b). The following section discusses aluminum levels at six Essex County WTPs and potential contributing sources, both natural and anthropogenic. Aluminum was previously identified in the Phase 2 report as a water quality issue at the following WTPs: Stoney Point WTP; Belle River WTP; A.H. Weeks WTP; Amherstburg WTP; Harrow-Colchester South WTP; and Union Area WTP. 6.2 DATA ANALYSIS Additional DWSP data for were reviewed for the above listed WTPs. Aluminum was previously identified for the Belle River WTP, however updated water quality data were evaluated for the Lakeshore WTP. The six WTPs continued to have measured exceedances above the previously identified benchmark and therefore aluminum is still considered an issue at the respective WTPs. The entire dataset was then reviewed to determine if aluminum exceedances were considered recent or historical. Table 6.1 summarizes the aluminum results for the six WTPs. 6.1

19 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Table 6.1: Aluminum RWQ Analysis Summary Sample Dates Present WTP Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-mg/L (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-mg/L (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-mg/L (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-mg/L (Year sampled) Stoney Point (54%) 0.42 ('90) 16 7 (44%) 0.44 ('95) 15 7 (47%) 0.3 ('02) 14 (-'10) 12 (86%) 0.47 ('05) Lakeshore* ('09-'10) 3 (75%) 0.41 ('10) A.H. Weeks (60%) 0.69 ('93) 18 9 (50%) 0.75 ('96) (63%) 0.78 ('04) 8(-'09) 6 (75%).23 ('07) Amherstburg (80%) 0.68 ('92) (83%) 0.56 ('97) (83%) 0.51 ('01) 15 (-'09) 15 (100%) 0.63 ('06) Harrow-Colchester South (52%) 0.75 ('91) 12 8 (66%) 0.58 ('95) 11 6 (55%) 0.22 ('01) 9 (-'09) 6 (67%) 0.16 ('06) Union Area (54%) 0.59 ('91) 12 5 (42%) 0.24 ('97) (67%) 0.16 ('02) 9 (-'09) 4 (44%) 0.80 ('09) *The new intake for the Lakeshore WTP was not commissioned until May 2009 and therefore water quality data were reviewed from that date onward. 6.2

20 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Based on the provided data, it was determined that aluminum has been historically exceeding the identified benchmark at the six previously listed WTPs. 6.3 TRIBUTARY ANALYSIS In an effort to identify where elevated levels of aluminum may be originating from, water quality data for nearby tributaries were reviewed. PWQMN data were reviewed for monitoring sites throughout the watershed. Although majority of stations are located outside of the Intake Protection Zones (IPZs) it was considered a valid analysis in order to determine background levels and/or potential contributing sources of aluminum throughout the watershed. Table 6.2 lists the tributaries sampled, the respective affected WTPs and sampling results respectively. Table 6.2: PWQMN Aluminum Sampling Results Station ID Watercourse Associated Water Treatment Plant Ruscom River Stoney Point WTP Lakeshore WTP Sampling Dates Number of Samples Percentage of Samples Exceeding Benchmark % Puce River Lakeshore WTP % Belle River Lakeshore WTP Belle River Lakeshore WTP % Turkey Creek Amherstburg WTP % Canard River Amherstburg WTP % Cedar Creek Harrow-Colchester South WTP Sturgeon River Union Area WTP Union Area WTP % % Muddy Creek Wheatley WTP % Muddy Creek Wheatley WTP % Lebo Drain Wheatley WTP % Figure 6.1 illustrates the above listed PWQMN monitoring stations. After reviewing the PWQMN data, it was determined that aluminum exceedances were also occurring upstream of the WTPs. 6.3

21 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Note that the PWQMN data for Little River was historical and sporadic and therefore not included in the analysis. Potential sources of aluminum are discussed in Section

22 L a k e S t. C l a i r MICHIGAN U.S.A Little River KLM > ) A.H. Weeks WTP WINDSOR KLM > ) Lakeshore WTP > ) Stoney Point WTP KLM Belle River Turkey Creek KLM LASALLE TECUMSEH Puce River Belle River KLM LAKESHORE KLM Ruscom River CHATHAM- KENT Legend > ) Water Treatment Plant PWQMN Station KLM KLM Ongoing Monitoring Historical Monitoring Source Protection Boundary Divided Highway KLM Canard River Other Highway Watercourse Political Boundary Lower Tier Municipality > ) Amherstburg WTP AMHERSTBURG ESSEX (TOWN) KINGSVILLE LEAMINGTON Single/Upper Tier Municipality International Boundary IPZ-1 IPZ KLM > ) Harrow-Colchester South WTP Cedar Creek L a k e E r i e > ) Union Area WTP Sturgeon River Notes Topographic data used under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and ESRI Canada. PWQMN stations used under license with Essex Region Conservation Authority. Copyright 2010 by Stantec Consulting Ltd. Projection: UTM Zone 17N, NAD 1983 KLM Muddy Creek Lebo Drain KLM KLM KLM > ) Wheatley WTP Muddy Creek km Project Essex Chatham-Kent Source Protection Planning Technical Studies Figure No. 6.1 Title Revision No. 1 Date Nov Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network Stations

23 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 6.4 BACKGROUND LEVELS Aluminum in source water may be greatly attributed to geomorphology of lake beds and watercourses. Aluminum abundance in the earth s crust is approximately 8.1% being a principal element in feldspar, mica and clay minerals. It occurs in soils up to 6.5 % and up to 0.4 mg/l in stream water (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2010). Located between the basins of Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair, is the Essex clay plain. Essex County soils are predominantly made up of clay soils and clay loams sitting atop. As such, this provides for high surface runoff. The quaternary geology consists of glaciomarine and marine deposits (silt and clay) with underlying bedrock of limestone, dolostone and shale (Middle Devonian). Figure 6.2 illustrates the soils of Essex County. In an effort to determine average background levels for raw water at surface water intakes, Great Lakes sampling data were reviewed. A research paper on trace element concentrations in near-surface waters of the Great Lakes identified total element concentrations in each of the Great Lakes (Rossmann and Barres, 1988). Samples were taken from numerous locations throughout each Great Lake. Table 6.3 summarizes the results as reported. Table 6.3: Total Aluminum Concentration in the Great Lakes Lake Huron (mg/l) Lake Erie (mg/l) Lake Michigan (mg/l) Lake Superior (mg/l) Lake Ontario (mg/l) As listed above, Lake Erie results exceeded the benchmark (0.1 mg/l) by almost double. Lake Huron which is upstream of the WTPs fell substantially below the benchmark. Highs level in Lake Erie may be attributed to the shallowness of the lake. Re-suspension of sediments during isothermal conditions was an important contributor to the high concentrations found (Rossman and Barres, 1988). No background levels were available for Lake St. Clair however it is also considered a shallow lake with high turnover events. It should be noted that more than 50% of the total aluminum recorded in these results was associated with particulate matter. This may be attributed to erosion and re-suspension of sediment. Figure 6.3 illustrates a comparison of average aluminum levels recorded within Lake Erie, Lake Huron, the WTPs listed in Section 6.1 and two WTPs outside of the Essex Source Protection Region for comparison. Figure 6.4 illustrates the percent of aluminum samples exceeding the benchmark. 6.6

24

25 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS mg/l Benchmark *Data used '09-'10 ** Data Used '05-'07 Note: Numbers inside bars indicate number of samples included in average Figure 6.3: Average Aluminum Concentration (2005 to Present) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% *Data used '09-'10 ** Data Used '05-'07 Note: Numbers inside bars indicate number of samples included in percent Figure 6.4: Percent of Aluminum Samples Exceeding Benchmark (2005 to Present) Four of the six WTPs located within Essex County with aluminum identified as a water quality issue, measured close to or below the background levels expected to be seen within lake levels. The remaining two WTPs may be experiencing loading from the contributing watercourses 6.8

26 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS (Ruscom River for Stoney Point WTP and Turkey Creek and Canard River for Amherstberg WTP) and also have anthropogenic sources contributing to the background lake levels. Refer to Section 6.5 on discussion of anthropogenic sources of aluminum. 6.5 ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES OF ALUMINUM In 2006, an estimated 16.1 kilotonnes of aluminum sulphate, aluminum chloride and aluminum nitrate was consumed domestically. Approximately 80% of the total aluminum demand was for the treatment of municipal drinking water and wastewater. Industrial water and wastewater treatment and use in the pulp and paper industry, account for majority of the remaining demand. Aluminum nitrate, which is used in far less quantities than sulphate or chloride salts, may be used in fertilizer and as a chemical reagent in various industries (Environment Canada, 2008b). Although releases of aluminum to the environment from most commercial applications are expected to be small, there is still the potential release of relatively large amounts of aluminum in water and wastewater treatment (Environment Canada, 2008b). During their use in water treatment, aluminum salts react rapidly and produce dissolved and solid forms of aluminum. Some of this is released to surface waters. Sludge from WTPs cannot be directly discharged to open water bodies in Ontario and is generally sent to STPs, incinerated, sent to landfills, or spread on land. STP sludge is also generally sent to landfills, incinerated, or spread on land. The disposal of sludge produced by municipal treatment facilities through land farming practices is a source of aluminum to the terrestrial environment however the presence of dissolved organic material and chelating agents lowers the amount of bioavailable aluminum in both the aquatic and terrestrial environments (Environment Canada, 2008b). There are many wastewater treatment facilities located upstream of WTPs in Essex County. These facilities generally discharge treated effluent to receiving creeks and rivers. Since aluminum sampling is not a requirement of effluent criteria it is difficult to determine the quantity of aluminum actually being discharged to surface waters. Through discussions with wastewater engineers it was determined that STPs may overdose with coagulant in an effort to maintain strict effluent criteria limits. Chronic overdosing may contribute to elevated levels of aluminum (or iron) in surface water. Figure 6.5 illustrates data consisting of summarized aluminum results sampled from STP effluent from five facilities located in Southwestern Ontario. Figure 6.6 illustrates STPs located in Essex County. 6.9

27 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 1,600 PLANT EFFLUENT ALUMINUM (UG/L) 1,400 1,200 1, Figure 6.5: Aluminum Levels in Effluent of Five Southwestern Ontario STPs 6.10

28 L a k e S t. C l a i r MICHIGAN U.S.A LITTLE RIVER WPCP ;K WINDSOR LOU ROMANO WRP > ) ;K A.H. Weeks WTP BELLE RIVER- MAIDSTONE WPCP ;K > ) Lakeshore WTP > ) Stoney Point WTP ;K STONEY POINT P.V. LAGOON TILBURY LAGOON ;K LASALLE EDGEWATER BEACH LAGOON ;K AMHERSTBURG > ) Amherstburg WTP ;K TECUMSEH ;K SKYWAY PLAZA WPCP ESSEX LAGOON S. W. MCGREGOR LAGOON ;K ;K ;K ;K ESSEX LAGOON N. E. LAKESHORE WOODSLEE ESTATE STP SOUTH WOODSLEE STP COTTAM LAGOON ;K ESSEX (TOWN) KINGSVILLE LEAMINGTON ;K COMBER LAGOON CHATHAM- KENT Legend ;K WWTP ) Water Treatment Plant > Source Protection Boundary Watercourse Political Boundary Lower Tier Municipality Single/Upper Tier Municipality International Boundary IPZ-1 IPZ-2 ;K AMHERSTBURG WPCP HARROW LAGOON KINGSVILLE LAGOON WHEATLY WPCP > ) ;K Wheatley WTP ;K ;K > ) Union Area WTP ;K LEAMINGTON WPCP ;K COLCHESTER SOUTH LAGOON > ) Harrow-Colchester South WTP ;K L a k e E r i e LAKESHORE WEST WPCP Notes Topographic data used under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and ESRI Canada. WWTP locations from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Copyright 2010 by Stantec Consulting Ltd. Projection: UTM Zone 17N, NAD km Project Essex Chatham-Kent Source Protection Planning Technical Studies Figure No. 6.6 Title Revision No. 1 Wastewater Treatment Plants Date Nov

29 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS A review of NPRI and MISA databases did not provide any industries that discharged effluent containing aluminum to surface water. The following is an additional list of anthropogenic sources of aluminum: Adjustment of soil ph for ornamental gardening; Spreading of aluminum phosphate on chicken litter to reduce phosphorus leaching; Widely used in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals; Chemical reagent in the leather tanning industry; Manufacturing; and Fertilizer production. None of these industries are expected to be substantial contributors of aluminum to source water but are indicators of the prevalence of aluminum in many different anthropogenic facets. 6.6 SUMMARY CONCLUSION Aluminum sulphate minerals such as aluminite and alunite occur naturally in Canada in certain restricted geological environments. Aluminum may be released from sulphate minerals; however; aluminum is also a common constituent of rocks which are dominated by aluminosilicate minerals(e.g. kaolinite, boehmite, clay fledspar, etc). These rocks weather and slowly release aluminum to the surface environment. Aluminum nitrate and aluminum chloride do not occur naturally in the environment. Aluminum present in surface waters due to anthropogenic applications cannot be distinguished from natural aluminum released during weathering (Environment Canada, 2008b). While there are several commercial applications of aluminum in Canada, releases of aluminum to the environment are generally expected to be small. It is therefore likely that the presence of aluminum in the raw water at the WTPs located within the Essex Source Protection Area is due primarily to the background levels naturally occurring across the watershed. STPs may be contributing small quantities to the source water however without specific effluent sampling it cannot be attributed absolutely. It is recommended that additional sampling upstream and downstream of effluent discharge locations be conducted in an effort to determine the quantity of dissolved aluminum that the STPs may be contributing to the issue

30 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 7.0 Ammonia 7.1 INTRODUCTION Ammonia exists in two chemical forms which are at equilibrium in water (NH 3, un-ionized and NH 4 +, ionized). The un-ionized ammonia is the form that is harmful to aquatic life. Together they are referred to as total ammonia. This equilibrium between the two forms is governed by ph and temperature. This means that while the concentration of ammonia may remain constant, the un-ionized ammonia fluctuate significantly within one day along with water temperatures. Testing results reported for ammonia usually measure total ammonia (NH 3 plus NH 4 + ). Un-ionized ammonia is calculated using the ph and water temperature taken at the time of sampling. Un ionized ammonia was previously analyzed as part of the Phase 2 report. Independent discussions with operations staff determined WTPs identify elevated levels of ammonia in raw water when process chlorine demand increases rapidly. The following WTPs previously identified Ammonia as a water quality concern: Stoney Point WTP; and Belle River WTP. The operator for the Union Area WTP had previously requested additional ammonia analysis however did not consider it to be a concern. 7.2 DATA ANALYSIS Additional DWSP data for were reviewed in addition to the previous summarized data for the above listed WTPs. Ammonia was previously identified for the Belle River WTP, however updated water quality data were evaluated for the Lakeshore WTP. There are presently no ODWQS standards for ammonia in drinking water. The previous Phase 2 report compared sampling results to the Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) for unionized ammonia (0.020mg/L), as toxicity in ammonia is generally attributed to this form. Taste and odour problems as well as decreased disinfection efficiency are expected at total ammonia levels higher than 0.2mg/L. Up to 68% of the process chlorine may react with the ammonia and become unavailable for disinfection (WHO, 2003b). As a result total ammonia results were also analyzed using the World Health Organization (WHO) standard (0.2mg/L) as a benchmark. Table 7.1 summarizes the un-ionized ammonia sampling results compared to the PWQO. Table 7.2 summarizes the total ammonia sampling results compared to the WHO standard. 7.1

31 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Table 7.1: Un-ionized Ammonia (NH 3 ) RWQ Analysis Summary (µg/l) Sample Dates Present WTP Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-µg/L (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-µg/L (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-µg/L (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-µg/L (Year sampled) Stoney Point ( 94) ( 99) ( 04) ( 05) Lakeshore* ( 09) Union Area ( 94) ( 98) ( 03) ( 05) *The new intake for the Lakeshore WTP was not commissioned until May 2009 and therefore water quality data were reviewed from that date onward. Table 7.2: Total Ammonia RWQ Analysis Summary (mg/l) Sample Dates Present WTP Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-mg/L (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-mg/L (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-mg/L (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-mg/L (Year sampled) Stoney Point ( 94) ( 99) ( 04) ( 05) Lakeshore* Union Area ( 91) ( 98) ( 01) ( 07) *The new intake for the Lakeshore WTP was not commissioned until May 2009 and therefore water quality data were reviewed from that date onward. 7.2

32 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Analysis of the un-ionized ammonia and total ammonia sampling data did not result in any measured exceedances of the PWQO or WHO standards. 7.3 TRIBUTARY ANALYSIS PWQMN data were reviewed for monitoring sites throughout the watershed. Although majority of stations are located outside of the IPZs it was considered a valid analysis in order to determine background levels and/or potential contributing sources of ammonia throughout the watershed. The PWQMN sampling data measured total ammonia and was therefore compared to the WHO standard of 0.2 mg/l. Table 7.2 summarizes the sampling PWQMN sampling results for total ammonia. Refer to Figure 6.1 for an illustration of the PWQMN monitoring sites. Table 7.2: PWQMN Total Ammonia Sampling Results Station ID Watercourse Associated Water Treatment Plant Ruscom River Stoney Point WTP Lakeshore WTP Sampling Timeframe Number of Samples Percentage of Samples Exceeding Benchmark % Puce River Lakeshore WTP % Belle River Lakeshore WTP % Belle River Lakeshore WTP % Sturgeon River Union Area WTP % After reviewing the PWQMN data, it was determined that total ammonia exceedances were occurring upstream of the WTPs potentially indicating watershed loadings. Sampling indicates possible higher numbers of exceedances occurring historically and less excedances in more recent sampling data. Potential anthropogenic sources of ammonia are discussed in Section BACKGROUND LEVELS Total ammonia in surface water systems can originate from many sources and predominant sources may vary on a watershed or sub-watershed basis. Sources and concentrations are also greatly influenced by hydrology, including timing and volume of surface water runoff (Sawyer, 2008). Natural sources of ammonia include the decomposition or breakdown of organic matter and nitrogen fixation processes. Since ammonia is continually released in this manner, any natural or industrial process that makes nitrogen containing organic matter available for decomposition represents a potential source of high local concentrations of ammonia (Environment Canada, 2001). 7.3

33 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Fresh waters typically contain little total ammonia with concentrations usually below 0.1 mg/l. Assuming a temperature of 20ºC and ph in the 7-8 range, natural levels of un-ionized ammonia are in the µg/l. Higher concentrations may be an indication of anthropogenic input (Environment Canada, 2001). Figure 7.1 illustrates the average total ammonia concentration for Essex Region WTPs, and two additional WTPs that are located outside of the source protection region for comparison Benchmark mg/l *Data used '09-'10 ** Data Used '05-'07 Note: Numbers inside bars indicate number of samples included in average Figure 7.1: Average Total Ammonia Concentration (2005 to Present) The total ammonia concentration for the sampled WTPs fell well below the WHO benchmark suggesting concerns at the WTPs are not being captured with the limited sampling data available. 7.5 ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES OF AMMONIA Ammonia commonly enters the environment as a result of municipal, industrial, agricultural, and natural processes. Natural sources include the decomposition or breakdown of organic matter and the nitrogen fixation processes. The largest non-industrial point sources of ammonia are STPs (CCME, 2010). In Ontario, the Ministry of the Environment establishes effluent requirements for discharge to surface waters. The requirements are set based on site-specific receiving water assessments and site-specific effluent requirements. Certificates of Approvals set out the effluent guidelines determined by the MOE. Despite government regulations, bypass events still occur during wet weather events and may impact the WTP processes downstream. Those waters most at risk from STP-related ammonia are waters routinely basic in ph with a warm summer temperature combined with low flows. Southern Ontario waters are included in this category (Environment Canada, 2001). 7.4

34 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS In 1996, NPRI reported 32,037 tonnes of ammonia released in Canada. This made ammonia the top-ranked NPRI substance at that time (Environment Canada, 2001). The 2009 NPRI results reported the Lou Romano WRP having released 245 tonnes of total ammonia to surface water and the Little River Pollution Control Plant having released 6.8 tonnes of ammonia to surface water. The Leamington Pollution Control Centre was also reported to have discharged 8.2 tonnes of ammonia to surface water. Refer to Figure 6.5 for the location of STPs located in Essex County. The US Geological Survey has found that high concentrations of nitrogen in agricultural streams are correlated with nitrogen inputs from fertilizers and manure used on crops and fields (USGS, 1999). The National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress indicated agriculture as the top source of impairment in assessed rivers and streams (USEPA, 2007). Agricultural releases of ammonia to water are difficult to measure due to the range of agricultural farming practices and the difficulty quantifying releases (Environment Canada, 2001). Essex County is comprised of a large agricultural community. Table 7.3 summarizes the number of farms and hectarage by municipality for Essex County. Figure 7.2 illustrates the 2006 Agricultural Census of percent land in crops for Essex County. Table 7.3: Agricultural Census for Municipalities in Essex County Total Number of Farms Total Area of Farms (hectares) Land in Crops (hectares) Essex County (Total) 1, , ,190 Town of Essex ,947 19,344 Town of Amherstburg ,457 11,669 Town of Lakeshore ,208 45,986 LaSalle Tecumseh 75 8,898 8,514 Kingsville , Leamington ,

35 L a k e S t. C l a i r MICHIGAN U.S.A > ) A.H. Weeks WTP > ) Lakeshore WTP > ) Stoney Point WTP LaSalle and Windsor 2786 ha of crops 58 farms Tecumseh 8898 ha of crops 75 farms Lakeshore ha of crops 488 farms CHATHAM- KENT Legend > ) Water Treatment Plant Source Protection Boundary Divided Highway Other Highway Watercourse Land in Crops < 25% 25% - 50% 50% - 75% > 75% > ) Amherstburg WTP Amherstburg ha of crops 162 farms Essex ha of crops 264 farms Kingsville and Pelee Island ha of crops 342 farms Leamington ha of crops 351 farms > ) Wheatley WTP International Boundary IPZ-1 IPZ-2 > ) Union Area WTP > ) Harrow-Colchester South WTP Project Essex Chatham-Kent Source Protection Planning Technical Studies Figure No. 7.2 Revision No. 1 Date Nov L a k e E r i e Notes Topographic data used under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and ESRI Canada. Census of Agriculture data from Statistics Canada. Copyright 2010 by Stantec Consulting Ltd. Projection: UTM Zone 17N, NAD km Title 2006 Agriculture Census Percent of Land in Crops

36 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 7.6 SUMMARY CONCLUSION Sampling results at the raw water intakes did not exceed benchmarks for total ammonia or unionized ammonia. Despite these results, operations staff still express concern with the levels. It is likely that the events causing the ammonia spikes are not being captured by the brief sampling performed at the intakes. It is suggested a more rigorous sampling program be undertaken in order to provide a basis for correlation to potential weather or seasonal events. Preliminary tributary analysis suggests larger quantities of ammonia are being released upstream within the watershed. Additional tributary sampling upstream and downstream of STPs and further across the watershed would provide insight as to the quantity and sources of anthropogenic loadings. In contrast to water quality criteria in relation to toxicity for aquatic life (PWQO), the treating of ammonia in drinking water systems is also important. While ammonia is not directly an issue for drinking water safety to humans, it may result in interference in the disinfection process and therefore an indirect drinking water safety for humans. Having low concentrations of ammonia in surface water systems is therefore helpful to both aquatic life and water treatment for human consumption. 7.7

37 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 8.0 Iron 8.1 INTRODUCTION Iron is typically present in surface water a low concentrations based upon the geomorphology of the lakebeds and catchment river beds. Anthropogenic sources such as industrial discharges may contribute to elevated concentrations in source water. Iron was previously identified in the Phase 2 report as a water quality issue at the following WTP: Belle River WTP. 8.2 DATA ANALYSIS The Belle River WTP was decommissioned in January 2009 when the new Lakeshore WTP was put into operation. The new intake however was not commissioned until May Additional raw water quality data were received for the years however was separated based on the date the new intake was put into service. The data for the new intake were reviewed in an effort to determine if iron should be considered an issue for the Lakeshore WTP. Table 9.1 summarizes the iron sampling results for the old intake and the new intake. Table 8.1: Iron RWQ Analysis Summary Sample Dates WTP Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-mg/L (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Valuemg/L (Year sampled) Belle River/Lakeshore (46%) ( 99) 4 1 (25%) 0.33 ( 10) Figure 8.1 illustrates the comparison of iron levels at the Belle River WTP and the Lakeshore WTP. 8.1

38 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Belle River WTP, Old Intake Benchmark Lakeshore WTP, New Intake Figure 8.1: Iron Concentrations at Belle River and Lakeshore WTPs Based on the data reviewed and the additional years of sampling for the new intake, it was determined that iron was historically occurring at the Belle River WTP; however; since the commission of the new intake, located further offshore, it appears that the iron levels are reduced at the present intake location. 8.3 TRIBUTARY ANALYSIS There was no current available tributary sampling data for iron at PWQMN stations located within the Beller River area. Historical sampling data was available and is summarized in Table 8.2. Table 8.2: PWQMN Iron Sampling Results Station ID Watercourse Associated Water Treatment Plant Sampling Timeframe Number of Samples Percentage of Samples Exceeding Benchmark Puce River Belle River WTP % Belle River Belle River WTP % Belle River Belle River WTP % Refer to Figure 6.1 for locations of PWQMS sampling stations. Based on the tributary sampling analysis, it did not appear that a potential contributing source was occurring upstream in the watershed. 8.2

39 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 8.4 BACKGROUND LEVELS Iron is one of the earth s most plentiful resources making up at least 5% of the earth s crust. Rainfall absorbed through the soil dissolves iron in the earth s surface and carries it into almost every kind of natural water supply (Wisconsin DNR, 2010). In an effort to determine average background levels for raw water at surface water intakes, Great Lakes sampling data were reviewed. A research paper on trace element concentrations in near-surface waters of the Great Lakes identified total element concentrations for iron in each of the Great Lakes (Rossmann and Barres, 1988). Samples were taken from numerous locations throughout each Great Lake. Table 8.3 summarizes the results as reported Table 8.3: Total Iron Concentration in the Great Lakes (µg/l) Lake Huron Lake Erie Lake Michigan Lake Superior Lake Ontario The background levels of total elemental iron fall below the previously identified benchmark (300 µg/l). The contributing source of iron may be anthropogenic in nature. Figure 8.2 illustrates a comparison of average iron levels recorded within Lake Erie, Lake Huron, the WTPs located across the Essex Source Protection Area, and two WTPs outside of the Essex source protection region for comparison. Figure 8.3 illustrates the percent iron exceedances for the same sampling locations. mg/l Benchmark Figure 8.2: Average Iron Concentrations (2005 to Present) 8.3

40 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% *Data used '09-'10 ** Data Used '05-'07 Note: Numbers inside bars indicate number of samples included in average Figure 8.3: Percent of Iron Samples Exceeding Benchmark (2005 to Present) 8.5 ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCES OF IRON A review of NPRI and MISA databases, and Environmental Compliance Reports did not provide any local industries that discharged iron to surface water within the Belle River area. A review of local area properties did not reveal any commercial businesses that may be contributing iron to source water. Iron compounds are commonly used as coagulants in both water and wastewater treatment processes however communication with municipal staff determined alum is the only coagulant used at municipal plants within the Town of Lakeshore. A search of the CWWA provided over 60 industries with a high probability of having iron associated with that industry. Of note were dry cleaners, parking lots and garages, and gasoline stations. The Belle River Marina is located at the mouth of Belle River along a constructed break wall. Of note is the steel sheet piling wall on the west side of the river mouth extending 69 metres from shore (NOAA, 2010). The marina is full service with gas pumps which are located at the northern most section of the marina. According to the Technical Standards and Safety Authority, the Belle River Marina has two steel underground gasoline fuel storage tanks. The tanks were installed in 1986 with a combined capacity of over litres. 8.6 SUMMARY CONCLUSION Previous levels of iron at the Belle River intake may be due to the oxidization of steel located in or about the marina and or in part due to gasoline combustion or leakage from motor boats coming in and out of the marina. The steel fuel tanks located underground beside the source water and within an IPZ should also be inspected for potential issues of integrity and or leakage. 8.4

41 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Given the commission of a new intake for the Lakeshore WTP and the declining levels of iron in the source water it is likely that iron is no longer a drinking water issue for this location. Additional testing is recommended to confirm this. 8.5

42 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 9.0 Organic Nitrogen 9.1 INTRODUCTION Organic nitrogen has been identified as a problematic parameter across several source protection planning jurisdictions. Exceedances have been recorded in the upper reaches of Lake Huron as well as the Welland Canal, Niagara River, and Lake Ontario. Organic nitrogen was previously identified in the Phase 2 report as a water quality issue at the following WTPs: Stoney Point WTP; Belle River WTP; A.H. Weeks WTP; Amherstburg WTP; Harrow-Colchester South WTP; and Union Area WTP. 9.2 DATA ANALYSIS Organic nitrogen for the purposes of this analysis is the particulate matter calculated by subtracting the ammonia nitrogen from the total Kjeldahl nitrogen. DWSP data for were reviewed in addition to the previous summarized data for the above listed WTPs. Organic nitrogen was previously identified for the Belle River WTP, however updated water quality data were evaluated for the Lakeshore WTP. The six WTPs continued to have measured exceedances above the previously identified benchmark and therefore organic nitrogen is still considered an issue. The entire dataset was then reviewed to determine if organic nitrogen exceedances were considered recent or historical. Table 9.1 summarizes the organic nitrogen sampling results for the six WTPs. 9.1

43 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Table 9.1: Organic Nitrogen RWQ Analysis Summary Sample Dates Present WTP Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-mg/L (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-mg/L (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-mg/L (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-mg/L (Year sampled) Stoney Point (96%) ('92) (100%) 0.44 ('95) (100%) ('00) 15 (-'10) 15 (100%) ('05) Lakeshore* ('09-'10) 3 (75%) ('10) A.H. Weeks (93%) 0.69 ('93) (89%) 0.75 ('96) (88%) 0.78 ('04) 8(-'09) 6 (75%).23 ('07) Amherstburg (97%) ('92) (94%) ('95) (100%) ('01) 13(- 09) 13 (100%) ('09) Harrow-Colchester South (96%) ('91) (100%) ('95) (91%) ('01) 16 (- 09) 13 (81%) ('09) Union Area (100%).284 ('90) (100%) ('95) (91%) ('01) 13 (-'09) 12 (92%) ('07) *The new intake for the Lakeshore WTP was not commissioned until May 2009 and therefore water quality data were reviewed from that date onward. 9.2

44 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Based on the provided data, it was determined that organic nitrogen has been historically exceeding the identified benchmark at the six previously listed WTPs. 9.3 TRIBUTARY ANALYSIS In an effort to identify where elevated levels of organic nitrogen may be originating from, water quality data for nearby tributaries were reviewed. PWQMN data were reviewed for monitoring sites throughout the watershed. Although majority of stations are located outside of the IPZs it was considered a valid analysis in order to determine background levels and/or potential contributing sources of organic nitrogen throughout the watershed. Table 9.2 lists the tributaries sampled, the respective affected WTPs and sampling results respectively. Refer to Figure 6.1 for an illustration of the PWQMN monitoring sites. Table 9.2: PWQMN Organic Nitrogen Sampling Results Station ID Watercourse Associated Water Treatment Plant Ruscom River Stoney Point WTP Lakeshore WTP Sampling Timeframe Number of Samples Percentage of Samples Exceeding Benchmark % Puce River Lakeshore WTP % Belle River Lakeshore WTP % Belle River Lakeshore WTP % Turkey Creek Amherstburg WTP Canard River Amherstburg WTP Cedar Creek Harrow- Colchester South WTP Union Area WTP % % % Sturgeon River Union Area WTP % Muddy Creek Wheatley WTP % Muddy Creek Wheatley WTP % Lebo Drain Wheatley WTP % 9.3

45 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS After reviewing the PWQMN data, it was determined that organic nitrogen exceedances were occurring historically and continue to exceed upstream of the WTPs potentially indicating watershed loadings. Note that the PWQMN data for Little River was historical and sporadic and therefore not included in the analysis. Potential anthropogenic sources are discussed in Section BACKGROUND LEVELS Figure 9.1 illustrates a comparison of average organic nitrogen levels recorded for WTPs located across the Essex Source Protection Area, and two WTPs outside of the Essex source protection region for comparison Figure 9.2 illustrates the percent organic nitrogen exceedances for the same sampling locations. mg/l Benchmark *Data used '09-'10 ** Data Used '05-'07 Note: Numbers inside bars indicate number of samples included in average Figure 9.1: Average Organic Nitrogen Concentrations (2005 to Present) 9.4

46 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% *Data used '09-'10 ** Data Used '05-'07 Note: Numbers inside bars indicate number of samples included in average Figure 9.2: Percent of Organic Nitrogen Samples Exceeding Benchmark (2005 to Present) Of note is the lower levels of organic nitrogen present at the Southampton WTP which has its intake located in Lake Huron. The area surrounding this plant is similarly comprised of agricultural farming practices however the depth of Lake Huron may result in decreased lake turnover events and therefore the decrease in organic nitrogen at that particular intake. WTPs with large rivers discharging within the IPZs may provide a higher dilution factor for organic nitrogen due to larger flows. Because nitrogen is so variable in form in the natural environment there is little information on background levels of organic nitrogen in aquatic environments. Total nitrogen is most often studied along with the components that comprise it. 9.5 SOURCES OF ORGANIC NITROGEN When analyzing waters and wastewaters, the forms of nitrogen of greatest interest are nitrate, nitrite, ammonia and organic nitrogen. All of these including nitrogen gas are biochemically interconvertible and therefore are the components of the nitrogen cycle. Ammonia (previously discussed in Section 7.0) is naturally present in surface water and is produced largely by the deamination of organic nitrogen-containing compounds and by the hydrolysis of urea. Organic nitrogen includes natural materials such as proteins and peptides, nucleic acids and urea (American Public Health Association et al., 1976). There is a constant cycling of the nitrogen present in the natural environment but may the cycle may also be influenced by anthropogenic inputs. Figure 9.3 illustrates these processes and inputs. 9.5

47 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Figure 9.3: Nitrogen Cycle Vision Learning, 2010 Mechanical erosion of soil organic matter continuously contributes particulate organic nitrogen to river and lake systems and may be further enhanced by local aquatic production. Livestock and sewage waste are usually the largest anthropogenic contributors of organic nitrogen. STPs do not generally test effluent for organic nitrogen but monitor total suspended solids (TSS) instead. STP effluent typically contains 5-15 mg/l of TSS of which there may be approximately 1-2 mg/l of organic nitrogen; however the MOE sets effluent criteria for TSS based on the capacity of site specific receiving waters. Nitrogen in manure exists in two forms, organic nitrogen which forms the largest portion and ammonium nitrogen. Organic nitrogen is not available for use by plants until it mineralizes to the nitrate form (PEI DOA, 2010) ). Over application and spreading of manure in winter can increase nutrient runoff into ditches and subsequently surface water. Particulate matter from the combustion of fossil fuels is also contributed by atmospheric deposition. 9.6 SUMMARY CONCLUSION While organic nitrogen levels have been historically exceeding the benchmarks across the Essex Region, it is difficult to determine absolutely where the sources are coming from. It is likely there is a multitude of anthropogenic and natural contributors across the watershed. Preliminary tributary analysis suggests larger quantities of organic nitrogen are being released upstream within the watershed. Additional tributary sampling upstream and downstream of STPs and further across the watershed would provide insight as to the quantity and sources of 9.6

48 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS anthropogenic loadings An increase in the frequency of sampling may assist in seasonal trending analysis. 9.7

49 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 10.0 Turbidity 10.1 INTRODUCTION Turbidity was previously identified as a drinking water quality issue across the Essex Region. Analysis resulted in measured exceedances with levels continuing to trend upwards. Discussions with operations staff have identified that occurrences of high turbidity affect plant capacity in varying degrees. Turbidity was previously identified in the Phase 2 report as a water quality issue at the following WTPs: Stoney Point WTP; Belle River WTP; A.H. Weeks WTP; Amherstburg WTP; Harrow-Colchester South WTP; and Union Area WTP. The Baird modeling team is currently undergoing turbidity analysis for the A. H. Weeks and Union Area WTP intakes. This analysis is based on comparisons of turbidity data to wind and flow data. Preliminary results are discussed in Section DATA ANALYSIS DWSP Analysis Additional DWSP data for were available and reviewed for the Stoney Point, Lakeshore, and Harrow Colchester South WTPs. The three WTPs continued to have measured exceedances above the previously identified benchmark and therefore turbidity is still considered an issue at the respective WTPs. The entire dataset was then reviewed to determine if turbidity exceedances were considered recent or historical. Table 10.1 summarizes the turbidity results for the six WTPs. 10.1

50 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Table 10:1 Turbidity RWQ Analysis Summary Sample Dates Present WTP Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-FTU (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-FTU (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-FTU (Year sampled) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value-FTU (Year sampled) Stoney Point (80%) 40 ('91) (82%) 42 ('95) (88%) 62 ('02) 25 (-'10) 25 (100%) 136 ( 09) Lakeshore* ('09-'10) 3 (75%) 54 ('10) A.H. Weeks (72%) 72 ('92) (75%) 128 ('95) (74%) 155 ('04) 11(- 07) 9 (82%) 44.1 ( 07) Amherstburg (93%) 58 ('92) (88%) 52 ('95) 27 25(93%) 75 ('03) 5 (- 07) 5 (100%) 22.4 ( 06) Harrow-Colchester South (43%) 100 ('91) 12 7 (58%) 85 ('97) 10 5 (50%) 58 ('01) 18 (-'09) 15 (83%) 49 ('09) Union (67%) 198 ('91) 12 8 (67%) 24 ('96) 11 8 (73%) 17 ('02) 12 (- 07) 9 (75%) 17.3 ( 07) *The new intake for the Lakeshore WTP was not commissioned until May 2009 and therefore water quality data were reviewed from that date onward. 10.2

51 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Based on the provided data, it was determined that turbidity has been historically exceeding the identified benchmark at the six previously listed WTPs Weather Analyses Weather data were obtained from Environment Canada and analyses were performed for the Stoney Point and Amherstburg WTPs. These WTPs were chosen as relative examples based on their source water. Process data for the years were obtained from the individual WTPs. These data were plotted graphically against daily rainfall data to review for possible correlations. Figures 10.1 to 10.4 illustrate the daily rainfall versus daily turbidity plotted over time, and as a direct correlation, for the WTPs. 10.3

52 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING NG ISSUES ANALYSIS Figure 10.1: Rainfall/Turbidity Data over time for the Stoney Point WTP Figure 10.2: : Rainfall/Turbidity Data over time for the Amherstburg WTP 10.4

53 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Turbidity (NTU) R² = Rainfall (mm) Figure 10.3: Turbidity vs. Rainfall Correlation for the Stoney Point WTP Turbidity (NTU) R² = Rainfall (mm) Note: Turbidity data for 2007 was not used in this analysis due to daily maximums not being available for this time frame. Figure 10.4: Turbidity vs. Rainfall Correlation for the Amherstburg WTP 10.5

54 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS After reviewing the analysis of the turbidity data versus the rainfall data, it was determined that turbidity is not primarily related to rainfall. Although there were occasions where spikes in turbidity followed rain events, there were several instances of high rainfall events without associated spikes in turbidity. Turbidity data were plotted yearly over time in order to assess potential seasonality of the events. Figures 10.5 to 10.6 illustrate turbidity data occurring over time. The analysis of yearly turbidity data showed potential events occurring in the winter and spring seasons. A comparison of snow melt recorded at the Amherstburg Environment Canada weather station for 2009 was plotted in order to determine if melting events were contributing to the spikes in turbidity recorded at the WTP. Snow melt data were unavailable for Stoney Point. Figure 10.7 illustrates the comparison between the two variables. 10.6

55 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Turbidity (NTU) Jan 01-Feb 01-Mar 01-Apr 01-May 01-Jun 01-Jul 01-Aug 01-Sep 01-Oct 01-Nov 01-Dec Date Figure 10.5: Turbidity Over Time for the Stoney Point WTP Turbidity (NTU) Jan 01-Feb 01-Mar 01-Apr 01-May 01-Jun 01-Jul 01-Aug 01-Sep 01-Oct 01-Nov 01-Dec Date Figure 10.6: Turbidity Over Time for the Amherstburg WTP 10.7

56 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Turbidity (NTU) Jan 01-Feb 01-Mar 01-Apr 01-May 01-Jun 01-Jul 01-Aug 01-Sep 01-Oct 01-Nov 01-Dec Date Snow melt (mm) Figure 10.7: 2009 Snow Melt versus Turbidity for the Amherstburg WTP. 10.8

57 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS A comparison of snow melt versus turbidity indicated a possible contributor to elevated turbidity levels occurring in the spring and during warm winter weather TRIBUTARY ANALYSIS In an effort to identify where elevated levels of turbidity may be originating from, water quality data for nearby tributaries were reviewed. PWQMN data were reviewed for monitoring sites throughout the watershed. Although majority of stations are located outside of the IPZs it was considered a valid analysis in order to determine background levels and/or potential contributing sources of turbidity throughout the watershed. Table 10.2 lists the tributaries sampled, the respective affected WTPs and sampling results respectively. Table 10.2: PWQMN Turbidity Sampling Results PWQMN Monitoring Site Station ID Watercourse Associated Water Treatment Plant Ruscom River Stoney Point WTP Lakeshore WTP Sampling Timeframe Number of Samples Percentage of Samples Exceeding Benchmark % Puce River Lakeshore WTP % Belle River Lakeshore WTP % Belle River Lakeshore WTP % Turkey Creek Amherstburg WTP Canard River Amherstburg WTP Cedar Creek Harrow- Colchester South WTP Union Area WTP % % % Sturgeon River Union Area WTP % Muddy Creek Wheatley WTP % Muddy Creek Wheatley WTP % Lebo Drain Wheatley WTP % 10.9

58 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Refer to Figure 6.1 for an illustration of the PWQMN monitoring sites. After reviewing the PWQMN data, it was determined that turbidity exceedances were occurring historically and continue to exceed upstream of the WTPs potentially indicating watershed loadings. Flow data would assist in an analysis of tributary flows versus high turbidity spikes and provide potential upstream contributions to the issue. Note that the PWQMN data for Little River was historical and sporadic and therefore not included in the analysis BACKGROUND LEVELS Figure10.8 illustrates a comparison of average turbidity levels recorded for WTPs located across the Essex Source Protection Area, and two WTPs outside of the Essex source protection region for comparison Figure 10.9 illustrates the percent turbidity exceedances for the same sampling locations FTU Benchmark *Data used '09-'10 ** Data Used '05-'07 Note: Numbers inside bars indicate number of samples included in average Figure 10.8: Average Turbidity (2005 to Present) 10.10

59 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% *Data used '09-'10 ** Data Used '05-'07 Note: Numbers inside bars indicate number of samples included in percent Figure 10.9: Percent of Turbidity Samples Exceeding Benchmark (2005 to Present) As illustrated above, turbidity levels exceed across the region with the highest average levels being recorded at the Elgin Area WTP and 100% exceedances occurring at both the Amherstburg and Stoney Point WTPs SUMMARY CONCLUSION Turbidity has been historically exceeding the identified benchmark for all WTPs across Essex Region both in-lake and upstream throughout the watershed. While not considered a direct health issue, the particles that cause turbidity can be responsible for significant interference with disinfection. A significant relationship has been demonstrated between turbidity increases and the number of Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts breaking through the WTP filters (MOE, 2006). While rainfall was initially considered to be a primary contributor to the recordedd turbidity issues, based on the information provided, a limited correlation between the two variables could be determined. Both WTPs had several high rainfall events without a similar response in turbidity levels. Further analysis showed turbidity as a possible seasonal fluctuation with particular emphasis in the spring and winter months. A review of the snow melt data for the Amherstburg area indicated a possible relationship to winter and spring melting events. Baird completed a turbidity analysis for the A.H. Weeks and Union WTPs using wind and flow data for inputs. The preliminary findings indicate approximately 78% of turbidity spikes may be attributed to high wind and specific flow conditions. Based on the above information it is likely that the issue of turbidity, while still occurring, in most cases is attributed to natural processes

60 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 11.0 Wheatley WTP 11.1 INTRODUCTION The Wheatley WTP does not currently participate in the DWSP. Based on the available process data turbidity, was previously identified as a drinking water quality issue in the Phase 2 report. In an effort to further determine potential drinking water quality issues, a tributary analysis was completed for this WTP. PWQMN data were reviewed for monitoring sites throughout the surrounding area. Although majority of stations are located outside of the IPZs it was considered a valid analysis. Table 11.1 summarizes the PWQMN results for the Wheatley WTP. Table 11.1: PWQMN Sampling Results for the Wheatley WTP Station ID Watercourse Associated Water Treatment Plant Muddy Creek Wheatley WTP Muddy Creek Wheatley WTP Lebo Drain Wheatley WTP Sampling Timeframe Number of Samples Parameters Exceeding Benchmark Aluminum, Iron, Organic nitrogen, Turbidity Aluminum, Iron, Organic nitrogen, Turbidity Aluminum, Organic nitrogen, Turbidity Based on the above information, the Phase 2 analysis and previous results with WTPs in Essex Region is likely that the following parameters are issues at the Wheatley WTP: Aluminum; Turbidity; and Organic nitrogen. Total ammonia and algae results were not available in the sampling data. Iron also exceeded in two of the three sampling creeks however at lower number of exceedances. Further sampling 11.1

61 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS at the intake is recommended to confirm if these parameters are in fact drinking water quality issues for the Wheatley WTP. 11.2

62 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 12.0 Summary This report further investigates the potential drinking water quality issues of aluminum, iron, organic nitrogen and turbidity for the Essex Region WTPs. Analyses of algae and ammonia were also conducted. The potential drinking water quality issue of E.coli is to be addressed in a separate report. After reviewing the most recent available DWSP data for the Essex Region WTPs the following parameters were still considered drinking water quality issues. Table 12.1: Summary of Essex Region WTPs Drinking Water Quality Issues and Concerns Parameter of Concern Stoney Point WTP Lakeshore WTP** A.H. Weeks WTP Amherstburg WTP Harrow Colchester South WTP Union Area WTP Wheatley WTP* Aluminum Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No data Organic Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No data Nitrogen Turbidity Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes *Wheatley WTP does not participate in DWSP and therefore analysis was conducted on available data provided by the Utilities Commission. Available parameters analyzed were E. coli, total coliforms, colour, ph, turbidity, and temperature. **The Belle River WTP was decommissioned in January 09 when the Lakeshore WTP was put into service. Although raw water quality data were unavailable for the Wheatley WTP, a tributary analysis indicated that aluminum and organic nitrogen should be considered in future studies. Additional Parameters The presence of ammonia was investigated for the Stoney Point, Lakeshore and Union Area WTPs. The DWSP data analyses for each WTP had no exceedances of the PWQO or WHO standard; however an analysis of the PWQMN data showed ammonia exceedances of the WHO standard occurring upstream of the WTPs potentially indicating watershed loading. Sampling indicated possible higher numbers of exceedances occurring historically and less exceedances in more recent sampling data. The presence of the cyanobacteria toxin microcystin-lr in raw water was investigated for the Stoney Point, Lakeshore, A.H. Weeks, Amherstburg, Harrow Colchester South and Union Area WTPs. In general, preliminary values recorded at all the WTPs were below the standard; however there was one exceedance at Lakeshore WTP and one exceedance at Harrow Colchester South WTP. It is difficult to make conclusions with the limited amount of sampling that has been completed to date and therefore this work should be considered a starting point of cyanobacteria analysis. 12.1

63 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Potential Contributors The analysis of background levels in this report further supports contributors as most likely being naturally occurring in origin. STPs may be contributing small quantities of aluminum, organic nitrogen, and ammonia to the source water however; without specific effluent sampling, this cannot be stated with certainty. A preliminary tributary analysis suggested larger quantities of aluminum, ammonia and organic nitrogen were released upstream within the watershed. Additional sampling upstream and downstream of STPs and further across the watershed may provide insight as to the quantity and sources of anthropogenic loadings. Presently, the information is insufficient to indicate an anthropogenic source(s) for the above listed issues. 12.2

64 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS 13.0 References American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Pollution Control Federation, Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Live: Ammonia Encyclopedia Britannica, Aluminum. Accessed November 19, Environment Canada, Priority Substances List Assessment Report: Ammonia in the Aquatic Environment. February Environment Canada. 2008a. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act Retrieved November 6, 2008 from Environment Canada, 2008b. Priority Substances List Assessment Report: Follow Up to the State of Science Report, Aluminum Chloride, Aluminum Nitrate, Aluminum Sulphate. November Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Enumeration of Escherishia coli and the Coliform Bacteria. Accessed April 21, Health Canada Environmental and Work Place Health Total Coliforms. Accessed April 16, 2009 from Health Canada Cyanobacterial Toxins Microcystin-LR. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Supporting Documentation. Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. McGraw Hill Publishing. MOE, 2009a. Environmental Compliance Reports. Ministry of the Environment. Accessed November 19, 2010 from MOE, 2002b. Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Safe Drinking Water Act. Ontario Regulation 169/03 Amended to 0.Reg 248/06 Ontario Drinking-Water Quality Standards. MOE, Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Objectives and Guidelines. Revised June

65 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS NOAA, Office of Coast Survey. Accessed November 20, _C08_ _0932_WEB.xml Poulton, Donald J., Heavy Metals and Toxic Organic Contaminants in Effluents, Water and Sediments of the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res. 18(3): Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., Prince Edward Island Department of Agariculture, Manure Management. Accessed online November 26, Rossman, Ronald and James Barres, Trace Element Concentrations in Near Surface Waters of the Great Lakes and Methods of Collection, Storage, and Analysis. J. Great Lakes Res. 14(2): Internet. Assoc. Great Lakes Res., Sawyer, 2008.Surface Waters: Ammonium is not Ammonia Part Three. Iowa State University. Accessed November 22, Stantec Consulting Ltd, Phase 2 Issues Identification Technical Memorandum January Stantec Consulting Ltd, 2008a. Town of Lakeshore Water & Wastewater Master Plan.October Stantec Consulting Ltd, 2008b. Windsor Riverfront Retention Treatment Basin Class EA Environmental Study Report. September USEPA, National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress, 2001 Reporting Cycle: Findings, Rivers and Streams, and Lakes< Ponds and Reservoirs. USEPA October USGS, The Quality of Our Nation s Waters: Nutrients and Pesticides. National Water- Quality Assessment Program. United States Geological Society Vision Learning, The nitrogen cycle of microbes and men. Accessed November 24, World Health Organization. 2003a. Cyanobacterial toxins: Microcystin-LR in Drinking-water. Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. World Health Organization, 2003b. Ammonia in Drinking-water: Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. World Health Organization

66 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA SOURCE PROTECTION PLANNING ISSUES ANALYSIS Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Iron in drinking water. Accessed online November 20,

67 Essex Region Source Protection Area Conditions Analysis Conditions resulting from past activities at the Amherstburg, Lakeshore, Stoney Point, Union Area, Wheatley, A.H. Weeks, Harrow- Colchester South Water Treatment Plants and the West Shore Water Supply System located on Pelee Island DRAFT December 2010

68 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND SCOPE STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS IDENTIFICATION OF CONDITIONS THREAT LEVEL OF CONDITIONS METHODOLOGY DATA REVIEWED INTRODUCTION FEDERAL DATA SOURCES PROVINCIAL DATA SOURCES OTHER DATA RESOURCES RESULTS CONDITIONS SOIL AND SEDIMENT ANALYSIS CONDITIONS THREAT LEVELS SOURCES OF CONDITIONS Pre-Colonial Background Levels Land Use Activities Little River PCB Investigations DATA GAPS SUMMARY REFERENCES DRAFT i

69 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Table of Contents List of Tables Table 1.1: Technical Rules for Identifying Conditions Table 1.2: Technical Rules for Identifying Drinking Water Threat Levels Table 5.1: Data Gaps for the Essex Region Source Protection Area Table 6.1: Parameters Identified as Low Drinking Water Threats and their Associated Sampling Locations List of Figures Figure 2.1: Conditions Analysis Flow Chart Figure 4.1: Contaminated Sediments - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Figure 4.2: Contaminated Sediments - Organochlorines Figure 4.3: Contaminated Sediments - Metals Figure 4.4: Contaminated Sediments - Wheatley Harbour Figure 4.5: Threat Level of Conditions Figure 4.6: Threat Level of Conditions - Wheatley Harbour List of Appendices Appendix 3.1: Appendix 4.1: Appendix 4.2: Appendix 4.3: Appendix 4.4: Appendix 4.5: Sampling Locations Parameters Determined to be Conditions Conditions Analysis Vulnerability Scores Conditions Risk Score Calculation Potential Sources of Conditions DRAFT ii

70 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based on the data reviewed, the use of Tables 1 and 4 of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards and the Technical Rules, no moderate or significant drinking water threats were found through the conditions analysis. Of the 33 sampling locations located in an Intake Protection Zone (IPZ), 21 were identified as having a low drinking water threat. The reviewed information did not allude to offsite contamination and therefore a hazard rating of six was used for all sampling locations. Establishing a link to offsite contamination for a condition could result in higher risk and threat levels then those determined in this report. 1.0 Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA) to undertake a source protection conditions assessment for the Essex Region Source Protection Area (ERSPA), as required by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Clean Water Act (Act). This report is intended to: Evaluate available soil and sediment data; Identify conditions and their associated threat levels; and Review available information to provide insight into potential sources of contamination. 1.2 STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS This document has been prepared exclusively for the use of the client and the project identified herein. The material herein reflects Stantec's professional judgment given the information available at the time of preparation and the requirements of the Act, Source Water Protection Regulation, and guidance from the MOE. Recommendations presented in this report should not be construed as legal advice. 1.3 IDENTIFICATION OF CONDITIONS As stated in the Technical Rules, conditions may exist in a vulnerable area if the presence of a single mass of more than 100 litres of one or more dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) DRAFT 1.1

71 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS occurs in the surface water of an IPZ and/or if there is the presence of a contaminant in the surface soil or sediment. Table 1.1 lists the Technical Rules created under the Act for the identification of conditions resulting from past land use activities. Table 1.1: Technical Rules for Identifying Conditions Technical Rule Applicable Section of Report 126 (2)(4)(5) Section 4.1 Conditions Soil and Sediment Analysis 1.4 THREAT LEVEL OF CONDITIONS As per the Technical Rules, risk scores for an area in respect to a condition may be calculated and areas for significant, moderate and low drinking water threats may be identified. Table 1.2 lists the Technical Rules created under the Act for the identification of significant, moderate and low drinking water threat areas. Table 1.2: Technical Rules for Identifying Drinking Water Threat Levels Technical Rule Applicable Section of Report 138, 139, 140, 142, 143 Section 4.2 Conditions Threat Levels DRAFT 1.2

72 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 2.0 Methodology The conditions analysis required the comparison of available soil and sediment data to Tables 4 and 1 (respectively) of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use Under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act for Water Treatment Plant (WTP) IPZs located in the ERSPA. As per the Technical Rules, any contaminant listed in Table 4 that is present in surface soil in a surface water IPZ at a concentration that exceeds the surface soil standard for industrial/commercial/community property use set out for the contaminant is to be identified as a condition. Any contaminant listed in Table 1 that is present in sediment at a concentration that exceeds the sediment standard set out for the contaminant is to be identified as a condition. Additional sediment parameters found at sampling locations outside of a defined vulnerable area, with exceedances, have also been documented as they may be included in future vulnerable areas. At this time, these sampling locations have been provided as additional information only and are not formally identified as conditions. If soil and sediment parameters were identified as conditions, risk scores and threat levels were then calculated for the conditions determined to be present within a vulnerable area (IPZ-1 or IPZ-2). A risk score shall be calculated in accordance with the following formula: A x B Where, A = the hazard rating of the condition; B = the vulnerability score of the vulnerable area. In accordance with the Technical Rules, the hazard rating of a condition that result from a past activity is: if there is evidence that the condition is causing off site contamination, the hazard rating is 10; if the condition is on a property where a well, intake or monitoring well related to a drinking water system is located, the hazard rating is 10; and if neither of the above apply to the condition, the hazard rating is 6. The vulnerability scores used in the risk score formula were previously determined in the Essex Chatham-Kent Source Protection Planning Technical Study TM: Delineation, Vulnerability and Uncertainty Level Assessment for the Essex Region and Surrounding Area Water Treatment Plant. DRAFT 2.1

73 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS As stated in the Technical Rules, a condition from a past activity is a: significant drinking water threat if the risk score is equal to or greater than 80; moderate drinking water threat if the risk score is equal to or greater than 60 but less than 80; or low drinking water threat if the risk score is greater than 40 but less than 60. Figure 2.1 outlines this process in a flow chart. Following this analysis, potential sources of conditions were investigated by assessing offsite contamination. DRAFT 2.2

74 CONDITIONS (surface soil and sediment data) Does the parameter exceed Table 1 (sediment) or Table 4 (soil) of the Soil, Groundwater and Sediment Standards? Yes No Is Does the sample modeling within show the a release IPZ-1 would or IPZ-2 deteriorate source water at intake? Yes Not a condition No Is the parameter contributing to an issue? Yes Significant Threat No Is the parameter located on the property where the intake is? Yes No Is there evidence of off-site Yes contamination? No Yes Risk Score = V x 6 Risk Score = V x 10 Risk score >40 and <60 Low Threat Risk score 60 and <80 Mod. Threat Risk score >40 and <60 Low Threat Risk score 60 and <80 Mod. Threat Risk score 80 Sig. Threat Figure 2.1: Conditions Analysis Flow Chart

75 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 3.0 Data Reviewed 3.1 INTRODUCTION Public and private data sources were accessed in order to complete the required work tasks. Several of these data sources were provided by ERCA and the individual Municipalities, while others were accessed through publicly available resources. The following is a compilation of data sources utilized by Stantec for this report. This section describes the data sources and in what capacity they were used. 3.2 FEDERAL DATA SOURCES Environment Canada Tributary Screening Survey: Environment Canada undertook a survey of sediment quality in Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, Detroit River and St. Clair River tributaries in Sediments from 103 sites were analyzed for over 90 chemical and physical parameters, including organochlorine compounds, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) aroclors, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds and metals. Raw data from this study, including comparisons to federal and provincial sediment quality guidelines, can be found in Sediment Quality in Canadian Lake Erie Tributaries: A Screening-Level Survey (Dove et. al., 2002). Eleven sample sites were located in or near Essex Region IPZs. Refer to Appendix 3.1 for a list of the sampling locations. Environment Canada Great Lakes Basin Sediment Surveys: The National Water Resources Institute collected an extensive grid of sediment samples from all Great Lakes and Lake St. Clair between 1968 and 1975 (Environment Canada, 1975). This data included sediment descriptions, grain-size distribution, and analysis of sediment composition, metals and organochlorine pesticides. Of the 21 nearshore sites reviewed by Stantec, five sites were located within an Essex Region IPZ-1 or IPZ-2. Refer to Appendix 3.1 for a list of these sampling locations (The locations in Appendix 3.1 refers to geographical locations in Figures ). National Pollutant Release Inventory: Environment Canada maintains the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) as a tool to track releases of substances to air, water and land, as well as disposals and transfers for recycling. This database was used to locate present and former industries that were associated with chemicals determined to be conditions. A preliminary review revealed 33 sites associated with these chemicals in Essex County, most of which occurred in the Windsor area. 3.3 PROVINCIAL DATA SOURCES Ministry of the Environment Great Lakes Monitoring Program: The Great Lakes Monitoring Unit of the MOE provided sediment data collected at a variety of nearshore DRAFT 3.1

76 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS locations between 1998 and This data was collected for various purposes under several project titles including Great Lakes Reconnaissance Monitoring, Great Lakes Index Station Monitoring, and various harbour and Area of Concern (AOC) assessments. Surface sediments were evaluated for metals, organochlorines, PAHs, and physical parameters. A total of 17 sample locations were located in or near Essex Region IPZs. Refer to Appendix 3.1 for a list of these sampling locations. Spills Action Centre Data: Incident listings from the MOE Spills Action Centre were provided from 2005 to 2008, and included the address, type of spill, contaminant name and volume. The information provided could not be utilized due to the absence of soil and sediment analysis, and the minimal information on clean-up activities. Further information may be available for selected incidents in MOE files. Brownfields Environmental Site Registry: The MOE maintains a searchable online database to facilitate public access to information contained in records of site condition that have been filed under the Environmental Protection Act. Sixteen records were filed for properties in Essex County and former Romney Township in Chatham-Kent. Two of these properties were situated in the A.H. Weeks IPZ-2 and were reviewed for this study. It is important to note that properties on this registry may meet soil, sediment and groundwater standards applicable to their land use and be in compliance with brownfield legislation. In some cases, however, the soil, sediment or groundwater standards specified by the Technical Rules may be more stringent. MOE Data Hounds Initiative: A team of MOE staff compiled an assortment of Ministry documents regarding various sites throughout Ontario for the purposes of the Source Protection Planning initiative, including correspondence and Certificates of Approval. The relevance to this study was limited due to the absence of soil and sediment analysis and information regarding masses of DNAPLs which establish the presence of conditions in surface water. 3.4 OTHER DATA RESOURCES Little River Studies: Two studies were reviewed regarding Little River, a tributary to the Detroit River situated in the City of Windsor and the Town of Tecumseh. A 2001 study, entitled Sediment Investigations in Little River (Dove, 2003), was conducted by the Ecosystem Health Division of Environment Canada, and was intended to follow up on earlier testing that had indicated elevated concentrations of PCBs in river mouth sediments. Samples were taken at eight locations along the watercourse between the mouth and Lauzon Road, with two analyzed for PAHs, organochlorines and metals, and the remainder analyzed for organochlorines only. Seven of these sites are located within the A.H. Weeks WTP IPZ-2. DRAFT 3.2

77 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS A second study was conducted in 2004 and 2005 by the Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch of the MOE, entitled Little River PCB Trackdown Study (Benoit and Labencki, 2007). This study analyzed water and sediment samples and used semipermeable membrane devices and fish tissue to determine the bioavailability of PCBs. Sediments were collected at three sites, all of which were upstream of the A.H. Weeks IPZs, and were analyzed for PCBs, PAHs and metals. Municipal Staff: Staff at the six lower-tier municipalities and the two single-tier municipalities involved in this study were engaged by Stantec to obtain reports related to brownfield sites and other potentially contaminated sites. Of the reports that were made available, five environmental site assessments for properties in Windsor were located in A.H Weeks IPZs. Planning staff in these municipalities were engaged to determine if there were other properties that may be of interest to this study, based on local knowledge. This list may be used to facilitate further research. Unless otherwise indicated, no additional evidence of contaminated sites has been obtained by Stantec from municipal staff. Other Data Requested: The MOE Source Protection Liaison Officer responsible for the ERSPA and staff at the Windsor Area MOE Office were engaged by Stantec to obtain Ministry documentation of soil, sediment or surface water contamination that may be available for the study area. The MOE requested a list of properties to narrow this search. At the time of reporting, this list had been submitted and is being processed by the MOE. DRAFT 3.3

78 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 4.0 Results 4.1 CONDITIONS SOIL AND SEDIMENT ANALYSIS The available soil and sediment data for each of the sampling locations were compared to Tables 4 and 1 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards, respectively. For the purposes of this report, any soil or sediment parameter found to be present at a concentration that exceeds the standard set out for the parameter will be listed as a condition resulting from a past land use activity. Appendix 4.1 provides an overview of the parameters determined to be conditions for each WTP. Figures illustrate the soil and sediment parameters with exceedances at each sampling location. The corresponding IPZ for each sampling location was determined. Some of the sampling locations analyzed are not currently in a defined IPZ but have been included as additional information. The complete analysis of exceedances by sampling location is provided in Appendix 4.2. DRAFT 4.1

79 MICHIGAN U.S.A # WINDSOR AM-2 Anthracene; Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene; Benzo(k)Fluoranthene; Chrysene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene LASALLE WI-14 Benzene; Ethylbenzene WI-15 Benzene; Ethylbenzene # # > ) Windsor WTP # # TECUMSEH WI-11 Benzo(a)Anthracene; Benzo(a)Pyrene; Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene; Benzo(k)Fluoranthene; Chrysene; Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene; Fluoranthene; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene WI-2 Benzo(a)Anthracene; Benzo(a)Pyrene; Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene; Benzo(k)Fluoranthene; Chrysene; Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene; Fluoranthene; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene L a k e S t. C l a i r > ) Lakeshore WTP LAKESHORE > ) Stoney Point WTP CHATHAM- KENT # Legend Sediment Sample Location > ) Water Treatment Plant Source Protection Boundary Divided Highway Other Highway Watercourse Political Boundary Lower Tier Municipality Single/Upper Tier Municipality International Boundary IPZ-1 IPZ > ) Amherstburg WTP # AMHERSTBURG AM-3 Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene; Benzo(k)Fluoranthene; Chrysene; Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene ESSEX (TOWN) KINGSVILLE LEAMINGTON > ) Union Area WTP UN-2 Benzo(a)Anthracene; Benzo(a)Pyrene; Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene; Benzo(k)Fluoranthene; Chrysene; Fluoranthene; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene > ) ## # Wheatley WTP See Figure 4.4 for Wheatley Harbour Project Essex Chatham-Kent Source Protection Planning Technical Studies Figure No. 4.1 Title Contaminated Sediments - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Revision No. 1 Date Nov m N HC-4 Benzo(a)Anthracece; Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene; Benzo(k)Fluoranthene; Chrysene; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene # > ) Harrow-Colchester South WTP L a k e E r i e Notes Topographic data used under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and ESRI Canada. Contaminated sediment locations from Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Essex Region Conservation Authority as indicated in this report. Copyright 2010 by Stantec Consulting Ltd. Projection: UTM Zone 17N, NAD 1983 # km > ) West End (Pelee Island) WTP km m E

80 MICHIGAN U.S.A > ) A.H. Weeks WTP WINDSOR WI-9 DDD; DDE; PCBs WI-8 DDD WI-2 PCBs # # # # # # WI-7 DDE; PCBs # WI-6 DDE WI-3 DDE; DDT WI-10 Chlordane; DDD; DDE; DDT; PCBs # WI-4 DDE; DDT LA-6 DDE; DDT LA-3 DDE; DDT LA-9 DDE # # # # L a k e S t. C l a i r LA-7 DDE; DDT LA-4 DDE LA-1 DDD; DDE # # # # # LA-5 DDE > ) Lakeshore WTP LA-2 DDE LA-8 DDE # # SP-7 PCBs SP-3 DDE; DDT SP-4 DDE; DDT # # > ) Stoney Point WTP SP-5 DDE; DDT # SP-2 Endrin # Legend Sediment Sample Location > ) Water Treatment Plant Source Protection Boundary Divided Highway Other Highway Watercourse # AM-2 DDT; Endrin; PCBs AM-1 DDE LASALLE TECUMSEH LAKESHORE CHATHAM- KENT Political Boundary Lower Tier Municipality Single/Upper Tier Municipality International Boundary IPZ-1 IPZ # > ) Amherstburg WTP HC-1 DDE; DDT; PCBs AMHERSTBURG # HC-2 DDE; DDT; PCBs HC-4 Chrysene; DDE; DDT; Endrin # # ESSEX (TOWN) KINGSVILLE LEAMINGTON > ) Harrow-Colchester South WTP # HC-3 DDE; DDT; Dieldrin; PCBs UN-3 DDE; DDT; PCBs UN-1 DDE # > ) Union Area WTP # # # L a k e E r i e Notes UN-4 DDE; DDT; PCBs # UN-2 DDD; DDE; DDT; Endrin; PCBs Topographic data used under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and ESRI Canada. Contaminated sediment locations from Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Essex Region Conservation Authority as indicated in this report. Copyright 2010 by Stantec Consulting Ltd. Projection: UTM Zone 17N, NAD 1983 WH-8 DDT; Endrin WH-10 DDT; Endrin # # # # # # WH-11 DDT; Endrin > ) Wheatley WTP See Figure 4.4 for Wheatley Harbour WH-13 DDT; Dieldrin km Project Essex Chatham-Kent Source Protection Planning Technical Studies Figure No. 4.2 Title Contaminated Sediments - Organochlorines PI-2 DDT # Revision No. 1 > ) Date Nov West Shore WSS # PI-1 DDT; PCBs km

81 MICHIGAN U.S.A WINDSOR WI-1 Arsenic; Cadmium; Chromium; Copper; Lead; Nickel; Silver; Zinc > ) A.H. Weeks WTP WI-2 Arsenic; Chromium; Copper; Nickel; Zinc WI-13 Chromium # # # # # # WI-3 Cadmium; Copper; Lead; Mercury; Nickel; Silver WI-11 Arsenic; Cadmium; Chromium; Copper; Lead; Mercury; Nickel; Zinc WI-12 Chromium; Nickel # WI-4 Cadmium; Mercury LA-6 Cadmium; Copper; Lead; Mercury; Nickel; Silver LA-3 Cadmium; Silver LA-9 Cadmium; Nickel # # # # LA-7 Cadmium; Copper; Lead; Mercury; Nickel; Silver LA-4 Cadmium LA-1 Arsenic; Cadmium; Copper; Lead; Nickel; Silver; Zinc # # L a k e S t. C l a i r # # Lakeshore > ) WTP LA-8 Cadmium; Nickel; Mercury # LA-2 Arsenic; Cadmium; Copper; Nickel LA-5 Cadmium # # SP-7 Arsenic; Cadmium; Copper; Lead; Nickel; Silver; Zinc SP-3 Cadmium; Copper; Mercury; Nickel; Silver SP-6 Cadmium; Copper; Mercury; Nickel; Silver # # > ) Stoney Point WTP # SP-4 Cadmium; Mercury; Nickel; Silver SP-1 Cadmium # SP-5 Cadmium; Mercury; Nickel; Silver # Legend Sediment Sample Location > ) Water Treatment Plant Source Protection Boundary Divided Highway Other Highway LASALLE Watercourse AM-2 Copper # AM-1 Arsenic; Cadmium; Copper; Lead; Nickel; Silver TECUMSEH LAKESHORE CHATHAM- KENT Political Boundary Lower Tier Municipality Single/Upper Tier Municipality International Boundary IPZ-1 IPZ # > ) Amherstburg WTP # AM-3 Cadmium; Copper; Nickel; Zinc HC-1 Cadmium; Copper; Lead; Mercury; Nickel; Zinc AMHERSTBURG # HC-2 Cadmium; Copper; Lead; Mercury; Nickel; Silver; Zinc HC-4 Copper; Mercury; Nickel # # ESSEX (TOWN) KINGSVILLE LEAMINGTON > ) Harrow-Colchester South WTP # HC-3 Cadmium; Copper; Lead; Mercury; Nickel; Silver; Zinc UN-3 Cadmium; Copper; Lead; Mercury; Nickel UN-1 Arsenic; Cadmium; Silver # UN-4 Cadmium; Copper; Lead; Mercury; Nickel; Zinc > ) Union Area WTP # # # L a k e E r i e Notes # UN-2 Arsenic; Cadmium; Copper; Nickel Topographic data used under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and ESRI Canada. Contaminated sediment locations from Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Essex Region Conservation Authority as indicated in this report. Copyright 2010 by Stantec Consulting Ltd. Projection: UTM Zone 17N, NAD 1983 WH-8 Arsenic; Cadmium; Copper; Nickel WH-15 Cadmium; Nickel # # # # ## # WH-16 Cadmium > ) Wheatley WTP See Figure 4.4 for Wheatley Harbour WH-13 Lead; Nickel km Project Essex Chatham-Kent Source Protection Planning Technical Studies Figure No. 4.3 Title Contaminated Sediments - Metals # Revision No. 1 PI-2 Cadmium; Nickel PI-1 Cadmium > ) Date Nov West Shore WSS # km

82 DEER RUN RD Muddy Creek WH-9 Cadmium; Copper; Nickel; Zinc DDD; DDE; DDT; Endrin; PCBs # WH-3 WH-1 Arsenic; Cadmium; Copper; Nickel; Zinc DDD; DDE; Dieldrin; PCBs Anthracene; Benzo(a)Anthracene; Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene; Chrysene; Fluoranthene; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene Arsenic; Cadmium; Chromium; Copper; Lead; Nickel; Zinc MILO RD # # # # WH-12 Cadmium; Chromium; Copper; Nickel; Zinc DDD; DDE; DDT; Endrin; PCBs Benzo(a)Anthracene; Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene; Benzo(k)Fluoranthene; Chrysene; Fluoranthene; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene WH-2 Copper DDD; DDE; DDT; Endrin; PCBs ERIE ST S > ) Wheatley WTP DETROIT LINE PICKEREL RD AMORE RD # Legend Sediment Sample Location > ) Water Treatment Plant Source Protection Boundary Political Boundary Lower Tier Municipality Single/Upper Tier Municipality International Boundary DDD; DDE; DDT; Endrin; PCBs # Watercourse IPZ-1 (Emergency Intake) Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene WH-4 Arsenic; Cadmium; Chromium; Copper; Nickel; Zinc IPZ-2 (Emergency Intake) WH-6 DDD; DDE; DDT; Endrin; PCBs Arsenic; Cadmium; Chromium; Copper; Nickel; Zinc DDD; DDE; DDT; Endrin; PCBs Benzo(a)Anthracene; Benzo(a)Pyrene; Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene; Benzo(k)Fluoranthene; Chrysene; Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene; Fluoranthene; Fluorene; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene BEACH BLVD # KAY AVE # W h e a t l e y H a r b o u r WH-5 Arsenic; Cadmium; Chromium; Copper; Lead; Nickel; Zinc DDD; DDE; DDT; Endrin; PCBs Benzo(a)Anthracene; Benzo(a)Pyrene; Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene; Benzo(k)Fluoranthene; Chrysene; Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene; Fluoranthene; Fluorene; Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene; Phenanthrene; Pyrene # WH-7 Arsenic DDT; Endrin L a k e E r i e Project Essex Chatham-Kent Source Protection Planning Technical Studies Figure No. 4.4 Title Revision No. 1 Date Nov Contaminated Sediments - Wheatley Harbour E S S E X C O U N T Y m N Notes Topographic data used under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and ESRI Canada. Contaminated sediment locations from Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Essex Region Conservation Authority as indicated in this report. Copyright 2010 by Stantec Consulting Ltd. Projection: UTM Zone 17N, NAD m E PULLEY RD m Whealtey Harbour km

83 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 4.2 CONDITIONS THREAT LEVELS For all of the conditions found within an IPZ vulnerable area, a hazard rating of six was used due to lack of evidence that any conditions were causing off site contamination. The vulnerability scores used for each WTP were previously determined and are included in Appendix 4.3. Risk scores have been calculated for the sampling locations located in IPZ-1 and IPZ-2 for each WTP and are tabulated in Appendix 4.4. Table 4.1 outlines the threat levels associated with the identified conditions for each WTP. Table 4.1: Conditions Threat Levels Water Treatment Plant Threat Level Occurrences Significant Moderate Low Amherstburg WTP Lakeshore WTP Stoney Point WTP Union Area WTP Wheatley WTP Primary Intake Wheatley WTP Emergency Intake A.H. Weeks WTP East Intake A.H. Weeks WTP West Intake Harrow-Colchester South WTP West Shore WSS (Pelee Island) Therefore no significant or moderate drinking water threats were identified; however 21 sampling locations were identified as a low drinking water threat. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 illustrate the assigned threat level of conditions for each sampling location. DRAFT 4.6

84 MICHIGAN U.S.A WINDSOR ") ") > ) WI-8 ") A.H. Weeks WTP D D ") WI-2 WI-14 WI-15 WI-7 WI-9 ") D ") ") WI-1 ") WI-12 D WI-6 WI-11 WI-3 WI-10 WI-4 D D D S S LA-6 LA-3 LA-9 L a k e S t. C l a i r LA-7 LA-4 LA-8 LA-5 ") D S> ) Lakeshore WTP S LA-1 LA-2 D D SP-7 SP-3 D SP-6 S SP-4 > ) Stoney Point WTP SP-1 D D SP-5 D SP > ) Water Treatment Plant Source Protection Boundary Divided Highway Other Highway D WI Watercourse Political Boundary Lower Tier Municipality Single/Upper Tier Municipality International Boundary D AM-2 LASALLE TECUMSEH LAKESHORE CHATHAM- KENT IPZ-1 IPZ-2 Condition Threat Level ") Significant ") Moderate ") AM ") Low S None - Insufficient Score D None - Outside IPZ AMHERSTBURG > ) Amherstburg WTP ") AM-3 ESSEX (TOWN) KINGSVILLE LEAMINGTON Project Essex Chatham-Kent Source Protection Planning Technical Studies Figure No. 4.5 Revision No. 1 Date Nov WH-8 WH-15 WH-16 S S S WH-11 S WH-10 ") > ")")")")") ) Wheatley WTP ") Title Threat Level of Conditions D UN-1 > ) Union Area WTP D UN-2 See Figure 4.6 for Wheatley Harbour D HC-1 D HC-2 S HC-4 > ) D Harrow-Colchester South WTP D HC-3 UN-3 L a k e E r i e UN-4 D Notes Topographic data used under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and ESRI Canada. Contaminated sediment locations from Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Essex Region Conservation Authority as indicated in this report. Copyright 2010 by Stantec Consulting Ltd. Projection: UTM Zone 17N, NAD 1983 D WH km PI-2 S > ) West Shore WSS D PI km

85 ERIE ST S Muddy Creek PICKEREL RD AMORE RD DEER RUN RD ") WH-9 ") WH-12 ") WH-1 ") WH-2 > ) Wheatley WTP DETROIT LINE > ) Water Treatment Plant Source Protection Boundary Political Boundary Lower Tier Municipality Single/Upper Tier Municipality International Boundary Watercourse ") WH-3 IPZ-1 (Emergency Intake) IPZ-2 (Emergency Intake) Condition Threat Level MILO RD ") WH-4 ") WH ") WH-6 W h e a t l e y H a r b o u r ") Significant ") Moderate ") Low S D None - Insufficient Score None - Outside IPZ L a k e E r i e Project Essex Chatham-Kent Source Protection Planning Technical Studies Figure No. Revision No. Date Nov KAY AVE ") WH-7 Title Threat Level of Conditions - Wheatley Harbour BEACH BLVD E S S E X C O U N T Y m N Notes Topographic data used under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and ESRI Canada. Contaminated sediment locations from Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Essex Region Conservation Authority as indicated in this report. Copyright 2010 by Stantec Consulting Ltd. Projection: UTM Zone 17N, NAD m E PULLEY RD m Whealtey Harbour km

86 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 4.3 SOURCES OF CONDITIONS Pre-Colonial Background Levels Mudroch et. al. (1988) established typical sediment concentration ranges for various metals in the Great Lakes based on fifteen years of studies at a subsurface level representing the precolonial era. The results for Lake Huron and Lake Erie are summarized in Table 4.2 below. Table 4.2: Pre-Colonial Great Lakes Sediment Concentrations Element Lake Huron Lake Erie Technical Rules Sediment Standard Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Mercury Nickel Zinc In several cases the sediment standards (prescribed by the Technical Rules) are within or below the historical range prior to the industrialization of the Great Lakes basin. In Lake Huron, the natural background cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and nickel levels may meet the threshold for identification as a condition, while in Lake Erie, the natural background cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc may also meet the threshold. In Lake Erie, natural mercury concentrations are within 5 % of the PSQG threshold. No pre-industrial concentrations of metals were established for Lake St. Clair, but a similar trend may be present in this lake. As such, conditions established in lake bed locations may have natural origins Land Use Activities A preliminary search of Environment Canada s NPRI database was conducted to establish current or past land use activities that may have contributed to the presence of conditions in riverine sediment in Essex Region and the Wheatley area. Businesses in this database may not currently be in operation but were at some point between 1994 and A total of 33 industrial and municipal sites were located that were associated with the chemicals identified in the conditions analysis. Of these properties, 28 were located in Windsor, two were located in Lakeshore, and one each were located in Tecumseh, Amherstburg and Leamington. Each property was reviewed to determine if any of the chemicals associated with it appeared downstream in riverine sediment samples above the threshold concentration outlined in the PSQG. It was determined that the Little River watershed was the only portion of the study area where this was occurring. Six properties matched downstream samples including one DRAFT 4.9

87 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS wastewater treatment plant, one tool and die facility, and four auto parts manufacturing facilities. Table 4.3 summarizes these potential relationships. Information on each property is included in Appendix 4.5. Table 4.3: Properties Potentially Related to Conditions Element Sampling Locations Properties Arsenic WI-1 Wastewater Treatment Plant Cadmium WI-1, WI-11 Wastewater Treatment Plant Auto Parts Manufacturing Chromium WI-1, WI-2, WI-11, WI-12, WI-13 Auto Parts Manufacturing Tool and Die Facility Copper WI-1, WI-2, WI-11 Auto Parts Manufacturing (x 3) Lead WI-1, WI-11 Wastewater Treatment Plant Auto Parts Manufacturing Nickel WI-1, WI-2, WI-11, WI-12 Auto Parts Manufacturing (x 2) Zinc WI-1, WI-2, WI-11 Auto Parts Manufacturing (x 2) It is important to note that this analysis does not provide enough information to establish a link between identified properties and elevated sediment samples, and does not confirm if sediment contamination is historical or ongoing. Additionally, the NPRI database does not represent all activities that may have contributed to sediment contamination in the watershed, and does not account for operations that ceased prior to The MOE has been approached to provide additional information on these properties Little River PCB Investigations Two studies were previously conducted to determine sources of PCB contamination in Little River after Environment Canda s 2001 Tributary Screening survey found sediment at the mouth of Little River at a concentration of 1.4 µg/g. The first study, entitled Sediment Investigations in Little River, 2001 (Dove, 2004), tested seven additional sites and found concentrations ranging from 0.03 to 0.33 µg/g. This report detected PCBs at all sites, but found higher amounts downstream of the Little River Pollution Control Plant (PCP) outfall than upstream of this outfall. The author noted that if further evaluation could establish the PCP as a cause of PCB contamination in Little River, additional studies could be completed to determine which facilities were contributing PCBs to the plant through the sanitary system. A second study, entitled Little River PCB Trackdown Study (Benoit and Labencki, 2007), analyzed PCB contamination using a variety of methods including sediment sampling at three sites. Each of these sites produced PCB concentrations less than 0.01 µg/g; well below the DRAFT 4.10

88 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS PSQG. This study concluded that PCBs were not a local significant contaminant of concern and that contamination found at the river mouth in previous studies was not representative of an anomalous PCB issue within the watershed. The report found high levels of PAH and trace metal concentrations, however, and recommended further follow-up work to be undertaken related to these chemicals. DRAFT 4.11

89 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 5.0 Data Gaps At the time of writing there was a limited amount of data available regarding surface soil information within the Essex Region WTPs vulnerable areas. These data are required for the identification of conditions under Technical Rule 126 (4). The Source Protection Liaison Officer responsible for the ERSPA and a representative from the MOE office in Windsor indicated that further information may be available in MOE files relating to contaminated properties in the study area. Stantec has engaged the MOE to attempt to retrieve this information, but no information was available at the time of reporting. Limited information was available to establish whether identified conditions were being contributed by contamination at other sites. Establishing a connection for a condition may lead to higher risk scores and threat levels other than determined in this report. Detailed studies would likely be required for each property where movement of contamination is suspected. Information that was considered a data gap is listed in Table 5.1. Table 5.1: Data Gaps for the Essex Region Source Protection Area Data Gap Purpose Surface soil data Conditions Identification Union Area WTP sampling data within IPZ-1 or Conditions Identification IPZ-2 Conditions contributing to offsite contamination Conditions Threat Levels DRAFT 5.1

90 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 6.0 Summary Based on the information reviewed for the ERSPA, the conditions analysis resulted in the following findings: No significant or moderate drinking water threats were identified at the sampling locations analyzed; 21 sampling locations within IPZs were identified as having a low drinking water threat. Table 6.1 lists the parameters identified as a condition at each of these locations; Six land based properties were determined to have chemicals associated with them that appeared downstream in sediment samples above the threshold concentration. However, this analysis alone does not provide enough information to establish these identified properties as sources of contamination; and Additional investigation could be completed to further look at land based sources of the identified conditions. If offsite contamination can be linked to a condition, a higher threat level than those determined in this report may result. Table 6.1: Parameters Identified as Low Drinking Water Threats and their Associated Sampling Locations Item Sampling Location Amherstburg WTP Parameters Evaluated to be Conditions with a Low Drinking Water Threat 1 AM1 Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, DDE, Lead, Nickel, Silver 2 AM3 Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Nickel, Zinc Lakeshore WTP 3 LA4 Cadmium, DDE Wheatley WTP Emergency Intake 4 WH1 Anthracene, Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Cadmium, Chrysene, Copper, DDD, DDE, Dieldrin, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pyrene, Zinc 5 WH2 Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 6 WH3 Arsenic, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Lead, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Zinc 7 WH4 Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Zinc DRAFT 6.1

91 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Table 6.1: Parameters Identified as Low Drinking Water Threats and their Associated Sampling Locations Item Sampling Parameters Evaluated to be Conditions with a Low Drinking Water Threat Location 8 WH5 Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Lead, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Zinc 9 WH6 Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Zinc 10 WH7 Arsenic, DDT, Endrin 11 WH9 Cadmium, Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Zinc 12 WH12 Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Chrysene, Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Zinc A.H. Weeks WTP East and West Intakes 13 WI1 Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc 14 WI3 Cadmium, Copper, DDE, DDT, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Silver 15 WI6 DDE 16 WI7 DDE, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 17 WI8 DDD 18 WI9 DDD, DDE, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 19 WI10 Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 20 WI14 Benzene, Ethylbenzene 21 WI15 Benzene, Ethylbenzene Refer to Figures for Sampling Locations DRAFT 6.2

92 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 7.0 References Benoit, N. and T. Labencki, Results of the Little River PCB Trackdown Study: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Water Monitoring and Reporting Section. Dove, A., S. Painter and J. Kraft, Sediment Quality in Canadian Lake Erie Tributaries: A Screening-Level Survey. Environment Canada, Environmental Conservation Branch, Ecosystem Health Division. Dove, A., Sediment Investigations in Little River, Environment Canada, Environmental Conservation Branch, Ecosystem Health Division EIRON, Final Project Report for Applying the COA Framework to the St. Clair River Area of Concern. Prepared for St. Clair Region Conservation Authority, 11 March Envrionment Canada, Great Lakes Basin Sediment Survey data. Great Lakes Sediment Database, National Water Research Institute. Environment Canada, National Pollutant Release Inventory Online Data Search. Available online at Environment Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State of the Great Lakes, Ministry of the Environment, Source Protection Datahounds Ministry of the Environment Document Investigation, Southwestern Region, Windsor Area. Ministry of the Environment, Southwestern Region. Ministry of the Environment, Spills Action Centre Spills and Incident Reports 2005 to Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Spills Action Centre. Ministry of the Environment, Brownfields Environmental Site Registry. Available online at Ministry of the Environment, Sediment sampling data. Great Lakes Monitoring Program, Great Lakes Monitoring Unit. Mudroch, A., L. Sarazin and T. Lomas, Summary of Surface and Background Concentrations of Selected Elements in the Great Lakes Sediments. National Water Research Institute. Richman, L. and D. Milani, Temporal Trends in Near-Shore Sediment Contaminant Concentrations in the St. Clair River and Potential Long-term Implications for Fish Tissue Concentrations. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada.

93 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Appendix 3.1 Sampling Locations

94 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Appendix 4.1: ERSPA Sampling Locations ERSPA Sampling Locations Amherstburg WTP (AM1) EC Tributary Sampling Location Canard River (AM2) MOE Sampling Station (AM3) MOE Sampling Station MOE Sampling Station Lakeshore (Belle River) WTP (LA1) EC Tributary Sampling Location Belle River (LA2) EC Tributary Sampling Location Duck Creek (LA3) GLBSS LCA04 (LA4) GLBSS LCA05 (LA5) GLBSS LCA06 (LA6) GLBSS LCB04 (LA7) GLBSS LCB05 (LA8) GLBSS LCB06 (LA9) EC Tributary Sampling Location Major Creek Stoney Point WTP (SP1) EC Tributary Sampling Location Tremblay Creek (SP2) MOE Sampling Station (SP3) GLBSS LCB07 (SP4) GLBSS LCB09 (SP5) GLBSS LCB10 (SP6) GLBSS LCC09 (SP7) EC Tributary Sampling Location Ruscom River Union Area WTP (UN1) EC Tributary Sampling Location Mill Creek (UN2) MOE Sampling Station (UN3) GLBSS LEG06 (UN4) GLBSS LEG07 Wheatley WTP Primary and Emergency Intakes (WH1) EC Tributary Sampling Location Muddy Creek (WH2) MOE Sampling Station (WH3) MOE Sampling Station (WH4) MOE Sampling Station (WH5) MOE Sampling Station (WH6) MOE Sampling Station (WH7) MOE Sampling Station (WH8) MOE Sampling Station (WH9) MOE Sampling Station (WH10) MOE Sampling Station (WH11) MOE Sampling Station (WH12) MOE Sampling Station (WH13) GLBSS LEG09 (WH14) GLBSS LEH10 (WH15) EC Tributary Sampling Location West Two Creek (WH16) EC Tributary Sampling Location East Two Creek

95 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS A.H. Weeks (Windsor) WTP East and West Intakes (WI1) EC Tributary Sampling Location Little River (WI2) MOE Sampling Station (WI3) GLBSS LCB01 (WI4) GLBSS LCB02 (WI5) EC Little River Study Location Little River at Lauzon (WI6) EC Little River Study Location Little Village (WI7) EC Little River Study Location Little River Gas Dock (WI8) EC Little River Study Location Little Abbey (WI9) EC Little River Study Location Little Bertha (WI10) EC Little River Study Location PCP North (WI11) Little River PCB Study Location Hawkins Drain (WI12) Little River PCB Study Location Twin Oaks (WI13) Little River PCB Study Location Baseline Road (WI14) MOE Brownfields Location RSC#80524 (WI15) MOE Brownfields Location RSC#43700 EC Little River Study Location PCP South Harrow-Colchester South WTP (HC1) GLBSS LEG04 (HC2) GLBSS LEW42 (HC3) GLBSS LEW43 (HC4) MOE Sampling Station West Shore Water Supply System (Pelee Island) (PI1) GLBSS LED07 (PI2) GLBSS LEU44 2

96 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Appendix 4.1 Parameters Determined to be Conditions

97 Appendix 4.1: Conditions Summary by WTP Water Treatment Plant Amherstburg WTP Parameters found to be Conditions (IPZ-1 and IPZ-2 sampling locations only) Arsenic, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chrysene, Copper, DDE, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc Additional Parameters with Exceedances (Sampling locations not currently in a defined IPZ) Anthracene, DDT, Endrin, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene Lakeshore WTP Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc Mercury Stoney Point WTP Cadmium, DDE, DDT, Mercury, Nickel, Silver Arsenic, Copper, Endrin, Lead, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Zinc Union Area WTP Wheatley WTP Primary Intake Wheatley WTP Emergency Intake Anthracene, Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Lead, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Zinc Anthracene, Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, DDD, DDE, DDT, Dieldrin, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Lead, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Zinc Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chrysene, Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Silver, Zinc Mercury Mercury A.H. Weeks WTP East Intake Arsenic, Benzene, Cadmium, Chlordane, Chromium (Total), Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Ethylbenzene, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Silver, Zinc Anthracene, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene A.H. Weeks WTP West Intake Arsenic, Benzene, Cadmium, Chlordane, Chromium (Total), Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Ethylbenzene, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Silver, Zinc Anthracene, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Chrysene, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Phenanthrene, Pyrene Harrow-Colchester South WTP Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chrysene, Copper, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Mercury, Nickel Dieldrin, Lead, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Silver, Zinc West Shore WSS (Pelee Island) Cadmium, DDT, Nickel Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

98 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Appendix 4.2 Conditions Analysis

99 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Amherstburg WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant All Types of Property Canard River Station Station Station Uses Sediment EC TSS Sampling Data MOE GLMP Sampling Data ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE ANTIMONY <5 0.2 ARSENIC BARIUM BENZENE 0.01 BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE BENZO(a)PYRENE BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1 BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2 ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 0.01 BROMOFORM 0.01 BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM 0.6 < CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 0.01 CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p CHLOROBENZENE 0.01 CHLOROFORM 0.01 CHLOROPHENOL, 2 CHROMIUM (TOTAL) CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE COBALT COPPER CYANIDE (REE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2 (o DCB) 0.01 DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3 (m DCB) 0.01 DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4 (p DCB) 0.01

100 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Amherstburg WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant All Types of Property Canard River Station Station Station Uses Sediment EC TSS Sampling Data MOE GLMP Sampling Data DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3' DDD DDE DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1, DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS 1,2 DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4 DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2 DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3 DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROTULUENE, 2,4 DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE 0.01 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE FLUORENE HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3 cd)pyrene LEAD MERCURY METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.02 METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1 METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2

101 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Amherstburg WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant All Types of Property Canard River Station Station Station Uses Sediment EC TSS Sampling Data MOE GLMP Sampling Data MOLYBDENUM < NAPHTHALENE NICKEL PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6 C10) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10 C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16 C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) PYRENE SELENIUM 0.2 SILVER STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.01 THALLIUM TOLUENE 0.01 TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2, TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1, TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1, TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.01 TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5 TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6 VANADIUM 30 VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES 0.02 ZINC CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM = No Value Derived Parameter standards as listed in Table 1 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards EC TSS Environment Canada Tributary Screening Survey MOE GLMP Ministry of the Environment Great Lakes Monitoring Program Exceeds Table 1 Standard

102 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Amherstburg WTP Amherstburg WTP Exceedances by Sampling Location Mapping Notation: AM1 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: Canard River Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Arsenic 6 11 Cadmium 0.6 <1 Copper DDE Lead Nickel Silver Mapping Notation: AM2 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 2001 Sampling Year: 2004 Sampling Year: 2007 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Copper DDT Anthracene DDT Endrin Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Endrin Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Chrysene DDT Endrin Phenanthrene Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pyrene Mapping Notation: AM3 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 2006 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Cadmium Chrysene Copper Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Nickel Zinc

103 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Lakeshore WTP TABLE 1: Sediment EC-TSS Sampling Data Contaminant All Types of Property Belle River Duck Creek Major Creek Uses ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE ANTIMONY <5 <5 <5 ARSENIC <5 BARIUM BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE BENZO(a)PYRENE BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1- BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM 0.6 <1 <1 <1 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p- CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLOROPHENOL, 2- CHROMIUM (TOTAL) CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE COBALT COPPER CYANIDE (REE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.06 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2- (o-dcb) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3- (m-dcb) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4- (p-dcb) DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3'- DDD DDE DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1- DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2- DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1- DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS-1,2- DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS-1,2-

104 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Lakeshore WTP TABLE 1: Sediment EC-TSS Sampling Data Contaminant All Types of Property Belle River Duck Creek Major Creek Uses DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4- DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2- DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3- DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4- DINITROPHENOL, 2,4- DINITROTULUENE, 2,4- DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE FLUORENE HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.02 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3-cd)PYRENE LEAD MERCURY METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1- METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2- MOLYBDENUM <1 <1 <1 NAPHTHALENE NICKEL PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6-C10) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10-C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16-C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) TR(0.007) PYRENE SELENIUM SILVER <0.5 <0.5 STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2- TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2-

105 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Lakeshore WTP TABLE 1: Sediment EC-TSS Sampling Data Contaminant All Types of Property Belle River Duck Creek Major Creek Uses TETRACHLOROETHYLENE THALLIUM TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,4- TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1- TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2- TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5- TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6- VANADIUM VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES ZINC CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM

106 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Lakeshore WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE 0.22 ANTIMONY ARSENIC 6 BARIUM BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.32 BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.37 BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.17 BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.24 BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1- BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM 0.6 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p- CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLOROPHENOL, 2- CHROMIUM (TOTAL) 26 CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE 0.34 COBALT 50 COPPER 16 CYANIDE (REE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.06 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2- (o-dcb) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3- (m-dcb) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4- (p-dcb) DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3'- DDD DDE DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1- DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2- DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1- DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS-1,2- DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS-1,2- EC GLBSS Sampling Data LCA04 LCA05 LCA06 LCB04 LCB05 LCB

107 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Lakeshore WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4- Sediment All Types of Property Uses DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2- DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3- DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4- DINITROPHENOL, 2,4- DINITROTULUENE, 2,4- DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE 0.75 FLUORENE 0.19 HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.02 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3-cd)PYRENE 0.2 LEAD 31 MERCURY 0.2 METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1- METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2- MOLYBDENUM NAPHTHALENE NICKEL 16 PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6-C10) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10-C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16-C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE 0.56 PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) 0.07 PYRENE 0.49 SELENIUM SILVER 0.5 STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2- TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2- EC GLBSS Sampling Data LCA04 LCA05 LCA06 LCB04 LCB05 LCB

108 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Lakeshore WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant TETRACHLOROETHYLENE Sediment All Types of Property Uses THALLIUM TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,4- TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1- TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2- TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5- TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6- VANADIUM VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES ZINC 120 CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM EC GLBSS Sampling Data LCA04 LCA05 LCA06 LCB04 LCB05 LCB

109 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Lakeshore WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE 0.22 ANTIMONY ARSENIC 6 BARIUM BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.32 BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.37 BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.17 BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.24 BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1- BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM 0.6 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p- CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLOROPHENOL, 2- CHROMIUM (TOTAL) 26 CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE 0.34 COBALT 50 COPPER 16 CYANIDE (REE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.06 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2- (o-dcb) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3- (m-dcb) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4- (p-dcb) DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3'- DDD DDE DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1- DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2- DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1- DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS-1,2- DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS-1,2- EC GLBSS Sampling Data LCA04 LCA05 LCA06 LCB04 LCB05 LCB

110 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Lakeshore WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4- Sediment All Types of Property Uses DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2- DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3- DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4- DINITROPHENOL, 2,4- DINITROTULUENE, 2,4- DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE 0.75 FLUORENE 0.19 HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.02 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3-cd)PYRENE 0.2 LEAD 31 MERCURY 0.2 METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1- METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2- MOLYBDENUM NAPHTHALENE NICKEL 16 PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6-C10) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10-C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16-C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE 0.56 PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) 0.07 PYRENE 0.49 SELENIUM SILVER 0.5 STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2- TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2- EC GLBSS Sampling Data LCA04 LCA05 LCA06 LCB04 LCB05 LCB

111 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Lakeshore WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant TETRACHLOROETHYLENE Sediment All Types of Property Uses THALLIUM TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,4- TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1- TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2- TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5- TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6- VANADIUM VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES ZINC 120 CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM EC GLBSS Sampling Data LCA04 LCA05 LCA06 LCB04 LCB05 LCB = No Value Derived Parameter standards as listed in Table 1 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards EC TSS Environment Canada Tributary Screening Survey EC GLBSS Environment Canada Great Lakes Basin Sediment Surveys Exceeds Table 1 Standard

112 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Lakeshore WTP Lakeshore WTP Exceedances by Sampling Location Mapping Notation: LA1 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: Belle River Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Arsenic 6 16 Cadmium 0.6 <1 Copper DDD DDE Lead Nickel Silver Zinc Mapping Notation: LA2 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: Duck Creek Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Arsenic 6 7 Cadmium 0.6 <1 Copper DDE Nickel 16 29

113 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Lakeshore WTP Mapping Notation: LA3 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: GLBSS LCA04 Sampling Year: 1970 Sampling Year: 1974 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Cadmium DDE DDE DDT Silver Mapping Notation: LA4 IPZ-1 Sampling Location: GLBSS LCA05 Sampling Year: 1970 Sampling Year: 1974 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Cadmium DDE DDE Mapping Notation: LA5 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LCA06 Sampling Year: 1970 Sampling Year: 1974 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Cadmium DDE Mapping Notation: LA6 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LCB04 Sampling Year: 1970 Sampling Year: 1974 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Cadmium Copper Copper DDE DDE DDT DDT Lead Lead Mercury Mercury Nickel Nickel Silver Silver

114 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Lakeshore WTP Mapping Notation: LA7 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LCB05 Sampling Year: 1970 Sampling Year: 1974 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Cadmium Copper Copper DDE DDE Lead DDT Mercury Lead Nickel Mercury Silver Nickel Silver Mapping Notation: LA8 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LCB06 Sampling Year: 1970 Sampling Year: 1974 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Cadmium DDE DDE Nickel Mercury Mapping Notation: LA9 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: Major Creek Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium 0.6 <1 DDE Nickel 16 22

115 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Stoney Point WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant All Types of Property Tremblay Creek Ruscom River Station Uses Sediment EC TSS Sampling Data MOE GLMP Sampling Data ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE ANTIMONY <5 <5 0.4 ARSENIC 6 < BARIUM BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE BENZO(a)PYRENE BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1 BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2 ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM 0.6 <1 < CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLOROPHENOL, 2 CHROMIUM (TOTAL) CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE COBALT COPPER CYANIDE (REE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2 (o DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3 (m DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4 (p DCB) DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3'

116 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Stoney Point WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant All Types of Property Tremblay Creek Ruscom River Station Uses Sediment EC TSS Sampling Data MOE GLMP Sampling Data DDD DDE DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS 1,2 DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4 DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2 DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3 DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROTULUENE, 2,4 DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE FLUORENE HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3 cd)pyrene LEAD MERCURY METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1 METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2 MOLYBDENUM <1 2

117 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Stoney Point WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant All Types of Property Tremblay Creek Ruscom River Station Uses Sediment EC TSS Sampling Data MOE GLMP Sampling Data NAPHTHALENE NICKEL PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6 C10) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10 C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16 C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) PYRENE SELENIUM 0.3 SILVER 0.5 < STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE THALLIUM TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2, TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5 TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6 VANADIUM VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES ZINC CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM

118 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Stoney Point WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE 0.22 ANTIMONY ARSENIC 6 BARIUM BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.32 BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.37 BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.17 BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.24 BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1 BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2 ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM 0.6 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLOROPHENOL, 2 CHROMIUM (TOTAL) 26 CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE 0.34 COBALT 50 COPPER 16 CYANIDE (REE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.06 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2 (o DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3 (m DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4 (p DCB) DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3' EC GLBSS Sampling Data EC GLBSS Sampling Data LCB07 LCB09 LCB10 LCC09 LCB07 LCB09 LCB10 LCC

119 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Stoney Point WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses DDD DDE DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS 1,2 DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4 DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2 DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3 DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROTULUENE, 2,4 DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE 0.75 FLUORENE 0.19 HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.02 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3 cd)pyrene 0.2 LEAD 31 MERCURY 0.2 METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1 METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2 MOLYBDENUM EC GLBSS Sampling Data EC GLBSS Sampling Data LCB07 LCB09 LCB10 LCC09 LCB07 LCB09 LCB10 LCC

120 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Stoney Point WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses NAPHTHALENE NICKEL 16 PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6 C10) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10 C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16 C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE 0.56 PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) 0.07 PYRENE 0.49 SELENIUM SILVER 0.5 STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE THALLIUM TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,4 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5 TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6 VANADIUM VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES ZINC 120 CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM EC GLBSS Sampling Data EC GLBSS Sampling Data LCB07 LCB09 LCB10 LCC09 LCB07 LCB09 LCB10 LCC = No Value Derived Parameter standards as listed in Table 1 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards EC TSS Environment Canada Tributary Screening Survey MOE GLMP Ministry of the Environment Great Lakes Monitoring Program EC GLBSS Environment Canada Great Lakes Basin Sediment Surveys Exceeds Table 1 Standard

121 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Stoney Point WTP Stoney Point WTP Exceedances by Sampling Location Mapping Notation: SP1 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: Tremblay Creek Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium 0.6 <1 Mapping Notation: SP2 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 2004 Sampling Year: 2007 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Endrin Endrin Mapping Notation: SP3 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LCB07 Sampling Year: 1970 Sampling Year: 1974 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Cadmium DDE Copper Mercury DDE Nickel DDT Silver Mercury Nickel Silver Mapping Notation: SP4 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: GLBSS LCB09 Sampling Year: 1970 Sampling Year: 1974 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Cadmium DDE DDE Nickel DDT Silver Mercury Nickel Silver

122 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Stoney Point WTP Mapping Notation: SP5 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LCB10 Sampling Year: 1970 Sampling Year: 1974 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Cadmium DDE DDE DDT Mercury Mercury Nickel Nickel Silver Silver Mapping Notation: SP6 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LCC09 Sampling Year: 1970 Sampling Year: 1974 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Cadmium Mercury Copper Nickel Mercury Silver Nickel Silver Mapping Notation: SP7 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: Ruscom River Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Arsenic 6 11 Cadmium 0.6 <1 Copper Lead Nickel Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PC Silver Zinc

123 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Union Area WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property EC TSS Sampling Data Mill Creek EC GLBSS Sampling Data LEG06 MOE GLMP Sampling Data LEG07 Station Uses ACENAPHTHENE 0.04 ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE ANTIMONY <5 ARSENIC BARIUM BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE BENZO(a)PYRENE BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1 BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2 ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLOROPHENOL, 2 CHROMIUM (TOTAL) CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE COBALT COPPER CYANIDE (REE) 0.1 BIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2 (o DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3 (m DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4 (p DCB) DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3'

124 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Union Area WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property EC TSS Sampling Data Mill Creek EC GLBSS Sampling Data LEG06 MOE GLMP Sampling Data LEG07 Station Uses DDD DDE DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS 1,2 DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4 DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2 DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3 DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROTULUENE, 2,4 DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE FLUORENE HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3 cd)pyrene LEAD MERCURY METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1 METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2 MOLYBDENUM <

125 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Union Area WTP TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property EC TSS Sampling Data Mill Creek EC GLBSS Sampling Data LEG06 MOE GLMP Sampling Data LEG07 Station Uses NAPHTHALENE NICKEL PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6 C10) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10 C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16 C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) PYRENE SELENIUM SILVER STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE THALLIUM TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2, TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5 TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6 VANADIUM VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES ZINC CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM = No Value Derived Parameter standards as listed in Table 1 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards EC TSS Environment Canada Tributary Screening Survey EC GLBSS Environment Canada Great Lakes Basin Sediment Surveys MOE GLMP Ministry of the Environment Great Lakes Monitoring Program Exceeds Table 1 Standard

126 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Union Area WTP Union Area WTP Exceedances by Sampling Location Mapping Notation: UN1 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: Mill Creek Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Arsenic 6 9 Cadmium DDE Silver Mapping Notation: UN2 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 1998 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Arsenic Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzo(a)Pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Cadmium Chrysene Copper DDD DDE DDT Endrin Fluoranthene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Nickel Phenanthrene Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pyrene

127 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Union Area WTP Mapping Notation: UN3 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LEG06 Sampling Year: 1971 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Copper DDE DDT Lead Mercury Nickel Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Mapping Notation: UN4 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LEG07 Sampling Year: 1971 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Copper DDE DDT Lead Mercury Nickel Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Zinc

128 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Primary and Emergency Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property EC TSS Sampling Data Muddy Creek EC GLBSS Sampling Data West Two Creek East Two Creek LEG09 LEH10 Uses ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE ANTIMONY <5 <5 <5 ARSENIC <5 BARIUM BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE BENZO(a)PYRENE BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1 BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2 ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM 0.6 <1 1 <1 0 0 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLOROPHENOL, 2 CHROMIUM (TOTAL) CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE COBALT COPPER CYANIDE (FREE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.06 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2 (o DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3 (m DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4 (p DCB) DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3'

129 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Primary and Emergency Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property EC TSS Sampling Data Muddy Creek EC GLBSS Sampling Data West Two Creek East Two Creek LEG09 LEH10 Uses DDD DDE DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS 1,2 DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4 DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2 DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3 DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROTULUENE, 2,4 DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE FLUORENE HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.02 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3 cd)pyrene LEAD MERCURY METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1 METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2 MOLYBDENUM 2 1 <1 1

130 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Primary and Emergency Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property EC TSS Sampling Data Muddy Creek EC GLBSS Sampling Data West Two Creek East Two Creek LEG09 LEH10 Uses NAPHTHALENE NICKEL PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6 C10) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10 C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16 C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) PYRENE SELENIUM SILVER 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE THALLIUM TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,4 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5 TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6 VANADIUM VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES ZINC CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM

131 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Primary and Emergency Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE 0.22 ANTIMONY ARSENIC 6 BARIUM BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.32 BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.37 BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.17 BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.24 BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1 BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2 ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM 0.6 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLOROPHENOL, 2 CHROMIUM (TOTAL) 26 CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE 0.34 COBALT 50 COPPER 16 CYANIDE (FREE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.06 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2 (o DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3 (m DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4 (p DCB) DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3' Station Station MOE GLMP Sampling Data Station Station Station

132 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Primary and Emergency Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses DDD DDE DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS 1,2 DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4 DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2 DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3 DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROTULUENE, 2,4 DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE 0.75 FLUORENE 0.19 HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.02 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3 cd)pyrene 0.2 LEAD 31 MERCURY 0.2 METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1 METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2 MOLYBDENUM Station Station MOE GLMP Sampling Data Station Station Station

133 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Primary and Emergency Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses NAPHTHALENE NICKEL 16 PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6 C10) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10 C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16 C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE 0.56 PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) 0.07 PYRENE 0.49 SELENIUM SILVER 0.5 STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE THALLIUM TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,4 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5 TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6 VANADIUM VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES ZINC 120 CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM Station Station MOE GLMP Sampling Data Station Station Station

134 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Primary and Emergency Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE 0.22 ANTIMONY ARSENIC 6 BARIUM BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.32 BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.37 BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.17 BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.24 BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1 BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2 ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM 0.6 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLOROPHENOL, 2 CHROMIUM (TOTAL) 26 CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE 0.34 COBALT 50 COPPER 16 CYANIDE (FREE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.06 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2 (o DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3 (m DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4 (p DCB) DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3' Station Station MOE GLMP Sampling Data Station Station Station Station

135 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Primary and Emergency Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses DDD DDE DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS 1,2 DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4 DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2 DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3 DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROTULUENE, 2,4 DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE 0.75 FLUORENE 0.19 HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.02 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3 cd)pyrene 0.2 LEAD 31 MERCURY 0.2 METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1 METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2 MOLYBDENUM Station Station MOE GLMP Sampling Data Station Station Station Station

136 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Primary and Emergency Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses NAPHTHALENE NICKEL 16 PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6 C10) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10 C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16 C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE 0.56 PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) 0.07 PYRENE 0.49 SELENIUM SILVER 0.5 STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE THALLIUM TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,4 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5 TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6 VANADIUM VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES ZINC 120 CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM Station Station MOE GLMP Sampling Data Station Station Station Station = No Value Derived Parameter standards as listed in Table 1 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards EC TSS Environment Canada Tributary Screening Survey EC GLBSS Environment Canada Great Lakes Basin Sediment Surveys MOE GLMP Ministry of the Environment Great Lakes Monitoring Program Exceeds Table 1 Standard

137 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Primary Intake) Wheatley WTP Primary Intake Exceedances by Sampling Location Mapping Notation: WH1 IPZ-1 Sampling Location: Muddy Creek Sampling Year: 2001 Mapping Notation: WH3 IPZ-1 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 1998 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Anthracene Arsenic 6 8 Arsenic 6 17 Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(a)Anthracene Cadmium Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Chromium (Total) Cadmium 0.6 <1 Copper Chrysene DDD Copper DDE DDD DDT DDE Endrin Dieldrin Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Fluoranthene Lead Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Nickel Nickel Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Phenanthrene Zinc Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pyrene Zinc Mapping Notation: WH2 Mapping Notation: WH4 IPZ-1 IPZ-1 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 1998 Sampling Year: 1998 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Copper Arsenic DDD Cadmium DDE Chromium (Total) DDT Copper Endrin DDD Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) DDE DDT Endrin Nickel Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Zinc

138 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Primary Intake) Mapping Notation: WH5 IPZ-1 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 1998 Sampling Year: 1998 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Arsenic Arsenic Benzo(a)Anthracene DDT Benzo(a)Pyrene Endrin Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Cadmium Mapping Notation: WH8 Chromium (Total) IPZ-2 Chrysene Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Copper Sampling Year: 1998 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene Contaminant Sediment Standard Result DDD Arsenic DDE Cadmium DDT Copper Endrin DDT Fluoranthene Endrin Fluorene Nickel Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Lead Nickel Phenanthrene Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pyrene Sampling Year: 1998 Zinc Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Mapping Notation: WH6 IPZ-1 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Copper DDD DDE DDT Sampling Year: 1998 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Endrin Arsenic 6 10 Nickel Benzo(a)Anthracene Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Benzo(a)Pyrene Zinc Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Cadmium Mapping Notation: WH10 Chromium (Total) IPZ-2 Chrysene Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Copper Sampling Year: 1998 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene Contaminant Sediment Standard Result DDD DDT DDE Endrin DDT Endrin Fluoranthene Mapping Notation: WH11 Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Nickel Mapping Notation: WH7 IPZ-1 Mapping Notation: WH9 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station IPZ-2 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 1998 Phenanthrene Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) DDT Pyrene Endrin Zinc

139 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Primary Intake) Mapping Notation: WH12 IPZ-1 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 2005 Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Benzo(a)Anthracene Cadmium Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Nickel Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Cadmium Chromium (Total) Chrysene Copper DDD DDE Sampling Year: 2001 DDT Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Endrin Cadmium 0.6 <1 Fluoranthene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Nickel Phenanthrene Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pyrene Zinc Mapping Notation: WH15 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: West Two Creek Mapping Notation: WH16 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: East Two Creek Mapping Notation: WH13 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LEG09 Sampling Year: 1971 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result DDT Dieldrin Lead Nickel Mapping Notation: WH14 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LEH10 Sampling Year: 1971 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result DDT Lead Mercury Nickel 16 20

140 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Emergency Intake) Wheatley WTP Emergency Intake Exceedances by Sampling Location Mapping Notation: WH1 Mapping Notation: WH3 IPZ-1 IPZ-1 Sampling Location: Muddy Creek Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 2001 Sampling Year: 1998 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Anthracene Arsenic 6 8 Arsenic 6 17 Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(a)Anthracene Cadmium Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Chromium (Total) Cadmium 0.6 <1 Copper Chrysene DDD Copper DDE DDD DDT DDE Endrin Dieldrin Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Fluoranthene Lead Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Nickel Nickel Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Phenanthrene Zinc Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pyrene Zinc Mapping Notation: WH2 Mapping Notation: WH4 IPZ-1 IPZ-1 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 1998 Sampling Year: 1998 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Copper Arsenic DDD Cadmium DDE Chromium (Total) DDT Copper Endrin DDD Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) DDE DDT Endrin Nickel Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Zinc

141 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Emergency Intake) Mapping Notation: WH5 IPZ-1 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 1998 Sampling Year: 1998 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Arsenic Arsenic Benzo(a)Anthracene DDT Benzo(a)Pyrene Endrin Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Cadmium Chromium (Total) Chrysene Copper Sampling Year: 1998 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene Contaminant Sediment Standard Result DDD Arsenic DDE Cadmium DDT Copper Endrin DDT Fluoranthene Endrin Fluorene Nickel Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Lead Nickel Phenanthrene Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pyrene Sampling Year: 1998 Zinc Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Mapping Notation: WH6 Copper IPZ-1 DDD Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station DDE Sampling Year: 1998 DDT Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Endrin Arsenic 6 10 Nickel Benzo(a)Anthracene Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Benzo(a)Pyrene Zinc Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Cadmium Mapping Notation: WH10 Chromium (Total) Chrysene Copper Sampling Year: 1998 Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene Contaminant Sediment Standard Result DDD DDT DDE Endrin DDT Endrin Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Nickel Mapping Notation: WH7 IPZ-1 Mapping Notation: WH8 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Mapping Notation: WH9 IPZ-1 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station IPZ-2 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Mapping Notation: WH11 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 1998 Phenanthrene Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) DDT Pyrene Endrin Zinc

142 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Wheatley WTP (Emergency Intake) Mapping Notation: WH12 IPZ-1 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 2005 Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Benzo(a)Anthracene Cadmium Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Nickel Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Cadmium Chromium (Total) Chrysene Copper DDD DDE Mapping Notation: WH15 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: West Two Creek Mapping Notation: WH16 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: East Two Creek Sampling Year: 2001 DDT Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Endrin Cadmium 0.6 <1 Fluoranthene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Nickel Phenanthrene Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pyrene Zinc Mapping Notation: WH13 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LEG09 Sampling Year: 1971 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result DDT Dieldrin Lead Nickel Mapping Notation: WH14 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LEH10 Sampling Year: 1971 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result DDT Lead Mercury Nickel 16 20

143 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East and West Intakes) TABLE 1: Sediment EC TSS Sampling Data EC GLBSS Sampling Data EC GLBSS Sampling Data MOE GLMP Sampling Data Contaminant All Types of Property Little River LCB01 LCB01 LCB02 Station Uses ACENAPHTHENE 0.06 ACENAPHTHYLENE 0.02 ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE ANTIMONY <5 ARSENIC BARIUM BENZENE 0.01 BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE BENZO(a)PYRENE BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1 BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2 ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 0.01 BROMOFORM 0.01 BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM 0.6 < CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 0.01 CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p CHLOROBENZENE 0.01 CHLOROFORM 0.01 CHLOROPHENOL, 2 CHROMIUM (TOTAL) CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE COBALT COPPER CYANIDE (REE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2 (o DCB) 0.01 DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3 (m DCB) 0.01 DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4 (p DCB) 0.01 DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3' DDD DDE

144 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East and West Intakes) TABLE 1: Sediment EC TSS Sampling Data EC GLBSS Sampling Data EC GLBSS Sampling Data MOE GLMP Sampling Data Contaminant All Types of Property Little River LCB01 LCB01 LCB02 Station Uses DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1, DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS 1,2 DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4 DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2 DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3 DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROTULUENE, 2,4 DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE 0.01 ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE FLUORENE HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3 cd)pyrene LEAD MERCURY METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE 0.06 METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1 METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2 MOLYBDENUM < NAPHTHALENE 0.02 NICKEL PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6 C10) b

145 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East and West Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10 C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16 C34) b Sediment EC TSS Sampling Data EC GLBSS Sampling Data EC GLBSS Sampling Data MOE GLMP Sampling Data All Types of Property Little River LCB01 LCB01 LCB02 Station Uses PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) PYRENE SELENIUM SILVER STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.01 THALLIUM TOLUENE 0.01 TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2, TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1, TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1, TRICHLOROETHYLENE 0.01 TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5 TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6 VANADIUM 33 VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES 0.02 ZINC CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM

146 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East and West Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE 0.22 ANTIMONY ARSENIC 6 BARIUM BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.32 BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.37 BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.17 BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.24 BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1 BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2 ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM 0.6 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLOROPHENOL, 2 CHROMIUM (TOTAL) 26 CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE 0.34 COBALT 50 COPPER 16 CYANIDE (REE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.06 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2 (o DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3 (m DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4 (p DCB) DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3' DDD DDE EC LRSS Sampling Data Little River at Lauzon Little Village Little River Gas Dock Little Abbey Little Bertha PCP North PCP South <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 < < <0.004 <0.005 < <0.004 <0.009 < <0.2 <0.004 <0.004 <0.004 <0.01 <0.01 <0.012 <0.004 <0.005 <0.01 <0.006 <0.004 <0.01 <0.018 <0.004

147 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East and West Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS 1,2 DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4 DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2 DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3 DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROTULUENE, 2,4 DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE 0.75 FLUORENE 0.19 HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.02 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3 cd)pyrene 0.2 LEAD 31 MERCURY 0.2 METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1 METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2 MOLYBDENUM NAPHTHALENE NICKEL 16 PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6 C10) b EC LRSS Sampling Data Little River at Lauzon Little Village Little River Gas Dock Little Abbey Little Bertha PCP North PCP South <0.004 <0.004 <0.006 <0.004 <0.004 <0.008 <0.004 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.001 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 < <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 < <

148 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East and West Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10 C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16 C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE 0.56 PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) 0.07 PYRENE 0.49 SELENIUM SILVER 0.5 STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE THALLIUM TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,4 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5 TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6 VANADIUM VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES ZINC 120 CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM EC LRSS Sampling Data Little River at Lauzon Little Village Little River Gas Dock Little Abbey Little Bertha PCP North PCP South

149 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East and West Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE 0.22 ANTIMONY ARSENIC 6 BARIUM BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.32 BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.37 BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.17 BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.24 BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1 BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2 ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM 0.6 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLOROPHENOL, 2 CHROMIUM (TOTAL) 26 CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE 0.34 COBALT 50 COPPER 16 CYANIDE (REE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.06 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2 (o DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3 (m DCB) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4 (p DCB) DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3' DDD DDE MOE PCBS Sampling Data Hawkins Drain Twin Oaks Baseline Road

150 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East and West Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1 DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS 1,2 DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS 1,2 DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4 DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2 DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3 DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROPHENOL, 2,4 DINITROTULUENE, 2,4 DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE 0.75 FLUORENE 0.19 HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.02 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3 cd)pyrene 0.2 LEAD 31 MERCURY 0.2 METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1 METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2 MOLYBDENUM NAPHTHALENE NICKEL 16 PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6 C10) b MOE PCBS Sampling Data Hawkins Drain Twin Oaks Baseline Road

151 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East and West Intakes) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property Uses PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10 C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16 C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE 0.56 PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) 0.07 PYRENE 0.49 SELENIUM SILVER 0.5 STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2 TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE THALLIUM TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,4 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2 TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5 TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6 VANADIUM VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES ZINC 120 CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM MOE PCBS Sampling Data Hawkins Drain Twin Oaks Baseline Road < Parameter standards as listed in Table 1 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards EC TSS Environment Canada Tributary Screening Survey EC GLBSS Environment Canada Great Lakes Basin Sediment Surveys MOE GLMP Ministry of the Environment Great Lakes Monitoring Program EC LRSS Environment Canada Sediment Sampling in Little River 2001 MOE PCBS Little River PCB Trackdown Study = No Value Derived Exceeds Table 1 Standard

152 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East and West Intakes) TABLE 4: Soil MOE-BESR Sampling Data Industrial/ Contaminant Commercial/Community Registration Number: Registration Number: Property Use Certification Date: Dec. 8, 2008 Certification Date: Sept 20, 2007 Surface Soil ACENAPHTHENE 15 <0.01 <0.01 ACENAPHTHYLENE 130 <0.005 <0.005 ACETONE 3.5 <0.1 ALDRIN 0.05 ANTHRACENE 28 <0.005 <0.005 ANTIMONY <0.2 ARSENIC BARIUM BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 6.6 <0.01 <0.01 BENZO(a)PYRENE 1.9 <0.005 <0.005 BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE 18 <0.01 <0.005 BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 40 <0.02 <0.02 BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 18 <0.01 <0.01 BERYLLIUM <0.2 BIPHENYL, 1, BIS(2 CHLOROETHYL)ETHER 0.66 BIS(2 CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER 0.66 BIS(2 ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE 100 BORON 2 BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 0.12 <0.002 BROMOFORM 0.11 <0.002 BROMOMETHANE 0.38 <0.003 CADMIUM <0.1 CARBON TETRACHLORIDE 0.64 <0.002 CHLORDANE 0.29 CHLOROANILINE,p 1.3 CHLOROBENZENE 2.4 <0.002 CHLOROFORM 0.13 <0.002 CHLOROPHENOL, CHROMIUM (TOTAL) CHROMIUM (VI) 10 CHRYSENE 17 <0.01 <0.01

153 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East and West Intakes) TABLE 4: Contaminant Soil MOE-BESR Sampling Data Industrial/ Commercial/Community Registration Number: Registration Number: Property Use Certification Date: Dec. 8, 2008 Certification Date: Sept 20, 2007 Surface Soil COBALT COPPER CYANIDE (REE) 100 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE 1.9 <0.02 <0.02 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 0.09 <0.002 DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2 (o DCB) 0.88 <0.002 DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3 (m DCB) 30 <0.002 DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4 (p DCB) 0.32 <0.002 DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3' 1.3 DDD 3.5 DDE 2.4 DDT 2 DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1 3 <0.002 DICHLOROETHANE, 1, <0.002 DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1, <0.002 DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS 1,2 2.3 <0.002 DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS 1,2 4.1 <0.002 DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4 0.3 DICHLOROPROPANE, 1, <0.002 DICHLOROPROPENE, 1, <0.002 DIELDRIN 0.05 DIETHYL PHTHALATE 0.71 DIMETHYL PHTHALATE 0.7 DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2, DINITROPHENOL, 2,4 0.2 DINITROTULUENE, 2, DIOXIN/FURAN 1 ENDOSULFAN 0.18 ENDRIN 0.05 ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE <0.002 FLUORANTHENE 40 <0.005 <0.005 FLUORENE 340 <0.005 <0.005 HEPTACHLOR 0.15 HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE 0.09 HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.76 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE 2.2

154 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East and West Intakes) TABLE 4: Contaminant Soil MOE-BESR Sampling Data Industrial/ Commercial/Community Registration Number: Registration Number: Property Use Certification Date: Dec. 8, 2008 Certification Date: Sept 20, 2007 Surface Soil HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA 0.49 HEXACHLOROETHANE 8.5 INDENO(1,2,3 cd)pyrene 19 <0.02 <0.02 LEAD MERCURY 10 METHOXYCHLOR 4 METHYL ETHYL KETONE 0.27 <0.03 METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE 0.48 <0.03 METHYL MERCURY 10 METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER 5.7 <0.002 METHYLENE CHLORIDE 1.1 <0.003 METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2 (*1 ) 1.2 <0.005 <0.005 MOLYBDENUM <0.5 NAPHTHALENE 4.6 <0.005 <0.005 NICKEL PENTACHLOROPHENOL 5 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6 C10) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10 C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16 C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE 40 <0.005 <0.005 PHENOL 40 POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS 25 <0.01 PYRENE <0.005 SELENIUM 10 <0.5 <0.5 SILVER 50 <0.2 <0.2 STYRENE 1.7 <0.002 TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1, <0.002 TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2, <0.002 TETRACHLOROETHYLENE 0.45 <0.002 THALLIUM <0.5 TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,4 30 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1 34 <0.002 TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1, <0.002 TRICHLOROETHYLENE 3.9 <0.002 TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5 3.2

155 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East and West Intakes) TABLE 4: Contaminant Soil MOE-BESR Sampling Data Industrial/ Commercial/Community Registration Number: Registration Number: Property Use Certification Date: Dec. 8, 2008 Certification Date: Sept 20, 2007 Surface Soil TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4, VANADIUM VINYL CHLORIDE <0.002 XYLENES ZINC CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM = No Value Derived Parameter standards as listed in Table 4 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards MOE BESR Ministry of the Environment Brownfields Environmental Site Registry Exceeds Table 4 Standard

156 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East Intake) A.H. Weeks WTP East Intake Exceedances by Sampling Location Mapping Notation: WI1 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: Little River Sampling Year: 2001 Sampling Year: 1970 Sampling Year: 1974 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Arsenic 6 10 Cadmium Cadmium Cadmium 0.6 <1 Copper DDE Chromium (Total) DDE DDT Copper Lead Mercury Lead Mercury Nickel Nickel Silver Silver Zinc Mapping Notation: WI4 Mapping Notation: WI2 Not currently in a defined IPZ Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LCB02 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 1974 Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Arsenic DDE Benzo(a)Anthracene DDT Benzo(a)Pyrene Mercury Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Chromium (Total) Chrysene Copper Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene Fluoranthene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Nickel Phenanthrene Polychlorinated Biphenyls (P Pyrene Zinc Mapping Notation: WI3 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: GLBSS LCB01

157 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East Intake) Mapping Notation: WI5 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: Little River at Lauzon Sampling Year: 2001 Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Anthracene DDE <0.006 Arsenic Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzo(a)Pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Cadmium Chrysene Copper Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 0.06 <0.2 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Fluoranthene DDD <0.01 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Lead Phenanthrene Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Mapping Notation: WI9 Pyrene IPZ-2 Silver Sampling Location: Little Bertha Zinc Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result DDD <0.01 DDE <0.01 Mapping Notation: WI6 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) IPZ-2 Sampling Location: Little Village Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result DDE <0.01 Mapping Notation: WI7 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: Little River Gas Dock Mapping Notation: WI8 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: Little Abbey Sampling Year: 2001 Mapping Notation: WI10 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: PCP North Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Chlordane <0.009 DDD <0.012 DDE <0.018 DDT <0.008 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

158 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (East Intake) Mapping Notation: WI11 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: Hawkins Drain ( ) Sampling Year: 2004 Sampling Year: 2004 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Arsenic 6 9 Chromium (Total) Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzo(a)Pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Cadmium Chromium (Total) Chrysene Sampling Year: 2008 Copper Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene Benzene Fluoranthene Ethylbenzene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Lead Mercury Nickel Phenanthrene Pyrene Zinc Mapping Notation: WI12 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: Twin Oaks ( ) Sampling Year: 2004 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Chromium (Total) Nickel Mapping Notation: WI13 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: Baseline Road ( ) Mapping Notation: WI14 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: RSC #80524 Mapping Notation: WI15 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: RSC #43700 Sampling Year: 2007 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Benzene Ethylbenzene

159 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (West Intake) A.H. Weeks WTP West Intake Exceedances by Sampling Location Mapping Notation: WI1 Mapping Notation: WI3 IPZ-2 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: Little River Sampling Location: GLBSS LCB01 Sampling Year: 2001 Sampling Year: 1970 Sampling Year: 1974 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Arsenic 6 10 Cadmium Cadmium Cadmium 0.6 <1 Copper DDE Chromium (Total) DDE DDT Copper Lead Mercury Lead Mercury Nickel Nickel Silver Silver Zinc Mapping Notation: WI2 Mapping Notation: WI4 Not currently in a defined IPZ Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Location: GLBSS LCB02 Sampling Year: 2001 Sampling Year: 1974 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Arsenic Cadmium Benzo(a)Anthracene DDE Benzo(a)Pyrene DDT Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Mercury Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Chromium (Total) Chrysene Copper Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene Fluoranthene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Nickel Phenanthrene Polychlorinated Biphenyls (P Pyrene Zinc

160 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (West Intake) Mapping Notation: WI5 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: Little River at Lauzon Sampling Year: 2001 Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Anthracene DDE <0.006 Arsenic Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzo(a)Pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Cadmium Chrysene Copper Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 0.06 <0.2 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Fluoranthene DDD <0.01 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Lead Phenanthrene Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pyrene Silver Zinc Mapping Notation: WI6 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: Little Village Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result DDE <0.01 Mapping Notation: WI7 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: Little River Gas Dock Mapping Notation: WI8 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: Little Abbey Sampling Year: 2001 Mapping Notation: WI9 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: Little Bertha Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result DDD <0.01 DDE <0.01 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Mapping Notation: WI10 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: PCP North Sampling Year: 2001 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Chlordane <0.009 DDD <0.012 DDE <0.018 DDT <0.008 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

161 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - A.H. Weeks WTP (West Intake) Mapping Notation: WI11 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: Hawkins Drain Mapping Notation: WI13 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: Baseline Road Sampling Year: 2004 Sampling Year: 2004 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Arsenic 6 9 Chromium (Total) Benzo(a)Anthracene Benzo(a)Pyrene Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Mapping Notation: WI14 Cadmium IPZ-2 Chromium (Total) Sampling Location: RSC #80524 Chrysene Sampling Year: 2008 Copper Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene Benzene Fluoranthene Ethylbenzene Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Lead Mercury Nickel Mapping Notation: WI15 Phenanthrene IPZ-2 Pyrene Sampling Location: RSC #43700 Zinc Sampling Year: 2007 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Benzene Ethylbenzene Mapping Notation: WI12 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: Twin Oaks Sampling Year: 2004 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Chromium (Total) Nickel 16 21

162 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Harrow-Colchester South WTP TABLE 1: Sediment EC GLBSS Sampling Data MOE GLMP Sampling Data Contaminant All Types of Property LEG04 LEW42 LEW43 Station Uses ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE ANTIMONY 0.8 ARSENIC BARIUM 48 BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE BENZO(a)PYRENE BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE BERYLLIUM 0.5 BIPHENYL, 1,1- BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p- CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLOROPHENOL, 2- CHROMIUM (TOTAL) CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE COBALT COPPER CYANIDE (REE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2- (o-dcb) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3- (m-dcb) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4- (p-dcb) DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3'- DDD DDE DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1- DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2- DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1- DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS-1,2- DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS-1,2-

163 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Harrow-Colchester South WTP TABLE 1: Sediment EC GLBSS Sampling Data MOE GLMP Sampling Data Contaminant All Types of Property LEG04 LEW42 LEW43 Station Uses DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4- DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2- DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3- DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4- DINITROPHENOL, 2,4- DINITROTULUENE, 2,4- DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE FLUORENE HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3-cd)PYRENE LEAD MERCURY METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1- METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2- MOLYBDENUM NAPHTHALENE NICKEL PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6-C10) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10-C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16-C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) PYRENE SELENIUM 0.5 SILVER STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2- TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2-

164 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Harrow-Colchester South WTP TABLE 1: Sediment EC GLBSS Sampling Data MOE GLMP Sampling Data Contaminant All Types of Property LEG04 LEW42 LEW43 Station Uses TETRACHLOROETHYLENE THALLIUM TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2, TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1- TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2- TRICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5- TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6- VANADIUM 26 VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES ZINC CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM = No Value Derived Parameter standards as listed in Table 1 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards EC GLBSS Environment Canada Great Lakes Basin Sediment Surveys MOE GLMP Ministry of the Environment Great Lakes Monitoring Program Exceeds Table 1 Standard

165 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Harrow-Colchester South WTP Harrow-Colchester South WTP Exceedances by Sampling Location Mapping Notation: HC1 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LEG04 Sampling Year: 1971 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Copper DDE DDT Lead Mercury Nickel Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Zinc Mapping Notation: HC2 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LEW42 Sampling Year: 1971 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Copper DDE DDT Lead Mercury Nickel Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Silver Zinc

166 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - Harrow-Colchester South WTP Mapping Notation: HC3 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LEW43 Sampling Year: 1971 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium Copper DDE DDT Dieldrin Lead Mercury Nickel Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Silver Zinc Mapping Notation: HC4 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: MOE Sampling Station Sampling Year: 2004 Sampling Year: 2007 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Benzo(a)Anthracene Cadmium Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene Chrysene Benzo(k)Fluoranthene Copper Chrysene DDT Copper Endrin DDE Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene DDT Mercury Endrin Nickel Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene Mercury Nickel 16 21

167 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - West Shore WSS (Pelee Island) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property EC GLBSS Sampling Data LED07 LEU44 Uses ACENAPHTHENE ACENAPHTHYLENE ACETONE ALDRIN ANTHRACENE 0.22 ANTIMONY ARSENIC 6 BARIUM BENZENE BENZO(a)ANTHRACENE 0.32 BENZO(a)PYRENE 0.37 BENZO(b)FLUORANTHENE BENZO(g,h,i)PERYLENE 0.17 BENZO(k)FLUORANTHENE 0.24 BERYLLIUM BIPHENYL, 1,1- BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE BORON BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE CADMIUM CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLORDANE CHLOROANILINE,p- CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROFORM CHLOROPHENOL, 2- CHROMIUM (TOTAL) 26 CHROMIUM (VI) CHRYSENE 0.34 COBALT COPPER

168 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - West Shore WSS (Pelee Island) TABLE 1: Contaminant Sediment All Types of Property EC GLBSS Sampling Data LED07 LEU44 Uses CYANIDE (REE) 0.1 DIBENZO(a,h)ANTHRACENE 0.06 DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2- (o-dcb) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,3- (m-dcb) DICHLOROBENZENE, 1,4- (p-dcb) DICHLOROBENZIDINE, 3,3'- DDD DDE DDT DICHLOROETHANE, 1,1- DICHLOROETHANE, 1,2- DICHLOROETHYLENE, 1,1- DICHLOROETHYLENE, CIS-1,2- DICHLOROETHYLENE, TRANS-1,2- DICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4- DICHLOROPROPANE, 1,2- DICHLOROPROPENE, 1,3- DIELDRIN DIETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYL PHTHALATE DIMETHYLPHENOL, 2,4- DINITROPHENOL, 2,4- DINITROTULUENE, 2,4- DIOXIN/FURAN ENDOSULFAN ENDRIN ETHYLBENZENE ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE FLUORANTHENE 0.75 FLUORENE 0.19 HEPTACHLOR HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE HEXACHLOROBENZENE 0.02 HEXACHLOROBUTADIENE HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE, GAMMA

169 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - West Shore WSS (Pelee Island) TABLE 1: Sediment EC GLBSS Sampling Data Contaminant All Types of Property LED07 LEU44 Uses HEXACHLOROETHANE INDENO(1,2,3-cd)PYRENE 0.2 LEAD MERCURY METHOXYCHLOR METHYL ETHYL KETONE METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE METHYL MERCURY METHYL TERT BUTYL ETHER METHYLENE CHLORIDE METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 1- METHYLNAPHTHALENE, 2- MOLYBDENUM 1 1 NAPHTHALENE NICKEL PENTACHLOROPHENOL PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F1 (C6-C10) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F2 (>C10-C16) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F3 (>C16-C34) b PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS F4 (>C34) b PHENANTHRENE 0.56 PHENOL POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) PYRENE 0.49 SELENIUM SILVER STYRENE TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1,2- TETRACHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2,2- TETRACHLOROETHYLENE THALLIUM TOLUENE TRICHLOROBENZENE, 1,2,4- TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,1- TRICHLOROETHANE, 1,1,2- TRICHLOROETHYLENE

170 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - West Shore WSS (Pelee Island) TABLE 1: Sediment EC GLBSS Sampling Data Contaminant All Types of Property LED07 LEU44 Uses TRICHLOROPHENOL, 2,4,5- TRICHLOROPHENOL 2,4,6- VANADIUM VINYL CHLORIDE XYLENES ZINC CHLORIDE NITROGEN (TOTAL) NITRITE/NITRATE NITRATE NITRITE SODIUM = No Value Derived Parameter standards as listed in Table 1 of the Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards EC GLBSS Environment Canada Great Lakes Basin Sediment Surveys Exceeds Table 1 Standard

171 Essex Source Protection Area Source Protection Planning Technical Studies - Conditions Analysis Soil and Sediment Analysis - West Shore WSS (Pelee Island) West Shore WSS (Pelee Island) Exceedances by Sampling Location Mapping Notation: PI1 Not currently in a defined IPZ Sampling Location: GLBSS LED07 Sampling Year: 1971 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium DDT Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Mapping Notation: PI2 IPZ-2 Sampling Location: GLBSS LEU44 Sampling Year: 1971 Contaminant Sediment Standard Result Cadmium DDT Nickel 16 17

172 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Appendix 4.3 Vulnerability Scores

173 Essex Region Source Protection Area Conditions Analysis Appendix 4.3: Vulnerability Score Summary Vulnerability Score Summary Water Treatment Plant Vulnerability Score IPZ-1 IPZ-2 Amherstburg WTP Type B Lakeshore WTP Type D Stoney Point WTP Type D Union Area WTP Wheatley WTP A.H. Weeks WTP Intake Type Type A - Primary (South) Intake Type A - Emergency (North) Intake Type A - Primary (South) Intake Type A - Emergency (North) Intake Type B - East Intake Type B - West Intake Harrow-Colchester South WTP Type A West Shore WSS Type A 6 4.2

174 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Appendix 4.4 Conditions Risk Score Calculation

175 Essex Region Source Protection Area Conditions Analysis Appendix 4.4: Summary of Calculated Risk Scores Summary of Calculated Risk Scores Water Treatment Plant Sampling Vulnerability IPZ Hazard Rating Location Score Risk Score Amherstburg WTP AM AM LA LA Lakeshore WTP LA LA LA Stoney Point WTP SP Union Area WTP WH WH WH WH WH WH Wheatley WTP Primary Intake WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH Wheatley WTP Emergency Intake WH WH WH WH WH WH WH WH

176 Essex Region Source Protection Area Conditions Analysis Appendix 4.4: Summary of Calculated Risk Scores Summary of Calculated Risk Scores Sampling Water Treatment Plant Location IPZ Hazard Rating Vulnerability Score Risk Score WI WI WI WI A.H. Weeks WTP East Intake WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI A.H. Weeks WTP West Intake WI WI WI WI WI Harrow-Colchester South WTP HC West Shore WSS (Pelee Island) PI

177 Sampling Program Key Key MOE-GLMP EC-TSS EC-GLBSS EC-LRSS MOE-PCBS MOE-BESR Sampling Data Program Ministry of the Environment Great Lakes Monitoring Program Environment Canada Tributary Screening Survey Environment Canada Great Lakes Basin Sediment Surveys Environment Canada Sediment Sampling in Little River 2001 Little River PCB Trackdown Study Ministry of the Environnment Brownfields Environmental Site Registry Amherstburg Water Treatment Plant Summary of Results Sampling Sampling Contributing IPZ Sampling Year Sediment Parameters found to be Conditions Location Program Offsite Risk Score Threat Level AM1 2 EC-TSS 2001 Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, DDE, Lead, Nickel, Silver No 43.2 Low 2001 Copper, DDT, Endrin AM DDT, Endrin, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Not currently MOE-GLMP Anthracene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, defined 2007 Chrysene, DDT, Endrin, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene No Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chrysene, AM3 2 MOE-GLMP 2006 Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Nickel, Zinc No 43.2 Low Lakeshore Water Treatment Plant Summary of Results Sampling Location IPZ Sampling Program Sampling Year Sediment Parameters found to be Conditions Contributing Offsite Risk Score LA1 2 EC-TSS 2001 Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, DDD, DDE, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc No LA2 2 EC-TSS 2001 Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, DDE, Nickel No LA3 LA4 2 1 EC-GLBSS EC-GLBSS Cadmium, DDE Cadmium, DDE Cadmium, DDE, DDT, Silver Cadmium, DDE No No Low LA5 LA6 LA7 LA8 Not currently 1970 Cadmium EC-GLBSS defined 1974 Cadmium, DDE Not currently 1970 Cadmium, Copper, DDE, DDT, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Silver EC-GLBSS defined 1974 Cadmium, Copper, DDE, DDT, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Silver Not currently 1970 Cadmium, Copper, DDE, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Silver EC-GLBSS defined 1974 Cadmium, Copper, DDE, DDT, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Silver Not currently 1970 Cadmium, DDE, Nickel EC-GLBSS defined 1974 Cadmium, DDE, Mercury No No No No LA9 2 EC-TSS 2001 Cadmium, DDE, Nickel No Threat Level

178 Stoney Point Water Treatment Plant Summary of Results Sampling Location SP1 IPZ Sampling Program Sampling Year Sediment Parameters found to be Conditions Contributing Offsite Risk Score Not currently defined EC-TSS 2001 Cadmium No SP2 SP3 Not currently 2004 Endrin MOE-GLMP defined 2007 Endrin Not currently 1970 Cadmium, DDE, Mercury, Nickel, Silver EC-GLBSS defined 1974 Cadmium, Copper, DDE, DDT, Mercury, Nickel, Silver No No SP4 2 EC-GLBSS 1970 Cadmium, DDE, Nickel, Silver 1974 Cadmium, DDE, DDT, Mercury, Nickel, Silver No SP5 SP6 Not currently 1970 Cadmium, DDE, DDT, Mercury, Nickel, Silver EC-GLBSS defined 1974 Cadmium, DDE, Mercury, Nickel, Silver Not currently 1970 Cadmium, Mercury, Nickel, Silver EC-GLBSS defined 1974 Cadmium, Copper, Mercury, Nickel, Silver No No SP7 Not currently defined EC-TSS 2001 Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Silver, Zinc Threat Level No Union Area Water Treatment Plant Summary of Results Sampling Location UN1 UN2 UN3 UN4 IPZ Not currently defined Not currently defined Not currently defined Not currently defined Sampling Program Sampling Year Sediment Parameters found to be Conditions Contributing Offsite Score Threat Level EC-TSS 2001 Arsenic, Cadmium, DDE, Silver No MOE-GLMP 1998 EC-GLBSS 1971 EC-GLBSS 1971 Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chrysene, Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3- cd)pyrene, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene Cadmium, Copper, DDE, DDT, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Cadmium, Copper, DDE, DDT, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Zinc No No No -- --

179 Wheatley Water Treatment Plant Primary Intake Summary of Results Sampling Location IPZ Sampling Program Sampling Year WH1 1 EC-TSS 2001 WH2 1 MOE-GLMP 1998 WH3 1 MOE-GLMP 1998 WH4 1 MOE-GLMP 1998 WH5 1 MOE-GLMP 1998 WH6 1 MOE-GLMP 1998 Sediment Parameters found to be Conditions Anthracene, Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Cadmium, Chrysene, Copper, DDD, DDE, Dieldrin, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pyrene, Zinc Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Arsenic, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Lead, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Zinc Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Zinc Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Lead, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Zinc Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Zinc Contributing Offsite Risk Score Threat Level No No No No No No WH7 1 MOE-GLMP 1998 Arsenic, DDT, Endrin No WH8 2 MOE-GLMP 1998 Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, DDT, Endrin, Nickel No WH9 2 MOE-GLMP 1998 Cadmium, Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Zinc No WH10 2 MOE-GLMP 1998 DDT, Endrin No WH11 2 MOE-GLMP 1998 DDT, Endrin No WH12 1 MOE-GLMP 2005 Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Chrysene, Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Zinc No WH13 Not currently defined EC-GLBSS 1971 DDT, Dieldrin, Lead, Nickel No WH14 Not currently defined EC-GLBSS 1971 DDT, Lead, Mercury, Nickel No WH15 2 EC-TSS 2001 Cadmium, Nickel No WH16 2 EC-TSS 2001 Cadmium No

180 Wheatley Water Treatment Plant Emergency Intake Summary of Results Sampling Location IPZ Sampling Program Sampling Year WH1 1 EC-TSS 2001 WH2 1 MOE-GLMP 1998 WH3 1 MOE-GLMP 1998 WH4 1 MOE-GLMP 1998 WH5 1 MOE-GLMP 1998 Sediment Parameters found to be Conditions Anthracene, Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Cadmium, Chrysene, Copper, DDD, DDE, Dieldrin, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Pyrene, Zinc Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Arsenic, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Lead, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Zinc Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Zinc Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Lead, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Zinc Contributing Offsite Risk Score Threat Level No 42 Low No 42 Low No 42 Low No 42 Low No 42 Low WH6 1 MOE-GLMP 1998 Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Fluorene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Zinc No 42 Low WH7 1 MOE-GLMP 1998 Arsenic, DDT, Endrin No 42 Low WH8 2 MOE-GLMP 1998 Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, DDT, Endrin, Nickel No WH9 1 MOE-GLMP 1998 Cadmium, Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Zinc No 42 Low WH10 2 MOE-GLMP 1998 DDT, Endrin No WH11 2 MOE-GLMP 1998 DDT, Endrin No WH12 1 MOE-GLMP 2005 Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Chrysene, Copper, DDD, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Zinc No 42 Low WH13 Not currently defined EC-GLBSS 1971 DDT, Dieldrin, Lead, Nickel No WH14 Not currently defined EC-GLBSS 1971 DDT, Lead, Mercury, Nickel No WH15 2 EC-TSS 2001 Cadmium, Nickel No WH16 2 EC-TSS 2001 Cadmium No

181 A.H. Weeks Water Treatment Plant East Intake Summary of Results Sampling Sampling IPZ Sampling Year Location Program WI1 2 EC-TSS 2001 Sediment Parameters found to be Conditions Contributing Offsite Risk Score Threat Level Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc No 48.6 Low Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, WI2 Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Chromium (Total), Not currently MOE-GLMP 2001 Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, Fluoranthene, defined Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated No Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Zinc WI3 2 EC-GLBSS 1970 Cadmium, Copper, DDE, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Silver 1974 Cadmium, DDE, DDT, Mercury No 48.6 Low WI4 WI5 Not currently defined Not currently defined EC-GLBSS 1974 Cadmium, DDE, DDT, Mercury No EC-LRSS 2001 Anthracene, Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3- cd)pyrene, Lead, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Silver, Zinc No WI6 2 EC-LRSS 2001 DDE No 48.6 Low WI7 2 EC-LRSS 2001 DDE, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) No 48.6 Low WI8 2 EC-LRSS 2001 DDD No 48.6 Low WI9 2 EC-LRSS 2001 DDD, DDE, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) No 48.6 Low WI10 2 EC-LRSS 2001 Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) No 48.6 Low WI11 Not currently defined MOE-PCBS 2004 Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Zinc No WI12 Not currently defined MOE-PCBS 2004 Chromium (Total), Nickel No WI13 Not currently defined MOE-PCBS 2004 Chromium (Total) No WI14 2 MOE-BESR 2008 Benzene, Ethylbenzene No 48.6 Low WI15 2 MOE-BESR 2007 Benzene, Ethylbenzene No 48.6 Low

182 A.H. Weeks Water Treatment Plant West Intake Summary of Results Sampling Location Sampling Program IPZ Sampling Year Sediment Parameters found to be Conditions WI1 2 EC-TSS 2001 Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, WI2 Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Chromium (Total), Not currently MOE-GLMP 2001 Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, Fluoranthene, defined Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Zinc WI3 2 EC-GLBSS 1970 Cadmium, Copper, DDE, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Silver 1974 Cadmium, DDE, DDT, Mercury WI4 Not currently defined WI5 Not currently defined Contributing Offsite Risk Score Threat Level No 48.6 Low No EC-GLBSS 1974 Cadmium, DDE, DDT, Mercury No EC-LRSS 2001 Anthracene, Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3- cd)pyrene, Lead, Phenanthrene, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Pyrene, Silver, Zinc No WI6 2 EC-LRSS 2001 DDE No 48.6 Low WI7 2 EC-LRSS 2001 DDE, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) No 48.6 Low WI8 2 EC-LRSS 2001 DDD No 48.6 Low WI9 2 EC-LRSS 2001 DDD, DDE, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) No 48.6 Low WI10 2 EC-LRSS 2001 WI11 Not currently defined MOE-PCBS 2004 Chlordane, DDD, DDE, DDT, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Arsenic, Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(a)Pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Cadmium, Chromium (Total), Chrysene, Copper, Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene, Fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Phenanthrene, Pyrene, Zinc No 48.6 No 48.6 Low No WI12 Not currently defined MOE-PCBS 2004 Chromium (Total), Nickel No WI13 Not currently defined MOE-PCBS 2004 Chromium (Total) No WI14 2 MOE-BESR 2008 Benzene, Ethylbenzene No 48.6 Low WI15 2 MOE-BESR 2007 Benzene, Ethylbenzene No 48.6 Low Low

183 Harrow-Colchester South Water Treatment Plant Summary of Results Sampling Location HC1 HC2 HC3 IPZ Not currently defined Not currently defined Not currently defined Sampling Program HC4 2 MOE-GLMP Sampling Year EC-GLBSS 1971 EC-GLBSS 1971 EC-GLBSS Sediment Parameters found to be Conditions Cadmium, Copper, DDE, DDT, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Zinc Cadmium, Copper, DDE, DDT, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Silver, Zinc Cadmium, Copper, DDE, DDT, Dieldrin, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Silver, Zinc Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Cadmium, Chrysene, Copper, DDT, Endrin, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Mercury, Nickel Benzo(a)Anthracene, Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene, Benzo(k)Fluoranthene, Chrysene, Copper, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene, Mercury, Nickel Contributing Offsite Risk Score Threat Level No No No No West Shore Water Supply System (Pelee Island) Summary of Results Sampling Location PI1 IPZ Sampling Program Sampling Year Sediment Parameters found to be Conditions Contributing Offsite Risk Score Not currently defined EC-GLBSS 1971 Cadmium, DDT, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) No PI2 2 EC-GLBSS 1971 Cadmium, DDT, Nickel No Threat Level

184 ESSEX REGION SOURCE PROTECTION AREA CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Appendix 4.5 Potential Sources of Conditions

185 Potential Sources for Conditions Element Sampling Locations Property Information Arsenic WI-1 Wastewater Treatment Plant: City of Windsor - Little River Pollution Control Plant (NPRI ID 4755) Cadmium WI-1, WI Little River Road Wastewater Treatment Plant: City of Windsor - Little River Pollution Control Plant (NPRI ID 4755) 9400 Little River Road Auto Parts Manufacturing: Chromium Copper WI-1, WI-2, WI-11, WI-12, WI-13 WI-1, WI-2, WI-11 Nemak of Canada Corporation - Essex Aluminum Plant (NPRI ID 1269) 6500 Cantelon Drive Auto Parts Manufacturing: Ground Effects - Main Facility (NPRI ID 11096) 4505 Rhodes Drive Tool and Die Facility: B and B Tool and Mould Limited (NPRI ID 4615) 3245 North Talbot Road Auto Parts Manufacturing: Linamar Corporation - Exkor Manufacturing (NPRI ID 10937) 3590 Valtec Court Auto Parts Manufacturing: Essex Engine Plant (NPRI ID 3886) Lead Nickel Zinc WI-1, WI-11 WI-1, WI-2, WI-11, WI-12 WI-1, WI-2, WI-11 1 Quality Way Auto Parts Manufacturing: Nemak of Canada Corporation - Essex Aluminum Plant (NPRI ID 1269) 6500 Cantelon Drive Wastewater Treatment Plant: City of Windsor - Little River Pollution Control Plant (NPRI ID 4755) 9400 Little River Road Auto Parts Manufacturing: Nemak of Canada Corporation - Essex Aluminum Plant (NPRI ID 1269) 6500 CANTELON Drive Auto Parts Manufacturing: Nemak of Canada Corporation - Essex Aluminum Plant (NPRI ID 1269) 6500 Cantelon Drive Auto Parts Manufacturing: Ground Effects - Main Facility (NPRI ID 11096) 4505 Rhodes Drive Auto Parts Manufacturing: Nemak of Canada Corporation - Essex Aluminum Plant (NPRI ID 1269) 6500 Cantelon Drive Auto Parts Manufacturing: Essex Engine Plant (NPRI ID 3886) 1 Quality Way

186 Issues Analysis Technical Memorandum Escherichia coli Escherichia coli analysis for the Amherstburg Water Treatment Plant Draft February 2011

187 ISSUES ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ESCHERICHIA COLI Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND SCOPE STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS PREVIOUS ISSUES IDENTIFICATION WORK DATA COLLECTION INTRODUCTION WATER QUALITY REPORTS ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION RAW WATER QUALITY DATA ANALYSIS SUMMARY CONCLUSION REFERENCES List of Tables Table 4.1: E. coli Raw Water Quality Analysis Summary List of Figures Figure 4.1: Amherstburg WTP Percent E. coli Sampling Results Figure 4.2: Amherstburg WTP Maximum E. coli Values Appendix APPENDIX 1.1: ISSUES EVALUATION WORK PLAN APPENDIX 4.1: E. COLI RAW WATER QUALITY DATA i

188 ISSUES ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ESCHERICHIA COLI 1.0 Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) was retained by the Essex Region Conservation Authority (ERCA), to further address Escherichia coli (E. coli) as a potential water quality issue previously identified within the Essex Region Source Protection Area (ERSPA). This technical memorandum (TM) is intended to: Evaluate recent DWSP data; Confirm previously reported issues; Review available data for source loadings; Review available information to provide insight into potential sources; and Identify natural and/or anthropogenic sources of parameters. The Issues Evaluation Work Plan (Stantec, 2010a) identified the tasks and requirements for this work and is included in Appendix STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS This document has been prepared exclusively for the use of the client and the project identified herein. The material herein reflects Stantec's professional judgment given the information available at the time of preparation and the requirements of the Clean Water Act, Source Water Protection Regulation, and guidance from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Recommendations presented in this report should not be construed as legal advice. 1.1

189 ISSUES ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ESCHERICHIA COLI 2.0 Previous Issues Identification Work Potential raw water quality issues were previously identified in the Stantec report Phase 2 Issues Identification Technical Memorandum dated January 2010 (Phase 2 report). The Phase 2 report identified E. coli as a drinking water quality issue for the Amherstburg water treatment plant (WTP). This parameter may be attributed to both natural and anthropogenic sources. The source of this parameter, whether it is natural and/or anthropogenic, was unknown at the time of reporting. This TM builds upon previous work to determine if the concentrations present in the source water are being solely or mostly contributed to by anthropogenic sources. 2.1

190 ISSUES ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ESCHERICHIA COLI 3.0 Data Collection 3.1 INTRODUCTION Public and private data sources were accessed in order to complete the required work tasks. Several of these data sources were provided by the Town of Lakeshore while others were accessed through publicly available resources. The following is a compilation of data sources utilized by Stantec for this report. This section describes the data sources and in what capacity they were used. 3.2 WATER QUALITY Drinking Water Surveillance Program (DWSP): DWSP is a voluntary program operated by the MOE in cooperation with municipalities to gather scientific data on drinking water quality in Ontario. DWSP data contains most of the parameters listed in the provincial standards, guidelines and objectives and its samples are representative of raw water at the intakes. DWSP is a voluntary program operated by the MOE since 1986 in cooperation with municipalities to provide data on drinking water quality in Ontario. Participating WTPs provide samples of raw and treated water from the WTP on a quarterly basis to the MOE for analyses. The MOE provides complete analytical support to the program. Data collected by DWSP is used to monitor contaminant levels and trends in raw and finished water, define and track the occurrence of new contaminants, provide data in support of standard setting and to assess treatment efficiency (MOE, 2005). Un-summarized (actual results rather than average values) sample DWSP data were provided by the individual municipalities. 3.3 REPORTS Annual Reports: Where available, annual STP reports were reviewed for effluent exceedances and potential treatment concerns. Certificates of Approval (CofA): CofAs were reviewed to determine the processes and chemicals that may be used at the Lou Romano Water Reclamation Plant (WRP), Edgewater Beach Lagoon, and the Amherstburg Water Pollution Control Plant. 3.1

191 ISSUES ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ESCHERICHIA COLI 4.0 Analysis 4.1 INTRODUCTION E. coli is a member of the total coliform group of bacteria and is the only member that is found exclusively in the faeces of humans and other warm blooded animals (FDA, 2009). Its presence in water indicates not only recent faecal contamination of source waters but also the possible presence of intestinal disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and protozoa (Health Canada, 2008). This parameter is inherently present in raw source waters and is monitored as part of each WTP drinking water intake sampling program. Elevated levels of E. coli were identified in the Phase 2 report as a water quality issue at the Amherstburg WTP. 4.2 RAW WATER QUALITY DATA ANALYSIS Additional DWSP data for was reviewed for the Amherstburg WTP. During the analysis it was determined that E. coli levels were dramatically reduced post Table 4.1 summarizes the yearly E.coli results. Table 4.1: E. coli Raw Water Quality Analysis Summary Sampling Dates WTP Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value (CFU/100mL) Number of Samples Number of Exceedances Maximum Recorded Value (CFU/100mL) Amherstburg (63%) (19%)

192 ISSUES ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ESCHERICHIA COLI Analysis February 8, 2011 Figure 4.1 illustrates yearly E. coli counts. Figure 4.2 illustrates the maximum recorded E. coli value by year. 80% Percent E. coli samples above 100 cfu/100ml 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2002 n= n= n= n= n= n= n= n= n=43 Figure 4.1: Amherstburg WTP Percent E. coli Sampling Results 4.2

193 ISSUES ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ESCHERICHIA COLI Analysis February 8, 2011 Maximum E. coli value by year Amherstburg WTP cfu/100 ml n= n= n= n= n= n= n= n=43 Figure 4.2: Amherstburg WTP Maximum E. coli Values The City of Windsor is currently in the process of constructing a riverfront retention treatment basin intended to reduce bypass events in the area of combined sewers within the City of Windsor. This project may result in improved water quality of the Detroit River and subsequent reductions in the levels of E. coli and other surface water contaminants (Stantec, 2008b). 4.3 SUMMARY CONCLUSION Based on the analysis of the new data provided, it is recommended that E. coli no longer be considered a drinking water quality issue for the Amherstburg WTP. 4.3

194 ISSUES ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ESCHERICHIA COLI 5.0 References Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Enumeration of Esherishia coli and the Coliform Bacteria. Accessed April 21, Stantec Consulting Ltd, 2010a Issues Evaluation Work Plan. May 21, Stantec Consulting Ltd, 2010b. Phase 2 Issues Identification Technical Memorandum January Stantec Consulting Ltd, 2008a. Town of Lakeshore Water & Wastewater Master Plan.October Stantec Consulting Ltd, 2008b. Windsor Riverfront Retention Treatment Basin Class EA Environmental Study Report. September

195 ISSUES ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ESCHERICHIA COLI Appendix 1.1: Issues Evaluation Work Plan

196 Memo To: Stan Taylor From: Gary Deonarine ERCA London ON Office File: /521 Date: May 21, 2010 Reference: Issues Evaluation Work Plan The intent of this memo is to provide ERCA with an additional work scope to address potential issues identified within the ERCA Source Water Protection area pertaining to surface water sources. BACKGROUND Potential source water issues were identified in the Stantec report Phase 2 Issues Identification Technical Memorandum, dated January 2010 (Phase 2 report). The ERSPC approved benchmarks and methodology to undertake issues evaluations are provided in the Proposed Issues Evaluation Methodology, Version 2.0. The basis for this work plan considers the guidelines from the approved methodology. The Phase 2 report identified the drinking water quality issues provided in Table A: Table A: Summary of the Essex Region and Surrounding Area WTPs Identified Drinking Water Quality Issues Stoney Point Belle River A.H. Weeks Amherstburg Harrow Colchester Union Area Wheatley WTP* WTP WTP WTP WTP South WTP WTP Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Aluminum Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Turbidity Organic nitrogen Organic Nitrogen Iron Organic nitrogen Organic nitrogen E. coli Organic nitrogen Organic nitrogen Turbidity *Wheatley WTP does not participate in DWSP and therefore analysis was conducted on available data provided by the Utilities Commission. Available parameters analyzed were E. coli, total coliforms, colour, ph, turbidity, and temperature. The parameters that were provided may be attributed to both naturally occurring conditions and anthropogenic sources. The effort outlined in this work plan targets desktop investigation additional to that completed to date to determine if the concentrations present in the source water are being solely or mostly contributed to by anthropogenic sources. The client group has identified that field work is not an option to

197 May 21, 2010 Stan Taylor Page 2 of 7 Reference: Issues Evaluation Work Plan determine sources of issues at this time and as such the work is based upon a desktop analysis. The following issues parameters require additional study to provide insight as to potential sources of each issue: Aluminum; Turbidity; Organic nitrogen; Iron; and E. coli. Operations staff for the study area WTPs identified concerns regarding ammonia and algae. These parameters will also be investigated. WORK PLAN FOR IDENTIFIED ISSUES PARAMETERS The issues that have been identified to date require further work to determine the source of each issue. A preliminary work scope for each parameter is presented below that may be implemented for the WTPs presented in Table A. ALUMINUM The origin of aluminum in source water may be greatly attributed to geomorphology of lake beds and watercourses. These preambrosia levels for Great Lakes and some watersheds have been defined in general terms through publications. On a local scale to ERCA, monitoring and data review by staff members. Our understanding of WTP and WWTP operations indicate that aluminum-based coagulants may be contributing to levels identified in source water. Other industrial sources may exist in the study area. In general our work to review possible sources of aluminum may include the following: Review of publications and articles (including USEPA and MDEQ) on the geomorphological input of aluminum in Great Lakes and the ERCA watershed; Review of ERCA internal works on watercourse aluminum loadings; Investigation of MISA discharges in the study area and correlate any discharges with the watercourse aluminum loadings review to identify any linkages to anthropogenic sources; Discuss with client working group known sources of aluminum discharges;

198 May 21, 2010 Stan Taylor Page 3 of 7 Reference: Issues Evaluation Work Plan Review of MPAC, NPRI, CWWA, and integrate with existing Stantec threats database to identify any potential sources of land-based aluminum; Review of WTP processes and aluminum-based coagulants. Identify whether residuals management programs and processes are in place and efficacy of the system; and Identify SPP outfalls and aluminum-based coagulant loadings where possible. ORGANIC NITROGEN Our work in other Source Protection Planning jurisdictions have identified that organic nitrogen is present at concentrations above the issues identification benchmarks. These results have been identified in Lake Huron (upper reach) as well as Lake Erie, Welland Canal, Niagara River, and Lake Ontario. In order to qualify this as an issue specific to the ERSPA, further research is required. This work may include the following: Undertake a literature review of publications and articles (including USEPA and MDEQ) on natural loadings of organic nitrogen in Great Lakes and the ERCA watershed; Review work undertaken by ERCA staff, if any, on organic nitrogen loadings in watercourses. Gather any information available from ERCA on organic nitrogen sampling; Review anthropogenic locations that may contribute organic nitrogen to source water (eg: WWTPs, processing plants); and Identify the persistence of organic nitrogen, seasonal trending. TURBIDITY This parameter has been identified as an issue to date based upon issues evaluation benchmark exceedences and upward trending. Discussions with WTP operations staff identified that occurrences of high turbidity affect plant capacity to various degrees which is dependent on the treatment technology, the severity of wind/wave action, and/or precipitation. To qualify turbidity as an issue through a more developed understanding of the origin of the parameter and correlations with natural environmental conditions, the follow work may be performed: Undertake data collection for: o Detailed WTP turbidity information (SCADA turbidimeter readings); o Local weather station precipitation data near study area WTPs;

199 May 21, 2010 Stan Taylor Page 4 of 7 Reference: Issues Evaluation Work Plan o Local wind direction and wind speed data near study area WTPs; o Discussion with modeling team results from delineation exercise and additional information/predictions that may be pertinent; and o Runoff information for study area watercourses. Assimilate information and undertake numerous data correlations of turbidity/wind speed and wind direction/precipitation/runoff. These analyses may identify whether elevation in turbidity levels are caused by: IRON Open lake processes and water column mixing of lake bottom and suspended sediments. These may be seasonal events such as spring freshet events; Runoff from watercourses identifying natural erosion and/or anthropogenic discharges (GIS mapping of sewage pumping stations, combined sewer, storm sewer outfalls, industrial discharges to watercourses); This parameter is typically present in surface water at low concentrations based upon the geomorphology of lake bed and catchment river beds. Anthropogenic sources such as industrial discharges may contribute to elevated concentrations in source water. It may be evident that iron based coagulants in WTP and WWTP processes are discharged through plant residuals and treated effluents. Our work to determine the source(s) of iron include the following tasks: ALGAE Literature review of iron in surface waters and upper watersheds using local, provincial and federal sources; Identify WTP and WWTP discharge locations in the study area; Identify the type of coagulants for WTPs and WWTPs; Undertake a parcel lookup for land based activities that may handle and/or discharge aqueous iron; and Using available information predict whether iron discharges from anthropogenic sources may be impacting the raw water at WTP intakes. In August 2009 a significant algal bloom occurred in the western Lake Erie basin. A program was initiated during fall of 2009 where positive results for cyanobacteria were identified in raw water at WTP intakes. Extensive work has been conducted by the MOE and EC on algae growth in the Great Lakes. Potential factors driving

200 May 21, 2010 Stan Taylor Page 5 of 7 Reference: Issues Evaluation Work Plan cyanobacteria production are ph, phosphorus, and temperature. It is our understanding that ERCA staff has been undertaking a study on recent blooms in western Lake Erie. Our work may include the following: Literature review of algae through MOE, EC, USEPA, CCIW, IJC; Collection of phosphorus, temperature, ph data, and cyanobacteria sampling; Examination of any preliminary yet logical trends identified. This parameter may not require identification as an issue as this may be a relatively local and short-lived occurrence. Additional work is required in the future. This work may provide background and a starting point for analysis. E.COLI This parameter is inherently present in raw source waters and is monitored as part of each WTP drinking water intake sampling program. Elevated levels have been identified at few WTPs in the study area. Our program would include: Additional review of WTP specific pathogen data; Parcel inventory for industrial, agricultural, and residential (septic) discharges; Review information on any microbial source tracking, watercourse loadings work completed to date; and Identify sources of parameter loading. The bulk source of this parameter may not originate from anthropogenic sources as this parameter typically relates to natural environmental conditions. Our review may provide this information. AMMONIA Ammonia was not identified as an issue yet further investigation was recommended since raw water information was limited pertaining to ammonia (ionized and un-ionized). The presence of ammonia was identified through the analysis of limited raw water quality information as well as discussions with WTP operations staff. The WTPs identify elevated levels of ammonia in raw water when process chlorine demand increases rapidly. Operations may predict chlorine demand events by storm events and wind/wave action. Wind direction has a direct influence on local discharge and outfall plumes. WWTP effluents may be directly related to increased concentrations of ammonia in source water. The following work may be undertaken to provide a better understanding of the concentration and source of ammonia in source water:

201 May 21, 2010 Stan Taylor Page 6 of 7 Reference: Issues Evaluation Work Plan Undertake data collection WTP ammonia sampling/monitoring, WWTP effluent discharge review and location of discharge; Review of event conditions where typical spikes in ammonia are identified by WTP operations; Review of any information available from local/provincial/federal sources on potential sources of ammonia in watersheds and Great Lakes; and Undertake a review of available information and qualify issue. BUDGET TO UNDERTAKE ISSUES WORK Evaluation of each WTP and their associated issues may be undertaken on an individual basis. Results will be compared such that correlations of parameters and spatial locations may be completed. The client group has identified that turbidity analysis is required only at the A.H. Weeks WTP and Union WTP at this time. The West Shore WSS (Pelee Island WTP) has limited available information for the analysis of drinking water quality issues. Where information may become available through monitoring programs, gathering of historical process information, and records of any sampling conducted to date, the issues evaluation may be undertaken with greater confidence. Concerns identified at Pelee Island include; ammonia, E.coli, algae, and pesticides from local operations. A cost has been allocated to create a basis of information, preliminary review of available information, and data gap analysis. Table B provides a cost breakdown for each by parameter. Table B: Cost Estimate (less GST/HST) Parameter Estimated Cost Aluminum $ 4, Turbidity $ 9, Organic nitrogen $ 4, Iron $ 1, E. coli $ 2, Algae $ 2, Ammonia $ 2, Report preparation $ 7, Total Cost $ 34,890.00

202 May 21, 2010 Stan Taylor Page 7 of 7 Reference: Issues Evaluation Work Plan The fee provided in the above table represents estimated costs to undertake analysis for each identified drinking water issue. If you have any questions with this work scope, please contact the undersigned. Regards, STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. Gary Deonarine, EIT Project Coordinator gary.deonarine@stantec.com Attachment:

203 ISSUES ANALYSIS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ESCHERICHIA COLI Appendix 4.1: E. coli Raw Water Quality Data

204 Essex Region Source Protection Area E. coli analysis for the Amherstburg WTP Daily Process Data - Issues Amherstburg Water Treatment Plant Raw Water/Microbiological E Coli (cfu/100ml) PARAMETER Recreational Standard (CFU/100mL) 0.50 RS 0.25 RS 0.10 RS SAMPLE DATE CURRENT DWSP DETECTION LIMIT (CFU/100ML) RESULT VALUE (CFU/100ML) Above RS Above 0.50 RS Above 0.25 RS ESCHERICHIA COLI Oct Oct Nov Nov Nov Nov Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr May May May Jun Jun Jun Jun Jul Above 0.10 RS

205 Essex Region Source Protection Area E. coli analysis for the Amherstburg WTP PARAMETER Recreational Standard (CFU/100mL) 0.50 RS 0.25 RS 0.10 RS SAMPLE DATE CURRENT DWSP DETECTION LIMIT (CFU/100ML) RESULT VALUE (CFU/100ML) Above RS Above 0.50 RS Above 0.25 RS Jul Jul Jul Jul Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep Sep Oct Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov Nov Nov Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Apr Apr Apr Apr Aug May-04 0 <10 < May Above 0.10 RS

206 Essex Region Source Protection Area E. coli analysis for the Amherstburg WTP PARAMETER Recreational Standard (CFU/100mL) 0.50 RS 0.25 RS 0.10 RS SAMPLE DATE CURRENT DWSP DETECTION LIMIT (CFU/100ML) RESULT VALUE (CFU/100ML) Above RS Above 0.50 RS Above 0.25 RS May May-04 0 <10 < Jun Jun-04 0 <10 < Jun Jun Jun Jul Jul Jul Jul Aug Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep Sep Sep Oct-04 0 <20 < Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Dec Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar Mar Above 0.10 RS

207 Essex Region Source Protection Area E. coli analysis for the Amherstburg WTP PARAMETER Recreational Standard (CFU/100mL) 0.50 RS 0.25 RS 0.10 RS SAMPLE DATE CURRENT DWSP DETECTION LIMIT (CFU/100ML) RESULT VALUE (CFU/100ML) Above RS Above 0.50 RS Above 0.25 RS Mar Mar Apr Apr Apr Apr May-05 0 <20 < May May May May Jun Jun Jun Jun Jul Jul Jul Jul Aug-05 0 <20 < Aug-05 0 <20 < Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep Sep Sep Oct Oct-05 0 <20 < Oct Oct Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov Dec Dec Dec Dec-05 0 >400 > Jan Jan Above 0.10 RS

208 Essex Region Source Protection Area E. coli analysis for the Amherstburg WTP PARAMETER Recreational Standard (CFU/100mL) 0.50 RS 0.25 RS 0.10 RS SAMPLE DATE CURRENT DWSP DETECTION LIMIT (CFU/100ML) RESULT VALUE (CFU/100ML) Above RS Above 0.50 RS Above 0.25 RS Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar Mar Mar Apr-06 0 <2 < Apr Apr Apr May May May May-06 0 <10 < May Jun Jun Jun Jun Jul Jul Jul Jul-06 0 <4 < Jul Aug Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep Sep Sep Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Nov Above 0.10 RS

209 Essex Region Source Protection Area E. coli analysis for the Amherstburg WTP PARAMETER Recreational Standard (CFU/100mL) 0.50 RS 0.25 RS 0.10 RS SAMPLE DATE CURRENT DWSP DETECTION LIMIT (CFU/100ML) RESULT VALUE (CFU/100ML) Above RS Above 0.50 RS Above 0.25 RS Nov Nov Nov Dec Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar Mar Apr Apr Apr Apr May May May May May Jun Jun Jun Jun Jul Jul Jul Jul Jul Aug Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep Above 0.10 RS

210 Essex Region Source Protection Area E. coli analysis for the Amherstburg WTP PARAMETER Recreational Standard (CFU/100mL) 0.50 RS 0.25 RS 0.10 RS SAMPLE DATE CURRENT DWSP DETECTION LIMIT (CFU/100ML) RESULT VALUE (CFU/100ML) Above RS Above 0.50 RS Above 0.25 RS Sep Sep Oct Oct Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov Nov Nov Dec Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar Mar Mar Apr Apr Apr Apr Apr May May May May Jun Jun Jun Jun Jul Jul Above 0.10 RS

211 Essex Region Source Protection Area E. coli analysis for the Amherstburg WTP PARAMETER Recreational Standard (CFU/100mL) 0.50 RS 0.25 RS 0.10 RS SAMPLE DATE CURRENT DWSP DETECTION LIMIT (CFU/100ML) RESULT VALUE (CFU/100ML) Above RS Above 0.50 RS Above 0.25 RS Jul Jul Jul Aug Aug Aug Aug Sep Sep Sep Sep Sep Oct Oct Oct Oct Nov Nov Nov Nov Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb Feb-09 0 <50.0 < Feb-09 0 <50.0 < Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar Apr Apr Apr Apr May Above 0.10 RS

212 Essex Region Source Protection Area E. coli analysis for the Amherstburg WTP PARAMETER Recreational Standard (CFU/100mL) 0.50 RS 0.25 RS 0.10 RS SAMPLE DATE CURRENT DWSP DETECTION LIMIT (CFU/100ML) RESULT VALUE (CFU/100ML) Above RS Above 0.50 RS Above 0.25 RS May-09 0 <50.0 < May-09 0 <50.0 < May Jun Jun-09 0 <50.0 < Jun Jun Jun Jul-09 0 <50.0 < Jul-09 0 <50.0 < Jul-09 0 <50.0 < Jul-09 0 <50.0 < Aug Aug Aug Aug Sep-09 0 <50.0 < Sep Sep Sep Sep Oct-09 0 <50.0 < Oct Oct-09 0 <50.0 < Oct Nov Nov Nov Nov Dec-09 0 <50.0 < Dec Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan Jan-10 0 <50.0 < Jan Feb Feb-10 0 <50.0 < Feb-10 0 <50.0 < Feb-10 0 <50.0 < Mar-10 0 <50.0 < Above 0.10 RS

213 Essex Region Source Protection Area E. coli analysis for the Amherstburg WTP PARAMETER Recreational Standard (CFU/100mL) 0.50 RS 0.25 RS 0.10 RS SAMPLE DATE CURRENT DWSP DETECTION LIMIT (CFU/100ML) RESULT VALUE (CFU/100ML) Above RS Above 0.50 RS Above 0.25 RS Above 0.10 RS Mar Mar Mar-10 0 <50.0 < Mar Apr Apr-10 0 <50.0 < Apr-10 0 <50.0 < Apr-10 0 <50.0 < May-10 0 <50.0 < May May May-10 0 <50.0 < Jun-10 0 <50.0 < Jun Jun-10 0 <50.0 < Jun-10 0 <50.0 < Jun-10 0 <50.0 < Jul-10 0 <50.0 < Jul-10 0 <50.0 < Jul Jul-10 0 <50.0 < Aug Aug-10 0 <50.0 < Aug Aug-10 0 <50.0 < Aug-10 0 <50.0 < Sep-10 0 <50.0 < Sep Sep Sep Oct-10 0 <50.0 < Oct Oct-10 0 <50.0 < Oct-10 0 <50.0 <

214 2010 E.coli Monitoring Study Amherstburg WTP Intake and Surrounding Study Area Prepared for: Essex Region Source Protection Committee Prepared by: Raj Bejankiwar February 07, 2011

215 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Background 3 2. Objectives 3 3. Study Area and Methodology 3 4. Results and Discussion E.coli Levels at the Amherstburg WTP Intake E.coli Results for the Entire Study Area 7 5. Conclusions Recommendations 11 References 12 Appendices Appendix I (Tables A J): Water Quality Date Sets for Individual Sampling Sites in the Study Area. Appendix II: Issues Evaluation Protocol for the Essex region Source Protection Area 92009) 2

216 Draft Report on E.coli Monitoring at the Amherstburg Water Treatment Plant Intake 1. BACKGROUND The 2008 Draft Assessment Report 1 for the Essex Region Source Protection Area identified an E.coli issue at the raw water intake of the Amherstburg Water Treatment Plant (WTP). Other drinking water quality issues identified at this intake included aluminum, turbidity and organic nitrogen. These issues were identified as per Rule 114 (Technical Rules: Assessment Report, 2009) and evaluated using the Issues Evaluation Protocol 2 (November 2008) which was developed in consultation with the Thames-Sydenham Source Protection Area and Stantec Consulting Ltd. The Technical Rule 115 of the Clean Water Act (2006) 3 dictates that the SPA should attempt to determine whether the issue is fully or partially caused by an anthropogenic activity(s) prior to designating it as an issue. Once the parameter of concern is identified as an issue, attributed to anthropogenic sources, the SPA must delineate the issue contributing area (ICA) as per Rule 115 (3). In order to identify potential point and non-point sources of E.coli that may contribute to the issue of E.coli at the Amherstburg WTP Intake, and to understand the potential ICA, a comprehensive short-term water quality monitoring study was conducted from May 2010 to November This report describes in detail, the methodology of sampling, data analyses and results and conclusions of the above mentioned study. 2. OBJECTIVES The main objectives of this study were to: Assess E.coli levels in the surrounding water contributing areas of the intake; and Assess current E.coli levels at the intake against Issues Evaluation Protocol. 3. STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY The study area was situated primarily upstream, and partly downstream, of the Amherstburg WTP intake in the Detroit River (Figure 1). The upstream portion extends around x km north of the intake including the discharge point of Lou Romano Water Reclamation (wastewater treatment Plant in Windsor, while the downstream portion of the study area extends around 400 m south of the Amherstburg water intake. This study involved water quality sampling at 10 sites, out of those 9 were located in the Detroit River while one site was in the Canard River around 500 m upstream of the mouth (Figure 1). These sites were selected based on general knowledge of potential sources or discharges of microbial contamination in the study area, as well as accessibility of those sites by field staff. 3

217 4