Tshreport,2005 by Hamilton Harbour

P r o g r e s s To w a r d D e l i s t i n g WATER QUALITY

Toward Safe Harbours 2005

Toward Safe Harbours Progress Toward Delisting - Water Quality 2005

Prepared by: BARC Monitoring Committee BARC Monitoring Committee Chair: Andrew Sebestyen Report Writer: Jennifer Parkin June 2005

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Parkin, Jennifer. Toward Safe Harbours: Progress Toward Delisting - Water Quality / prepared by the BARC Monitoring Committee ; BARC Monitoring Committee Chair, Andrew Sebestyen; Report Writer, Jennifer Parkin.

Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-9736190-1-5

First Published: June 2005 73 Pages

For more information contact: Bay Area Restoration Council B130F - Life Sciences Building 1280 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1 Canada Tel: Fax: Email: Web:

(905) 527-7111 (905) 522-6066 barc@hamiltonharbour.ca www.hamiltonharbour.ca

ON THE COVER Left:

Preparing to take a Secchi disk measurement of water clarity (Photo - RAP Office) Centre: Admiring the view of Hamilton Harbour (Photo - Spirit of Nature) Right: Collecting water samples (Photo - Spirit of Nature)

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

PREFACE The primary focus of this report is to evaluate current monitoring programs associated with each water quality delisting objective and determine if there will be enough information available to delist Hamilton Harbour as an Area of Concern. Less focus is placed on the current status and trends of each delisting objective; this information can be obtained by consulting the Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour: Stage 2 Update 2002, available online at www.hamiltonharbour.ca/rap. This report and its conclusions were prepared using information available to the BARC Monitoring Committee during the time period of September 2004 - March 2005. While we attempted to be as complete as possible, we recognize that some monitoring programs, projects or activities may have been missed. Any omitted information should be brought to the attention of the Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC) using the contact information on the inside front cover of the report. In 2004, the RAP Technical Team published a report entitled 1996-2002 Contaminant Loadings and Concentrations to Hamilton Harbour. This document was a key source of information in the preparation of this report. It details actual (or measured) loadings from the wastewater treatment plants and steel mills and estimated (or modelled) loadings from combined sewer overflows, urban runoff, creeks and Cootes Paradise. It provided useful information in determining the suitability of current monitoring programs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was put together through the dedication of volunteers who comprise the BARC Monitoring Committee: Andrew Sebestyen (chair) David Gale Bruce Gall Martin Keller Craig McGinlay Roland Weiler Brian McCarry John Hall (resource) Kristin O'Connor (resource) Jennifer Parkin (writer)

Stelco Hamilton, and BARC Director Conservation Halton Aldershot Community Council BARC Treasurer Dofasco BARC President McMaster University Hamilton Harbour RAP Office Hamilton Harbour RAP Office BARC Intern

BARC would like to thank the individuals interviewed for this report: Mark Bainbridge, Duncan Boyd, Murray Charlton, David Gale, Philip Kelly, Troy Leyburne, Eric Mathews, Craig McGinlay, Andrew Sebestyen, George Stojanovic, and T每s The每sme每er. BARC is grateful for the funding assistance provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (through the Science and Technology Youth Internship Program), which supported the hiring of a staff person to write and edit this report.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

ABOUT THE BAY AREA RESTORATION COUNCIL The Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC) is at the centre of efforts to restore and protect the environmental health of Hamilton Harbour and its watershed. A community non-profit group incorporated in 1991, one of BARC's roles is monitoring and assessing the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Involving the community in Harbour issues requires public participation and membership support. The Bay Area Restoration Council promotes the RAP through school programs, public meetings, resource materials and newsletter up-dates, as well as providing advice to governments and coordinating popular community planting events. Together with its partners and members, the Bay Area Restoration Council is Bringing Back the Bay! For more information visit BARC's website at www.hamiltonharbour.ca .

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction . . . . Conclusions . . . . Recommendations

. . . .

v v v vi

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Hamilton Harbour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 The International Joint Commission . . 1.3 Areas of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Beneficial Use Impairments . . . . . . . . 1.5 Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan

. . . . .

. . . . . .

1 2 3 3 3 4

2. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3. EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY BUIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 BUI (viii) - Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae . . . . . 3.1.1 Background and Current Status . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairment . . . 3.1.3 Current Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.4 Gaps in Information and Monitoring . . . . . . . 3.1.5 Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . 3.2 BUI (ix) - Restrictions on Drinking Water Consumption or Taste and Odour Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Background and Current Status . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairment . . . 3.2.3 Current Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Gaps in Information and Monitoring . . . . . . . 3.2.5 Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . 3.3 BUI (x) - Beach Closings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Background and Current Status . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairment . . . 3.3.3 Current Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 Gaps in Information and Monitoring . . . . . . . 3.3.5 Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . 3.4 BUI (xi) - Degradation of Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.1 Background and Current Status . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairment . . . 3.4.3 Current Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4.4 Gaps in Information and Monitoring . . . . . . . 3.4.5 Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . 3.5 BUI (xii) - Added Cost to Agriculture or Industry . . . . 3.5.1 Background and Current Status . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairment . . . 3.5.3 Current Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.4 Gaps in Information and Monitoring . . . . . . . 3.5.5 Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . .

iii

. . . . . . .

. 7 . 8 . 9 14 14 18 20

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 25 26 26 26 27 29 29 30 31 31 31 33 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 35 36 36 36

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

4. GENERAL COMMENTS ON DELISTING OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5. TRENDS AND EMERGING ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Appendix B - Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1 Appendix C - Acronyms and Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1 Appendix D - Interview Schedule and Contact Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

LIST OF TABLES Chart 1.

Percentage of E. coli samples that resulted in beach closings for Lake Ontario and Hamilton Harbour beaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Chart 2.

List of Recommendations by BUI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Toward Safe Harbours: Progress Toward Delisting - Water Quality is the third in a four part series dedicated to determining what evidence Hamilton Harbour stakeholders will need to delist Hamilton Harbour as an Area of Concern.

Introduction In 1987 Hamilton Harbour was declared an "Area of Concern" on the Great Lakes. Beach closings, degraded fish and wildlife populations, excess algae and contaminated sediment were among the reasons this area was identified along with 42 other locations on the Great Lakes as requiring a special clean-up effort. This classification was based on Annex 2 of a joint Canada-U.S. treaty called the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (1987). It identified 14 Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI) that are considered indicators of degraded ecosystem health. The associated delisting objectives of the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP) describe the environmental conditions necessary to declare the Harbour restored. For this report, the Hamilton Harbour RAP water quality delisting objectives (viii)-(xii) were examined and analysed by a group of volunteers and technical assistants who comprise the Monitoring Committee of the Bay Area Restoration Council. The aim of this report is to understand the evidence needed to delist Hamilton Harbour as an Area of Concern. The information was collected primarily by in-person interviews with representatives from various agencies performing monitoring in Hamilton Harbour. This report summarizes monitoring information available and makes key recommendations based on the information obtained.

Conclusions In this report, the Bay Area Restoration Council evaluated the programs in place to monitor the Beneficial Use Impairments related to water quality. We conclude that if current activities continue, there will be sufficient data for most BUIs to evaluate the progress and prepare the RAP Stage 3 Report. However, there are a few gaps that need to be addressed (see Recommendations below), so that Hamilton Harbour can be delisted as an Area of Concern by 2015. The most detailed of the Beneficial Use Impairments is BUI (viii), which deals with eutrophication (undesirable algae). It requires the most monitoring information in order to be considered restored. There is sufficient monitoring of the wastewater treatment plant and industrial inputs to the Harbour; however more work is needed to determine the estimated loadings from the streams and the combined sewer overflows (CSOs). Three questions guided the preparation of the Toward Safe Harbours report of 2005. The questions and findings follow:

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Executive Summary

1. Will we be able to satisfy the decision-makers that researchers have been measuring the correct indicators in Hamilton Harbour to meet RAP Stage 3 criteria? For most of the Beneficial Use Impairments, yes. The results of the upcoming review of the RAP water quality loading targets, identified in BUI (viii) Table 1, may reveal additional items that need to be addressed in terms of being able to delist by the target date. This review is also identified in the RAP Stage 2 Update 2002, Recommendation WQ - 1b.2. BARC and the persons interviewed for this report support the review. 2. Are there any gaps in the monitoring that would preclude presentation of the RAP Stage 3 document? Yes, some. The estimated loadings to Hamilton Harbour from the streams and CSO sources may not accurately reflect their contributions. As well, Secchi disk transparency is not currently being monitored at the beaches of the Harbour and there is a goal for it in Table 2 of the delisting objective for BUI (viii). This should not prove to be an obstacle to delisting as there is time to incorporate Secchi disk transparency into the monitoring and record enough measurements to show improvement and the eventual meeting of the goal. 3. Are there any obstacles that would prevent monitoring from occurring in the future? Yes. There are some threats to proving delisting targets will be met, including funding for long-term and/or new monitoring and key people leaving or retiring.

Recommendations The 14 water quality recommendations made by the Bay Area Restoration Council can be found in the full report. They are summarized here in three general themes: 1. Upcoming review of RAP water quality loading targets The review of eutrophication (undesirable algae) water quality loading targets to be undertaken by the RAP Technical Team can take into account new and emerging issues in water quality as well as advances in modelling techniques. The review will also ensure that the delisting objectives represent the best available information to demonstrate that Hamilton Harbour is restored. 2. Gaps in current monitoring There are a few gaps in current monitoring programs related to beaches and the estimated loadings to Hamilton Harbour that will need to be addressed in order to have sufficient monitoring data to delist Hamilton Harbour as an Area of Concern. There should be enough time before the target delisting date of 2015 to incorporate the required monitoring elements. 3. Looking forward There are several areas where additional work will be required at a future date in order to ensure sufficient monitoring data for delisting. For example, monitoring after the construction of the Red Hill Valley Parkway and focussing on stewardship activities to address suspended solid loadings from the streams.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Executive Summary

According to BARC's Toward Safe Harbours 2002 Report Card, water quality restoration activities have resulted in improvements to date but more work is still needed. The improvements are due to the effectiveness of numerous collaborative efforts of many stakeholders and their commitment to a restored Hamilton Harbour. The Bay Area Restoration Council is optimistic that the same collaborative efforts can be applied to the work that remains.

vii

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Executive Summary

viii

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 1: Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION To monitor and assess the progress of the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP), the Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC) has produced the Toward Safe Harbours report annually since 1994. This report is produced by a group of volunteers and technical assistants who form the BARC Monitoring Committee. The reports are written for the scientists and decision-makers of Hamilton Harbour, as well as the general public. In 2002, the Toward Safe Harbours Report Card detailed an important conclusion: Hamilton Harbour was halfway to meeting restoration targets (BARC 2002). As a result, the focus of subsequent reports shifted from evaluating past remedial actions to determining what future actions are necessary for the Harbour to be delisted. In 2003, the Toward Safe Harbours report outlined a work plan for the next three reports. The reports of 2004 to 2006 each consider a different theme of the International Joint Commission's 14 beneficial use impairments (BUIs) and the delisting objectives associated with the Hamilton Harbour RAP: 2004 report: 2005 report: 2006 report:

Fish and wildlife, progress towards delisting objectives (i)-(v), (xiv) Water quality, progress towards delisting objectives (viii) - (xii) Toxic substances and sediment remediation, progress towards delisting objectives (vi), (vii), (xiii)

A complete list of the Beneficial Use Impairments and associated delisting objectives can be found in Appendix B. To be formally removed from the list of Areas of Concern in the Great Lakes, or "delisted", the Hamilton Harbour RAP must present proof in the form of a Stage 3 Report that the Harbour has reached its restoration objectives. The criteria for RAP Stage 3 Report submissions to the provincial and federal governments are evaluated based on the relevant portions of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), including Annex 2, section 4(a)(vii-viii), which requires: (vii) a process for evaluating remedial measure implementation and effectiveness; and, (viii) a description of surveillance and monitoring processes to track the effectiveness of remedial measures and the eventual confirmation of the restoration of uses. (IJC 1987: p.26) Thus, the subjects of the Toward Safe Harbours reports are guided by the primary question: •

Will Hamilton Harbour stakeholders have the evidence needed to delist Hamilton Harbour as an Area of Concern and to fulfil requirements as outlined in the GLWQA?

Other related questions include: • • •

Will we be able to satisfy the decision-makers that researchers have been measuring the correct indicators in Hamilton Harbour to meet RAP Stage 3 criteria? Are there any gaps in the monitoring that would preclude presentation of the RAP Stage 3 document? Are there any obstacles that would prevent monitoring from occurring in the future?

The following sections of the Introduction provide background information about Hamilton

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 1: Introduction

Harbour, its designation as an Area of Concern, and the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) to address the Beneficial Use Impairments and declare the Harbour restored. Section 2 outlines the methodology for the writing of the report. The information gained from first person interviews and other published sources was compiled and analysed to produce the conclusions and recommendations found in Sections 3-6.

1.1 Hamilton Harbour Hamilton Harbour (also known as Burlington Bay) is one of the largest and busiest commercial ports in the Great Lakes. It is also the largest naturally protected harbour on Western Lake Ontario and is separated from the Lake by a sandbar, with the Burlington Ship Canal as the only point of access. Some 46 percent of the Harbour's 45 kilometre shoreline is composed of industrial uses, 10 percent is residential, and the remaining 44 percent is private, institutional, or public open space. The open water of the Harbour is approximately 2,150 hectares, and its 49,400 hectare watershed is fed by the Grindstone, Spencer, and Red Hill Creeks as well as several smaller urban creeks. The cities of Hamilton and parts of Burlington and Puslinch (totaling nearly 650,000 people) are located within the Harbour's watershed.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 1: Introduction

Currently, Harbour concerns include discharges from four wastewater treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, and industries; non-point source pollution; contaminated sediments; loss of shoreline access; and degradation of fish and wildlife habitat. These conditions greatly affect the environmental health of the watershed, and must be addressed to achieve the long-term goal of restoring and protecting the Hamilton Harbour ecosystem.

1.2 The International Joint Commission The International Joint Commission (IJC) is an independent bi-national organization established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Its purpose is to help prevent and resolve disputes relating to the quality and use of water along the Canada-U.S. border (International Joint Commission - Who We Are 2005). An IJC report in 1970 noted pollution problems in Lake Ontario, Lake Erie and the St. Lawrence River; this eventually resulted in the governments of Canada and the United States signing the Canada-U.S. 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA), amended by protocol in 1987. A major goal of this Agreement was to "…restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem" (IJC 1987: p.4).

1.3 Areas of Concern The 1987 amendment to the GLWQA designated 42 geographic areas on the Great Lakes that were particularly degraded as "Areas of Concern" under Annex 2. Seventeen sites were in Canada, including 5 sites shared between both Canada and the United States. The U.S. added one more in 1991, for a total of 43 Areas of Concern on the Great Lakes. The GLWQA defines an Area of Concern (AOC) as "…a geographic area that fails to meet the General or Specific Objectives of the Agreement where such failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or of the area's ability to support aquatic life" (IJC 1987: p.24). Designating an Area of Concern is the responsibility of both the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States (the "Parties"). The Parties "in cooperation with State and Provincial Governments and the Commission (IJC) shall designate Areas of Concern" (IJC 1987: p.35). The term "cooperate" is interpreted to mean that the Parties are responsible for listing (and delisting) an Area and will seek confirmation from the IJC, who is asked to perform a review of the evidence and comment on the recommendation to list (or delist). An Area of Concern will be considered for delisting "…when monitoring indicates that identified beneficial uses have been restored" (IJC 1987: p.26).

1.4 Beneficial Use Impairments Each Area of Concern has at least one of 14 Beneficial Use Impairments (BUI), as identified by the Parties and defined in the GLWQA (1987). A BUI is "…a change in the physical, chemical or biological integrity of the Great Lakes system sufficient to cause any of the following: i) ii)

restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption; tainting of fish and wildlife flavour;

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

iii) iv) v) vi) vii) viii) ix) x) xi) xii) xiii) xiv)

Chapter 1: Introduction

degradation of fish and wildlife populations; fish tumours or other deformities; bird or animal deformities or reproduction problems; degradation of benthos; restrictions on dredging activities; eutrophication or undesirable algae; restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste or odour problems; beach closings; degradation of aesthetics; added costs to agriculture or industry; degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations; and loss of fish and wildlife habitat.â&#x20AC;? (IJC 1987: p.24)

Each Area of Concern is responsible for determining the criteria that will indicate the beneficial use has been restored. In the Hamilton Harbour RAP, they are referred to as delisting objectives.

1.5 Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan To remediate and protect the environmental health of each Area of Concern, Annex 2 of the GLWQA calls for the creation and implementation of Remedial Action Plans for each of the identified locations. All Remedial Action Plans are divided into three stages: Stage 1: Statement of environmental conditions and problem definition Stage 2: Selection of remedial actions and regulatory measures Stage 3: Evaluation of monitoring indicates that identified beneficial uses have been restored The Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Stage 1 was first published in 1989 with a second edition in 1992. The RAP Stage 2 Report was published in 1992 and identified pollution sources to the Harbour, suggested remediation measures and responsibilities, and recommended 50 actions to restore the Harbour prevent future pollution. The Hamilton Harbour RAP was developed by over forty stakeholder groups (including industry and government), and is implemented by the Bay Area Implementation Team (BAIT). The Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC) monitors the progress of implementation through the Toward Safe Harbours reports. The RAP Stage 2 Update 2002 was prepared to complement the Stage 2 Report of 1992, while incorporating the changes and improvements to the Harbour over the previous ten years. The RAP Stage 2 Update 2002 has 57 recommendations and 159 tasks, with timelines and responsible agencies added. The preparation of the Stage 3 report will be begin in 2015, following the completion of the remedial actions.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 2: Methodology

2. METHODOLOGY The RAP delisting objective for each Beneficial Use Impairment associated with water quality (see Section 1.4) was examined to determine what type of evidence is needed in order to be delisted as an Area of Concern. Information was collected primarily by in-person interviews with representatives from various agencies performing monitoring activities in Hamilton Harbour. The BARC Monitoring Committee, aided by staff from BARC and the Hamilton Harbour RAP Office, conducted the interviews. Each representative was asked a standard set of questions (originally published in the 2003 edition of the Toward Safe Harbours report), along with any questions raised by the committee: 1. What data (and how much) do we need for delisting? 2. How do we know when we have met the objective? 3. What monitoring is being done? 4. What is the current status of meeting the delisting objective? 5. How fast are we getting there? 6. What are the trends? 7. Are we going to meet the target? 8. When will we meet the target? 9. What are the successes? 10. What are the obstacles to success in meeting the delisting objective? 11. What additional monitoring is required? 12. Other comments? The list of individuals and agencies interviewed was determined from the RAP Monitoring Catalogue. The RAP Monitoring Catalogue (2004) was developed by the Hamilton Harbour RAP Office to compile metadata (such as site location, parameters, monitoring frequency, etc.) on monitoring activities occurring throughout Hamilton Harbour. The full report is available on the BARC website (www.hamiltonharbour.ca/rap). In 2004, the RAP Technical Team published a report entitled 1996-2002 Contaminant Loadings and Concentrations to Hamilton Harbour. This document was a key source of information in the preparation of this report. It details actual (or measured) loadings from the wastewater treatment plants and steel mills and estimated (or modelled) loadings from combined sewer overflows, urban runoff, creeks and Cootes Paradise. It provided useful information in determining the suitability of current monitoring programs. The full report is available on the BARC website (www.hamiltonharbour.ca/rap). The following representatives were interviewed regarding the water quality monitoring their agencies conduct in Hamilton Harbour and its watershed: • Mark Bainbridge - City of Hamilton; • Duncan Boyd - Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE); • Murray Charlton - National Water Research Institute - Environment Canada (NWRI-EC) • David Gale - Conservation Halton; • Philip Kelly - City of Burlington; • Troy Leyburne - Region of Halton; • Eric Mathews - City of Hamilton; • Craig McGinlay - Dofasco; • Andrew Sebestyen - Stelco Hamilton; • George Stojanovic - Hamilton Conservation Authority; and • Tÿs Theÿsmeÿer - Royal Botanical Gardens (RBG).

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 2: Methodology

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairments

3. EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY BUIs As identified in the RAP Stage 2 Update 2002, water quality in Hamilton Harbour is impaired because of poor water clarity, low oxygen levels, high nutrient levels and bacterial contamination. Poor water clarity is caused by sediment from soil erosion, solid particles from industrial effluent, wastewater treatment plants and combined sewer overflows, as well as excessive microscopic plant growth. The low oxygen levels are the result of nutrient inputs. The primary source of high nutrient levels, particularly phosphorus, is wastewater treatment plant inputs. Bacteria levels are often too high to permit swimming at Harbour beaches during the summer. Historically, the source of the bacteria was combined sewer overflows (CSOs) during wet weather events. Bacterial contributions from CSOs have dropped dramatically due to the implementation of the CSO control program near the beaches. Currently, bird faecal matter is suspected to be a significant source of elevated E. coli counts that has triggered beach closures recently. There are five Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) that deal with the various aspects of water quality. The focus of this report is the delisting objectives associated with each BUI. A summary and evaluation of each BUI is contained in the following sections: 3.1: 3.2: 3.3: 3.4: 3.5:

Beneficial Use Impairment (viii) - eutrophication or undesirable algae Beneficial Use Impairment (ix) - restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odour problems Beneficial Use Impairment (x) - beach closings Beneficial Use Impairment (xi) - degradation of aesthetics Beneficial Use Impairment (xii) - added cost to agriculture or industry

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

3.1 BUI (viii) - Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objective for BUI (viii) That there are no persistent adverse water quality conditions for each of the components attributable to cultural eutrophication. The following net loading targets provide the specific objectives. Eutrophication goals and anticipated conditions in Hamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise, and the Grindstone Creek area: TABLE 1: Net Loading Targets (kg/d)

Woodward WWTP Skyway WWTP King St. WWTP (Dundas) Main St. WWTP(Waterdown) CSOs Streams* Industry (combined) Stelco Dofasco

Phosphorus Initial Final 140 60 30 12 5 1 70 5 90 65

Ammonia Initial Final 2270 530 470 115 22 5 160 20

400

Suspended Initial 3750 500 28 5 1400

Solids Final 900 200

200

270 4000 3500

1500 1500

* Stream loadings are extremely variable from year-to-year. The percentage of reduction is based on the estimated effect of best management practice.

TABLE 2: Environmental Conditions

Phosphorus conc. (Âľg/L) Un- ionized Ammonia conc. (mg/L) Chlorophyll a conc. (Âľg/L) Secchi Disk T rans. (m) Min. DO con.(ppm) Submergent/emergent aquatic plant area (ha) Suspended Solids (ppm) Bacteria ( E. coli organisms/100 mL water)

Hamilton Harbour Initial Final Goals Goals 34 17 <0.02 <0.02 15-20 2 >1 105

5-10 3 >4 170

Cootes Paradise Initial Goals 60-70 <0.02

Grindstone Creek Area Initial Goals 60-70 <0.02

20 1.5 >5 240

20 1 >5 50

Beaches Initial Goals

1.2

<100

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

TABLE 3: Criteria for Determining Compliance with RAP Goals

GOAL

COMPLIANCE FORMULA

Compliance with environmental conditions with respect to phosphorus, Secchi depth and chlorophyll a

13 out of 13 samples analysed weekly* at t he cent re station from June to August are at or better t han the targeted level.

Compliance with environmental conditions with respect to unionized ammonia

Weekly samples from March to June at the centre stat ion are not to exceed 0.02

Compliance with environmental conditions with respect to dissolved oxygen

Weekly samples at 1 metre from bottom at centre stat ion, from July to September are at or better than t he targeted level

Compliance with environmental conditions with respect to E. coli

Daily samples meet target on every day that is 48 hours after a rain event.

* Although weekly sampling is recommended at only one location, there will be periodic sampling of a large number of locations harbour-wide to confirm representativeness of the centre station.

3.1.1 Background and Current Status Eutrophication is the process by which a body of water becomes more productive due to the input of nutrients with resulting increases in undesirable algae, decreases in dissolved oxygen, and increases in plant growth. It can occur naturally but it is often accelerated due to human activity. Phosphorus is usually the main limiting factor for aquatic plant growth. Systems with relatively low nutrient levels (oligotrophic) have different characteristics from those with high nutrient levels (eutrophic). The soil and geological conditions of the catchment area and the depth of the receiving waters influence the rate at which oligotrophic systems move towards eutrophic conditions. Without any human impacts, it may take thousands of years for a system to progress to an eutrophic state (Deardon and Mitchell 1998). Human activity increases the rate of eutrophication primarily through the addition of excess phosphorus and nitrogen from agricultural, industrial and wastewater treatment plant sources. This process is known as cultural eutrophication. The increased nutrient levels promote the growth of aquatic plants, particularly algae in the water (phytoplankton). Excessive phytoplankton growth blocks the light that rooted plants need and this affects fish habitat as well as giving the water an unsightly appearance.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

As in other temperate lakes, Hamilton Harbour stratifies into a cold lower layer and a warm upper layer in the summer. The oxygen produced by the phytoplankton tends to stay in the upper portion of the water column and is returned to the atmosphere rather than moving downward to the deeper water (Deardon and Mitchell 1998). As the phytoplankton settle and decay in the bottom layer, the oxygen levels are further reduced so that most fish are excluded until the stratification breaks down in the early fall. Eutrophication and undesirable algae is by far the most significant and detailed of the water quality BUIs associated with the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP). It encompasses a number of different activities across a variety of jurisdictions. For the purposes of this report, the discussion has been separated into four sections. Three of the sections are based on the sources of the contaminant loading: (a) Wastewater Treatment Plants and CSOs, (b) Streams, (c) Industry and a fourth details information specific to the receiving body of water: (d) Hamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise and Grindstone Creek Area. 'Streams' refers to contributions from urban and rural runoff, excluding the urban runoff captured by the combined sewer system in Hamilton; for this report the streams are simply a conduit, transporting urban and rural runoff and associated materials to the Harbour. Detailed information about the loadings to the Harbour can be found in 1996-2002 Contaminant Loadings and Concentrations to Hamilton Harbour (Hamilton Harbour RAP Technical Team 2004). (a) Wastewater Treatment Plants and CSOs - Background and Current Status City of Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plants The City of Hamilton operates three conventional Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) that discharge to the Harbour: Woodward Ave. WWTP, King St. WWTP (Dundas) and Main St. WWTP (Waterdown). Woodward WWTP is a conventional activated sludge plant with anaerobic sludge digestion and phosphorus precipitation which provides a secondary level of treatment. The King St. and Main St. WWTPs are also conventional activated sludge plants but they also incorporate sand filtration which provides tertiary treatment. The City of Hamilton treated an average of 380 megalitres (380,000 m3) of wastewater a day in 2004. Each facility is governed by a certificate of approval issued by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment regulating specified discharge parameters. Facility and Laboratory staff undertakes the monitoring and testing. The wastewater collection and storm collection system consists of 1,012 kilometres of sanitary sewers, 590 kilometres of combined sewers and 911 kilometres of storm sewers. (City of Hamilton - Waste Water) In Table 1 of the delisting objective, each of the three WWTPs operated by the City of Hamilton has net loading targets for phosphorus, ammonia, and suspended solids. The Woodward plant has both initial and final targets and the King St. (Dundas) and Main St. (Waterdown) plants have initial targets for the three parameters. Currently, the Woodward plant is not meeting any of the initial RAP targets. However, the City of Hamilton is now undertaking an optimization study at the facility and is committed to improving the performance of the plant to meet RAP targets. The King St. (Dundas) WWTP is meeting the initial targets for phosphorus and ammonia and is very close to meeting the initial target for suspended solids. The Main St. (Waterdown) facility is meeting the initial target for phosphorus and is very close to meeting the initial target for ammonia and suspended solids. The Main St. and King St. facilities do not currently have final target values.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

City of Hamilton Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) As in other municipalities with older infrastructure, portions of the City of Hamilton sewer system collect both domestic sewage and stormwater runoff in a single pipe called a combined sewer. The combined sewage is sent to the Woodward WWTP for treatment. During dry weather (or small rain events), all of the combined sewage is treated before it is discharged to the Harbour. During larger rainstorms, inflows can exceed the hydraulic capacity of the sewer system and/or the wastewater treatment plant. The excess flow, known as a combined sewer overflow (CSO), is diverted to one of 23 outfalls that discharge to the Harbour, Cootes Paradise, Chedoke Creek and Red Hill Creek (City of Hamilton - Waste Water Treatment). These diversions are necessary to prevent the overloading of the WWTP and to minimize flooding of basements. The City of Hamilton completed a Pollution Control Plan in 1991. It recommended the constructions of a series of Combined Sewer Overflow storage tanks to reduce the occurrences of untreated sewage being discharged to local watercourses. The storage tanks capture any excess flow from the combined sewer systems during rainstorm events and hold it until it can be treated at the WWTP. The tanks are filled by gravity and when flows subside after the rainstorm, the liquid is drained back into the combined sewer and directed to the Woodward WWTP for treatment. Depending on the size of the storm, the combined sewage may be retained in the tank for up to 36 hours. The solids settle at the bottom of the tank and are washed from the tank (City of Hamilton - Waste Water Treatment). The wash water is collected from the tank and pumped back into the combined system for treatment at the WWTP. There are six tanks currently in operation in the City of Hamilton, providing a total storage volume of approximately 250,000 cubic metres. They reduce the frequency of overflows by 85 to 95% and the volume of overflows by 90 to 95% at their respective locations (City of Hamilton - Waste Water Treatment). Table 1 of the delisting objective lists initial and final loading targets for phosphorus, ammonia and suspended solids from the CSOs. Based on 2002 information, the estimated loadings from the CSOs are meeting the initial targets for phosphorus and ammonia. The estimated loading of suspended solids remains above the initial target (Hamilton Harbour RAP Technical Team 2004). Region of Halton Wastewater Treatment Plant The Region of Halton operates one WWTP that discharges to Hamilton Harbour. The Skyway WWTP provides wastewater treatment for the urban area of the City of Burlington. It is a conventional activated sludge plant with anaerobic sludge digestion and phosphorus precipitation which provides a secondary treatment level. Recent construction increased the total capacity of the plant to 118 megalitres (118,000 m3) per day. The expansion accommodates population growth and provides upgraded treatment of the wastewater, based on new, stricter effluent criteria established by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Hamilton Harbour RAP. The plant is currently operating below its capacity, however future expansion may be necessary as the population of the City of Burlington increases. In Table 1 of the delisting objective, the Skyway WWTP has a net loading target for phosphorus, ammonia, and suspended solids. Currently, the facility is consistently meeting the final RAP loading targets for phosphorous and ammonia and the initial RAP loading target for suspended solids. The final loading target for suspended solids is occasionally met. There are no combined sewers in Burlington, only a separated sewer system.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

(b) Streams - Background and Current Status The Hamilton Harbour watershed covers 49,400 ha and is drained by three main tributaries. Grindstone Creek drains the north central area of the watershed (9,000 ha); Red Hill Creek drains the southeast portion of the basin (6,640 ha); and Spencer Creek drains the northwest and western parts of the watershed through Cootes Paradise (28,452 ha). There are also minor tributaries that drain parts of the Cootes Paradise shoreline and the north shore of the Harbour. For the purposes of this report, 'streams' refers to contributions from urban and rural runoff, excluding the urban runoff captured by the combined sewer system in the City of Hamilton; the streams act as a conduit, transporting urban and rural runoff and associated materials to the Harbour. Table 1 of the delisting objective lists an initial and final loading target for phosphorus. Based on the information for 2002 in the RAP Loadings Report, the estimated loadings from the streams are meeting the final targets for phosphorus. However, due to the methods used to estimate the loadings, the estimated loadings figure has a wide margin of error. (c) Industry - Background and Current Status Stelco Hamilton and Dofasco are the two largest industries located on the Harbour. They both utilize large quantities of Harbour water for their respective steel-making processes as well as discharging significant quantities of treated water back to the Harbour. The discharges from Stelco Hamilton and Dofasco have been regulated since the 1970's and were further regulated in 1998 with the implementation of the Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA). The regulations include monitoring and reporting requirements specific to each facility that incorporate the following aspects: • • • • • •

every chemical parameter in the MISA regulations has a monthly average loading limit (kg/month) and a daily maximum loading limit (kg/day); the monitoring frequency must demonstrate compliance with the limits; all effluent must be non-toxic to fish and water fleas each plant must submit quarterly summary reports to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment; each plant must prepare an annual report that is made available to the public; and incidents of non-compliance must be reported directly to the Ministry and followed up with a letter. (OMOE 2005)

Ontario Regulation 214/95 outlines the effluent monitoring and effluent limits for the iron and steel manufacturing sector. The full regulation can be viewed online at the Government of Ontario's e-Laws website (www.e-laws.gov.on.ca). Both industries monitor additional water quality parameters that are reported in the RAP Loadings reports. Net loadings are used to account for intake of Harbour water and as a result, some parameters actually are reported as a negative value. This occurs when the water withdrawn from the Harbour has higher levels of the contaminant than when it is discharged back to the Harbour (Hamilton Harbour RAP 2004). Industry has loading targets for ammonia and suspended solids in Table 1 of the delisting objective. The ammonia target is a combined value (i.e. effluent from both Stelco Hamilton and

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

Dofasco) and the suspended solids target is specific to each company. Stelco Hamilton and Dofasco are currently meeting or exceeding the final ammonia and suspended solid targets listed in Table 1. (d) Hamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise & Grindstone Creek Area - Background and Current Status Hamilton Harbour The open water of the Harbour covers approximately 2150 hectares. The water quality of the Harbour has improved significantly in recent years. However, concerns remain regarding discharges from the wastewater treatment plants and combined sewer overflows as well as non-point source pollution. Cootes Paradise Cootes Paradise Marsh is a 240-hectare coastal marsh located at the western end of Hamilton Harbour. It is part of an 840-hectare wildlife sanctuary owned by the Royal Botanical Gardens (RBG). The Spencer Creek watershed and wastewater effluent from the King St. (Dundas) WWTP are the main sources of water inputs to the marsh. Over the years, the Marsh has been stressed by high nutrient levels, turbidity (suspended solids) and an unfavorable Lake Ontario water level regime (which limits the growth of aquatic plants). Carp, an invasive fish, posed an immense problem by stirring up sediments and uprooting plants when feeding and spawning. The restoration of Cootes Paradise Marsh started in the early 1990s as Project Paradise. It is one of the largest freshwater habitat restoration projects in North America. Presently, the principal limiting factor in the restoration of the Marsh is water quality (Hamilton Harbour RAP 2002). The exclusion of carp in 1997 with the RBG's Fishway and a reduction in CSO volumes have resulted in significant improvements to the water quality in Cootes Paradise Marsh and additional improvements will be seen as the quality of the inflow to the Marsh improves (The每sme每er pers. comm. 2004). Grindstone Creek Area Grindstone Creek Area refers to the estuary of the Grindstone Creek (i.e. where it enters Hamilton Harbour). It covers 60 hectares and is owned by the Royal Botanical Gardens. The Grindstone Creek watershed and effluent from the Main St. (Waterdown) WWTP represent the main sources of water to the estuary. The water quality has been subjected to similar stresses as Cootes Paradise including nutrient enrichment and carp. In 1999, restoration was initiated in the Grindstone Estuary. It included reconstructing the banks of the Grindstone Creek using recycled Christmas trees and the installation of five small-scale carp barriers designed by the RBG.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

3.1.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairment Guidelines published by the IJC suggest that this BUI be considered restored when: "â&#x20AC;Ś there are no persistent water quality problems (e.g. dissolved oxygen depletion of bottom waters, nuisance algal blooms or accumulation, decreased water clarity, etc.) attributed to the cultural eutrophication." (IJC 1991) The Hamilton Harbour RAP established eutrophication reduction goals and anticipated environmental conditions in Hamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise, and the Grindstone Creek Area (see Table 2 of the delisting objective). In addition, net loading targets specific to the loading source (See Table 1 of the delisting objective) were developed. The initial and final net loading targets in Table 1 were derived from the initial and final concentration goals in Table 2. According to the analysis in the RAP Stage 1 Report, if the input targets from the various sources in Table 1 are achieved, the concentrations in Table 2 will represent the conditions in the centre of the Harbour (Hamilton Harbour RAP 1992). Table 3 of the delisting objective outlines the criteria for compliance with the water quality goals listed in Table 2. A more detailed description can be found in Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Process and Derivation of Water Quality Loading Targets (Hamilton Harbour RAP 2003). The proposed date to meet the initial goals was 2003 and the proposed completion date for the final goals is 2015, at the time of delisting. It is recognized that clarifications are required for some of the water quality goals and loading targets (detailed in subsequent sections). The final water quality goals and loading targets are scheduled for review by the RAP Technical Team beginning in 2005. The persons interviewed for this BUI support the proposed review.

3.1.3 Current Monitoring Programs The related monitoring programs for this BUI have also been separated into four components: (a) Wastewater Treatment Plants and CSOs, (b) Streams, (c) Industry and (d) Hamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise and Grindstone Creek Area. (a) Wastewater Treatment Plants and CSOs - Monitoring Programs City of Hamilton Wastewater Treatment Plants At the Woodward WWTP, two time-sequenced automatic water quality samplers collect a 24-hour composite sample on a 1 hour timed aliquot basis of the final effluent five days per week. As a result of a study by Hydromantis Inc. in 2000, the samplers were relocated to a location with flow that was sufficiently turbulent to permit complete mixing. This suggests that the monitoring results prior to 2000 may not be representative. This potential inaccuracy may need to be reviewed with respect to the RAP loading targets for the Woodward WWTP.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

The samples are analysed by the on-site laboratory for the following parameters: •

• • •

alkalinity, carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (cBOD), ammonia, nitrites, nitrates, pH, soluble phosphorus (SP), total suspended solids (TSS), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and total phosphorus (TP) (5 days per week); conductivity and chlorides (weekly); Escherichia coli (E. coli) and chlorine residuals are monitored weekly between May 15 and October 15; and metals (monthly).

At the King St. (Dundas) and Main St. (Waterdown) WWTPs, a timed proportional automatic sampler collects a refrigerated 24-hour composite sample one day per week (Tuesday). The samples are analysed by the City laboratory located at Woodward Avenue for alkalinity, cBOD, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, pH, SP, TP, TSS, TKN, E. coli, and total chlorine seasonally. A metals scan is conducted monthly. City of Hamilton Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) There are four CSO tanks in the western part of the Harbour. The Main/King CSO Tank, Eastwood CSO Tank, Bayfront CSO Tank and the James St. CSO Tank provide a total of 123,000 cubic metres of storage. At the Main/King, Eastwood and Bayfront Tanks, one influent and one overflow sample (if generated) of each storm event directed into the tank is sampled for cBOD, ammonia, phosphorus, TKN, TSS, E. coli, copper, lead, zinc and iron. Hamilton is required to comply with the OMOE Combined Sewer Overflow Control Procedure F-5-5 for the determination of treatment requirements. To estimate the overall Harbour and Cootes Paradise loadings for the purposes of the RAP loadings report, a model-based approach is used to supplement monitoring data from the CSO tanks and CSO outfalls located throughout the watershed. Region of Halton Wastewater Treatment Plant At the Skyway WWTP, one set of 24-hour composite samples is taken per week. Daily process control is driven by laboratory data analysed by plant staff. The Region of Halton's Wastewater Laboratory consistently verifies the results of the tests performed by operations staff. It is these results that are used for official reporting purposes, as well as verification of the results of plant laboratory data. The Regional Laboratory can increase the sampling frequency, if plant operations staff indicate there is a potential problem with the treatment process. Parameters tested include cBOD, total suspended solids, total phosphorus, pH, TKN, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, un-ionized ammonia, and E. coli. Monthly tests are conducted for metals, and hydride metals and organics are tested annually. (b) Streams - Monitoring Programs Hamilton Conservation Authority The Hamilton Conservation Authority (HCA) recently re-started its creek-monitoring program on the Spencer and Red Hill Creeks, focussing on identifying long-term water quality trends. The general location and causes of water quality problems and measuring the effectiveness of broad pollution control and water management programs will be determined. The HCA works together with the OMOE and the City of Hamilton through the Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Program. Testing for bacterial parameters is undertaken outside the OMOE guidelines.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

Six stations are sampled at monthly intervals during the ice-free period (March/April to October/November) to a maximum of eight samples per year per station. There are three sampling locations on Spencer Creek, one on Ancaster Creek (part of the Spencer Creek watershed) and two sampling locations on Red Hill Creek. When construction began on the Red Hill Valley Parkway, one of the sampling locations was discontinued. The samples are taken at a depth of 30 cm, and are collected between 9 am and 3 pm. A total of 39 parameters are measured including phosphate and phosphorus, ammonium, and turbidity (suspended solids). The complete list can be found in the RAP Monitoring Catalogue (2004: p. 36). Conservation Halton Conservation Halton participates in the Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Program. Monthly grab samples in Grindstone Creek (at Unsworth Avenue in Burlington and at Concession V in Flamborough) are collected following OMOE sampling protocols from March to October (to a maximum of eight samples per year). Analysis is conducted at either the OMOE Central Lab in Etobicoke or at the Woodward WWTP lab in Hamilton. The samples are analysed for: total, suspended and dissolved solids, total alkalinity, hardness, ammonia, ammonium, nitrate, phosphate, total phosphorus, TKN, and metals. Temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen concentration and pH are measured in the field. Attempts are made to time the sample runs to reflect a variety of weather and flow conditions in the watershed including high, medium and base flows, the spring freshette and wet and dry events. (c) Industry - Monitoring Programs Stelco Hamilton As required by the OMOE as part of the Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA), Stelco Hamilton monitors six effluent sites that represent all the direct water discharges to Hamilton Harbour. The effluent sampled includes cooling water effluent, merged effluent, and process effluent. As per O.Reg.214/95, Schedules 2,3,4,5 the following parameters must be sampled by Stelco Hamilton: flow, total cyanide, ammonia, ammonium, pH, total suspended solids, total chromium, total lead, total zinc, phenolics, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene, oil and grease, acute lethality testing for rainbow trout and daphnia magna, chronic toxicity testing for fathead minnow growth inhibition and Ceriodaphina dubia reproductive inhibition. The frequency of sampling varies; parameters are measured three times per day, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and semi-annually. For the two parameters in Table 1 of the delisting objective, ammonia is sampled weekly as a 24-hour composite at all sites and total suspended solids is sampled daily as a 24-hour composite at all sites. Stelco Hamilton performs additional monitoring for the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan. Total iron and total phosphorus as well as the water intake are monitored weekly. Sampling the water intake as well as the effluent allows for the calculation of net loadings to the Harbour.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

Dofasco Dofasco also is subject to MISA regulations. Ten regulated sites are monitored for the following parameters as per O.Reg.214/95, Schedules 2, 3, 4, 5: flow, total cyanide, ammonia, ammonium, pH, total suspended solids, total lead, total zinc, phenolics, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene, oil, grease, acute lethality testing in rainbow trout and daphnia magna, and chronic toxicity testing. The effluent samples include cooling water effluent, merged effluent, and process effluent. Most of the MISA parameters are sampled more than the regulated requirements. For the two paramters in Table 1 of the delisting objective, ammonia is sampled weekly at some sites and monthly at others. Total suspended solids are sampled daily as well as weekly depending on the sampling location. In addition to the MISA requirements, Dofasco monitors total organic carbon, dissolved organic carbon, conductivity, iron, chromium, TKN, total phosphorus, chlorides and fluorides. Dofasco also monitors an additional five sampling locations, including the Harbour water-intake for process control and the ability to determine net loadings. (d) Hamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise, and Grindstone Creek Area - Monitoring Programs Hamilton Harbour The National Water Research Institute (NWRI) of Environment Canada conducts weekly monitoring (sampling) from May to October at a central station in the Harbour (Station 52). Parameters sampled include phosphorus, oxygen, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, chlorophyll, and Secchi disk transparency. NWRI also undertakes various research projects on water quality throughout the Harbour. Cootes Paradise The Royal Botanical Gardens (RBG) partners with the City of Hamilton to measure various water quality parameters for the water sources to the RBG nature sanctuaries as well as the resulting water, in the nature sanctuary marshlands. Ten stations in the Cootes Paradise system are monitored once every two weeks between May and September. All sample sites are less than 2 metres deep. A variety of parameters are sampled including water clarity, water temperature, air temperature, dissolved oxygen, recent precipitation, total phosphorus, total dissolved phosphorus, nitrate, nitrite, total ammonia, total suspended sediments, volatile suspended sediments, TKN, and E. coli. Station 1 in the main part of Cootes Paradise provides the results reported to the RAP, the other locations are spread out to achieve spatial variation. The tributaries flowing into the marsh are sampled where they enter the RBG property. The RBG also monitors physical water quality parameters at The Fishway from March to October. The monitoring which includes water clarity, air and water temperature, dissolved oxygen, precipitation, water movement and water level, is not directly tied to the delisting process but the monitoring is relatively simple to do and the staff are in place to conduct it. No chemical analysis is done.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

Grindstone Creek Area The water quality in the estuary area of Grindstone Creek is monitored by the RBG on a bi-weekly basis from May to September at five sites throughout the estuary including Grindstone Creek, Long Pond and Carroll's Bay. A variety of parameters are sampled including water clarity, total phosphorus, nitrate, nitrite, total ammonia, and total suspended sediments. The WWTP effluent enters the creek several kilometres upstream of the estuary and is not monitored independently by the RBG (Theÿsmeÿer 2003).

3.1.4 Gaps in Information and Monitoring The RAP Stage 2 Report (1992) does not detail how the target loadings (Table 1) and concentrations (Table 2) particularly for total phosphorus (assumed to be the controlling variable) were developed (i.e. modelling methodology). The information used as inputs for the model is also not present. In the RAP Stage 2 Update 2002, the RAP Forum recognized that these targets might require review using more advanced modelling techniques and more current information on Hamilton Harbour. The compliance criteria for total phosphorus (TP), Secchi depth, dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll a in Table 3 of the delisting objective specify that the water quality goals are to be achieved every week of the summer months. The pollution problems in the Harbour peak during these months when most people want to enjoy the water. Relatively better water quality occurs in the colder months. If the criterion period was adjusted to incorporate enough cold water conditions then mathematically, the water quality goals could be achieved much earlier but public satisfaction with the results would be lower. In 2004, the TP concentration averaged 31 µg/L with a range (minimum to maximum) of 18 to 40 µg/L (Charlton pers. comm. 2005). These results suggest that to achieve the final concentration goal of 17 µg/L, the minimum concentration must be well below 17 µg/L and there would have to be some values around zero. There is no information to predict the exact range of in-situ TP concentrations that will occur when the phosphorus is fully controlled. However, in the past, the range in the summer months has decreased by 30% as the loadings and average concentrations have decreased (Charlton pers. comm. 2005). It is unlikely the values will be zero. It has also been suggested that, as the WWTP operations improve, the loading goals should eventually be achieved on a monthly average basis. This would allow for minor operational variations where exceedances would be offset by better results in each month period (Charlton pers. comm. 2005). (a) Wastewater Treatment Plants and CSOs - Gaps The monitoring programs conducted by The City of Hamilton and the Region of Halton at their respective Wastewater Treatment Plants are sufficient to meet the RAP delisting objective requirements. The estimated loading from CSO sources does not currently take into account seasonal effects or variations. Using an estimation method that includes seasonal effects or variations could provide a clearer picture of the impacts of CSO loadings on restoration efforts.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

(b) Streams - Gaps To accurately calculate loadings from streams extensive monitoring that covers a variety of flow events is required. The maximum of eight samples collected per year results in large uncertainty in the loading estimates of the Spencer, Grindstone and Red Hill Creeks. The estimation of loads has improved in the last five years but still lacks the necessary frequency to achieve the desirable level of accuracy (Gale pers. comm. 2004). With the sampling records dating back 30 years in Grindstone Creek, for example, a variety of flow circumstances could have been captured. However, no attempt has been made to provide correlation between weather and flow conditions. Conservation Halton began collecting these details in 1997. The creek and stream data used for the RAP are generally gathered from other monitoring programs done by conservation authorities in conjunction with the OMOE. These programs are very broad in scope and are used to give indicators of general stream health on a province wide basis (Gale pers. comm. 2004). Note that the data captured through these monitoring programs are not designed to provide site-specific information that could be used for accurate loading calculations. The increasing urbanization of the watershed presents a potential problem. Developers are required to reduce total suspended solids (TSS) loadings in finished subdivisions (i.e. after construction) by a maximum of 80% through stormwater management practices. The stormwater management ponds must be completed before the development can begin. However, the stormwater management ponds are designed to be operational as the subdivisions are completed. They are not designed to manage the large amount of sediment released during the construction phase. It is up to the municipalities to inspect the sites and enforce their respective by-laws. Development and the resulting elevated TSS loadings can potentially overwhelm the benefits of stewardship activities elsewhere in the watershed (Stojanovic pers. comm. 2004). Currently, there is no target for suspended solids loadings from streams (see Table 1 of the delisting objective). During the consultations for the RAP Stage 2 Update 2002 the target was removed from the delisting objective because the sources of suspended solids are variable and can be difficult to monitor throughout the watershed. However, recent monitoring in Cootes Paradise suggests that suspended solids from the creeks (e.g. Spencer Creek and Ancaster Creek) may be an important factor hindering the restoration of the marsh. Suspended clay can also cause noticeable plumes in the Harbour during and following wet weather events. Addressing these issues is problematic. Capturing the input of all streams and creeks, including direct runoff, into the Harbour, provides a further challenge. The definition of streams includes all urban and non-urban runoff (except the runoff captured by the CSO tanks) but only three major creeks are monitored (Red Hill, Spencer and Grindstone Creeks). There are other sources of runoff to the Harbour that are not being captured with the current monitoring programs and methods of estimating loads. Currently, a numerical factor is applied to account for the inflows not monitored. These include Chedoke Creek, the north shore creeks and swales as well as runoff directly from the Harbour shoreline that does not enter the combined system. Monitoring by the Water Survey of Canada and the Hamilton Conservation Authority on the Red Hill Creek has been discontinued due to the construction of the Red Hill Valley Parkway. Both agencies plan to begin monitoring again once the Parkway is completed and the location is accessible and safe.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

(c) Industry - Gaps The monitoring programs of Stelco Hamilton and Dofasco are sufficient to meet the RAP delisting objective requirements. There are no gaps in information or monitoring. (d) Hamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise and Grindstone Creek Area - Gaps In Table 1 of the delisting objective, a frequency is not specified. For example, in the RAP Loadings Report it is represented as an annual average. Annual loadings may not be sufficient to effectively capture the variations in impacts on Cootes Paradise and Hamilton Harbour. While targets might be met if based on an annual average, seasonal exceedances could result in significant impacts (e.g. high spring contaminant loadings from streams) and hinder the recovery of the Harbour. Hamilton Harbour The criteria for compliance with respect to un-ionized ammonia at the central station (see Table 3 of the delisting objective) states that the weekly samples should be tested from March to June. The current sampling does not always begin in March due to weather, ice conditions or other factors. This does not represent a significant gap at this time, however it will become more important as the other goals are met and the targeted delisting date of 2015 approaches. Cootes Paradise The loading targets do not currently take into account the variations in the inputs or the speciation of phosphorus loadings. The speciation of phosphorus is an important emerging issue particularly in Cootes Paradise Marsh as it affects the bioavailabilty of the nutrient. The phosphorus from WWTP sources tends to be more available for algae uptake while the phosphorus associated with sediments carried by streams tends to be less available for use. Also, while the phosphorus input from the WWTP is fairly constant throughout the year, the phosphorus loadings from the streams show considerably more variations with large spikes during the spring freshette and other spikes associated with rain events. The Water Quality Task group is currently undertaking several studies in Cootes Paradise. It is expected that the results of these studies will assist with addressing these gaps. Grindstone Creek Area The frequency of inputs and the speciation of phosphorous loadings also affect the Grindstone Creek Area. These factors are not taken into account in the loading targets.

3.1.5 Summary and Recommendations Eutrophication or undesirable algae is by far the most detailed of the water quality BUIs associated with the Hamilton Harbour RAP. It encompasses a number of different activities across a variety of jurisdictions. Overall, the actual (monitored) loadings to the Harbour from the Wastewater Treatment Plants and industry provide a good indication of the inputs. The estimated loadings from streams and CSOs are less reliable and considerably more work is needed to quantify the loadings entering

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

the Harbour from these sources. The following three general recommendations address the delisting objective for the eutrophication or undesirable algae BUI. Recommendation BUI (viii)-1 That frequency of loading estimates be specified and that the frequency be sufficient to capture variations in loadings (e.g. monthly average, seasonal). Recommendation BUI (viii)-2 That the environmental conditions (see Table 2) and the final RAP loading targets (see Table 1) from the delisting objective for the WWTP and stream inputs be reviewed and adjusted as necessary as the initial loading targets are met (This is also reflected in the RAP Recommendation WQ 1b.2 in the Stage 2 Update 2002). Recommendation BUI (viii)-3 That the compliance criteria set out in Table 3 of the delisting objective be re-examined to verify they are consistent with the loading targets in Table 1 and the environmental conditions in Table 2. As in previous sections, the specific loading sources have been separated into four sections: (a) Wastewater Treatment Plants and CSOs; (b) Streams; (c) Industry and (d) Hamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise and Grindstone Creek Area. (a) Wastewater Treatment Plants and CSOs - Summary and Recommendations City of Hamilton The City operates three wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs): Woodward, King St. (Dundas) and Main St. (Waterdown). Woodward is not meeting any of the initial RAP targets at this time. King St. (Dundas) is meeting the initial targets for phosphorus and ammonia and is very close to meeting the initial target for suspended solids. Main St. (Waterdown) is meeting the initial target for phosphorus and is very close to meeting the initial targets for ammonia and suspended solids. The Main St. and King St. facilities do not currently have final target values. City of Hamilton Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) The estimated loading information from CSO sources does not currently take into account seasonal effects or variations. Using an estimation method that includes seasonal effects or variations could provide a clearer picture of the impacts of CSO loadings on restoration efforts. Region of Halton The Skyway WWTP is consistently meeting the final RAP targets for phosphorus and ammonia, and the initial target for suspended solids. The final target for suspended solids is occasionally met. (b) Streams - Summary and Recommendations 'Streams' refers to contributions from urban and rural runoff, excluding the urban runoff captured by the combined sewer system in the City of Hamilton; the streams act as a conduit, transporting the urban and rural runoff and associated materials to the Harbour.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

There is currently not enough monitoring data to estimate the stream component of suspended solid loadings to the Harbour. Due to the difficulty of monitoring suspended sediment inputs throughout the watershed, emphasis should be placed on management and stewardship activities to minimize the inputs of sediment to the local watercourses. Recommendation BUI (viii)-4 That continued efforts focus on management and stewardship activities to address suspended solid loadings to Hamilton Harbour. The stream loading numbers in the RAP Loadings Report are modelled annual estimates. Using an annual estimate does not provide an accurate picture, since many of the impacts occur during specific months of the year (i.e. February and March). With the construction of the Red Hill Valley Parkway there are significant changes that have occurred within the Red Hill Creek watershed that will need to be addressed in terms of the RAP. Recommendation BUI (viii)-5 That after the construction of the Red Hill Valley Parkway, monitoring of the Red Hill Creek is assessed to ensure it is adequate to meet the delisting objectives of the Remedial Action Plan. The BARC Monitoring Committee concludes that there is significant work to be done in order to predict (via model-based methods supplemented with some monitoring) stream loads to the Harbour. Recommendation BUI (viii)-6 That the methodology for estimating loads be reviewed to better quantify the loadings the streams deliver to the Harbour (See also Recommendation 5 in the 1996-2002 Contaminant Loadings and Concentrations to Hamilton Harbour report). (c) Industry - Summary and Recommendations The MISA regulations along with the criteria of the RAP mean that both Stelco Hamilton and Dofasco are performing sufficient monitoring to meet the delisting objective. Both industries are currently meeting or exceeding the final net loading targets set by the Remedial Action Plan. BARC commends both Stelco Hamilton and Dofasco for their work towards improving the water quality of Hamilton Harbour. (d) Hamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise & Grindstone Creek Area - Summary and Recommendations Hamilton Harbour The current monitoring of un-ionized ammonia in the centre of the Harbour conducted by Environment Canada does not always meet the compliance requirements set out in Table 3 of the delisting objective. This does not represent a significant gap at this time but will need to be taken into consideration closer to the time of delisting. Recommendation BUI (viii)-7 That as the water quality goals for the Harbour approach the final goals, monitoring for un-ionized ammonia begin in March to ensure compliance with the RAP criteria in Table 3 of the delisting objective.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

Cootes Paradise The speciation of phosphorus and the variations of the inputs are important emerging issues that are not currently reflected in the RAP loading targets (see Table 1 of the delisting objective). Grindstone Creek Area As in Cootes Paradise, the speciation of phosphorus and the variations of the inputs also affect the Grindstone Creek Area. These factors are not taken into account in the loading targets. Recommendation BUI (viii)-8 That temporal variations in the inputs and speciation of phosphorus be considered in the upcoming review of RAP water quality loading targets.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (viii)

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (ix)

3.2 BUI (ix) - Restrictions on Drinking Water Consumption or Taste and Odour Problems Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objective for BUI (ix) That Hamilton Harbour water outflow to Lake Ontario not give rise to water quality restrictions on the water intakes for Hamilton and Burlington.

3.2.1 Background and Current Status The International Joint Commission does not list this BUI as being applicable to Hamilton Harbour. The City of Hamilton and the Region of Halton (specifically, the City of Burlington) do not obtain drinking water from the Harbour. Instead, both draw water from Lake Ontario. No data was reviewed and no interviews were conducted for this BUI. It is included in this report to highlight the importance of safe drinking water. City of Hamilton The City of Hamilton treats raw water from Lake Ontario and supplies Hamilton, Stoney Creek, Dundas, Ancaster, Waterdown, Flamborough and Glanbrook with approximately 269 million litres of treated water per day (2004). As well, treated water is provided to parts of the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk (Caledonia, York and Cayuga) and the City can supply parts of Halton Region during emergency situations. The communities of Carlisle, Freelton, Greensville and Lynden are supplied through communal wells (City of Hamilton - Waste Water). As outlined in the City of Hamilton 2004 Annual Drinking Water Report for the Woodward plant, the City's drinking water system is comprised three intake pipes: 1.22 metres, 1.52 metres and 2.44 metres in diameter and extend into Lake Ontario 640 metres, 915 metres and 945 metres respectively. The water treatment process consists of pre-chlorination, screening, clarification, flocculation by mechanical mixing, followed by sedimentation, filtration and disinfection. The filtration process has been upgraded by the addition of granulated activated carbon (GAC) in the filters to remove taste and odour. This condition is usually present in the water in the late summer, when algae are abundant. The water is then pumped from a high lift pumping station through the distribution system comprised of 19 pumping stations and 12 reservoirs. Region of Halton The Region of Halton operates the Burlington Water Purification Plant. Water is drawn in from Lake Ontario from two intake pipes that are 1.5 metres and 1.8 metres in diameter and extend 750 metres offshore and 15 metres below the surface (Region of Halton 2004a). The facility's process consists of coagulation, flocculation, filtration, fluoridation, disinfection with chlorine gas, and backwash treatment. In 2004, the process was upgraded to include treatment with ozone. Ozonation is a highly effective disinfection method and produces high quality drinking water. Seasonally, the Burlington Plant pre-chlorinates the raw water intake for zebra mussel control. After purification, the water is pumped into Burlington's distribution system and 10 reservoirs. The capacity of the entire treatment process is 263 ML/day (Region of Halton 2004b).

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (ix)

3.2.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairment Guidelines published by the IJC suggest that this BUI is considered restored when: "For treated drinking water supplies: 1) densities of disease-causing organisms or concentrations of hazardous or toxic chemicals or radioactive substances do not exceed human health objectives, standards or guidelines; 2) when taste and odour problems are absent; and 3) when treatment needed to make raw water suitable for drinking does not exceed the standard treatment used in comparable portions of the Great Lakes which are not degraded (i.e. settling, coagulation, disinfection).â&#x20AC;? (IJC 1991)

3.2.3 Current Monitoring Programs City of Hamilton The City's Environmental Laboratory tests the water for a wide range of microbiological, inorganic and organic parameters before it is distributed. The laboratory also prepares quarterly drinking water reports that are available to the public on the City's website (www.hamilton.ca). The full list of parameters tested is detailed in these reports. They include E. coli (microbiological); arsenic, lead, mercury and nitrate (inorganic); benzene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and vinyl chloride (organic). Region of Halton The Region of Halton's Water Laboratory analyses the water samples taken by operations staff, which exceed both the frequency and the parameters required by all OMOE approvals. The other parts of the Region of Halton's Water System are not considered for this report as they fall outside the Hamilton Harbour watershed. The drinking water reports for the City of Burlington are available to the public on the Region's website (www.region.halton.on.ca). The full range of parameters tested is listed in these reports including any exceedances. The parameters include microbiological, organic and inorganic materials.

3.2.4 Gaps in Information and Monitoring There is sufficient monitoring to ensure safe drinking water. As it is legislated, the monitoring will continue to occur.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (ix)

3.2.5 Summary and Recommendations There are no specific concerns about the outflow from the Harbour impacting the Lake Ontario water plant-intakes. As the other goals of the Remedial Action Plan are met, particularly the eutrophication targets and remediation of toxics, the outflow from the Harbour will continue to improve and therefore will not likely pose a problem to the water intakes in the future. The City of Hamilton and the Region of Halton do not obtain drinking water from Hamilton Harbour. Instead, both municipalities withdraw Lake Ontario water. The water treatment plants for both municipalities are required to test the water for a variety of organic and inorganic parameters before it is distributed. The municipalities also publish drinking water reports that are available to the public. These reports list the items tested for and any exceedences that occur. Recommendation BUI (ix)-1 That the results of the legislated monitoring of drinking water for the City of Hamilton and the Region of Halton continue to be made available to the public.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (ix)

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (x)

3.3 BUI (x) - Beach Closings Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objective for BUI (x) 1. That Hamilton Harbour effluent to Lake Ontario not give rise to conditions which would cause restrictions on open Lake water contact sports. 2. That water quality conditions in the west-end and in the north-half of the Harbour, be such as to permit opening of beaches and which would cause no significant restriction of water contact sports.

3.3.1 Background and Current Status Contamination by faecal coliforms and Escherichia coli (E. coli) is the principal reason for beach closings in many areas of the Great Lakes impacted by urban runoff and discharges from wastewater treatment plants and combined sewer overflows. In the 1930s, The Hamilton Harbour Commissioners (now the Hamilton Port Authority) passed a by-law that prohibited swimming and other water sports throughout the Harbour due to faecal contamination. The RAP Stage 1 Report (1992) lists the sources of the bacteria as combined sewer overflows, sewage treatment plant by-passes and effluent, urban and rural runoff, illegal sewer hookups and malfunctioning septic tank systems.

Photo Credit: RAP Office

There are two beach locations in Hamilton Harbour. Located in the western end of the Harbour, they were created with the development of Bayfront Park and Pier 4 park in the early 1990s. The construction of CSO tanks at the western end of the Harbour and improvements to the disinfection of wastewater effluent resulted in the beaches being opened for swimming for the first time the 1930s. More recently however, the number of days the beaches have been suitable for swimming has decreased. In 2003 the Pier 4 beach was open for 3 weeks and the Bayfront Park beach was open for 1 week. The National Water Research Institute (NWRI) of Environment Canada has been investigating the reasons for the beach closures since 1998. Recent research by NWRI has shown that elevated E. coli levels are only present close to the shoreline; the levels in the open water of the Harbour are not problematic. Recent research results have indicated that a major source of the bacteria may be waterfowl activity (specifically geese and gulls) along the shoreline (Mathews pers. comm. 2005; Charlton pers. comm. 2005). The wastewater treatment plants and combined sewer overflows are no longer believed to be significant sources of the bacteria that result in the beaches being closed.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (x)

The Public Health Department of the City of Hamilton along with several other agencies is aiming to implement a bird exclusion experiment in the summer of 2005 at Pier 4 Beach. It is hoped that the results will assist in managing the source of the E. coli contamination and allow the beaches to be open throughout the summer.

3.3.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairment Guidelines published by the IJC suggest that this BUI is considered restored when: "… waters, which are commonly used for total-body contact or partial-body contact recreation, do not exceed standards, objectives, or guidelines for such use." (IJC 1991) There are no specific concerns about the effluent from the Harbour affecting open Lake water contact sports (see Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objective (x)-1). As shown in Chart 1, the Lake Ontario beaches have a consistently lower percentage of water samples that exceed the Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) for E. coli. That is, the water quality along the Lake Ontario shoreline is such that the beaches are not closed as often as they are in Hamilton Harbour. In Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objective (x)-2, the phrase "no significant restriction" is used but no indication is given about what is considered significant. If the beaches were opened half of the time, this would be a major improvement from current conditions but would still result in the beaches being closed too often. It is unlikely a significant level (e.g. 95%) could be achieved (Mathews pers. comm. 2005). Chart 1.

Percentage of E. coli samples that resulted in beach closings for Lake Ontario and Hamilton Harbour beaches.

Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

% of Samples Exceeding PWQO (100 organisms per 100 ml of water) Lake Ontario Hamilton Harbour Beaches1 Beaches2 n/d 81% n/d 72% n/d 53% 23%* 71% 5% 62% 23% 78% 4% 53%

Beach Boulevard, Confederation Park Beach, and Van Wagner’s Beach Bayfront Park and Pier 4 Beach n/d – no data * Beach Blvd data only Data Source: City of Hamilton, Public Health Department Prepared by: J. Parkin, BARC 2

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (x)

3.3.3 Current Monitoring Programs The Health Protection Branch of the City of Hamilton monitors beach water quality in Hamilton Harbour and along the shores of Lake Ontario for recreational purposes. Samples are collected according to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care's Beach Management Protocol (1998) and analysed once per week from the long weekend in May until after Labour Day (weather permitting). A minimum of five samples per site is collected. The sampling is conducted Tuesday or Wednesday morning beginning at approximately 10:00 am. The time and date were selected for staff efficiency purposes. As well, keeping the same sampling frequency and schedule allows for comparisons between the data. The samples are analysed for E. coli, an indicator of faecal contamination from human and animal sources. The presence of E. coli indicates that other harmful bacteria, viruses or parasites may also be present.

3.3.4 Gaps in Information and Monitoring In Table 2 of the delisting objective for Beneficial Use Impairment (viii), there is an initial goal for Secchi disk transparency at the beaches of Hamilton Harbour (see page 8). Secchi disk measurements are not currently part of the beach monitoring program conducted by the City of Hamilton.

3.3.5 Summary and Recommendations Ongoing research at NWRI demonstrates that the levels of E. coli found at the beaches are higher than the open water of the Harbour. CSO tanks have nearly eliminated contamination due to sewage overflows. It is now believed that a major source of E. coli that results in beach closings is bird faecal matter (gulls and waterfowl). Recommendation - BUI (x)-1 That the source of the E. coli bacteria resulting in exceedances of the PWQO and subsequent beach closures at Bayfront and Pier 4 Park beaches continue to be investigated. Recommendation - BUI (x)-2 That the Secchi disk criteria from Table 2 of the delisting objective of BUI (viii) be reviewed to determine if it is appropriate. If it is found to be applicable as currently written, that the criteria be added to the beach monitoring programs for Hamilton Harbour.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (x)

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (xi)

3.4 BUI (xi) - Degradation of Aesthetics Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objective for BUI (xi) When the waters are free of any substance which produces a persistent objectionable deposit, unnatural colour or turbidity, or unnatural odour (e.g. oil slick, surface scum, algae).

3.4.1 Background and Current Status This report focuses on aesthetics directly related to water quality and does not cover the aesthetics associated with views and vistas. With increasing use of the Hamilton Harbour waterfront, good water quality aesthetics has increased in importance as well. Readily observable sights and odours such as algae and debris indicate to the public that the Harbour is not cleaned up. The scum and debris found in the Harbour are likely the result of combined sewer overflows and discharges from urban areas (Hamilton Harbour RAP 1992).

Photo Credit: Spirit of Nature

The combined sewer overflow tanks constructed to date have noticeably improved aesthetics in the western end of the Harbour. Once completed, it is anticipated the CSO program and wastewater treatment plant upgrades should resolve most of the aesthetic issues of concern to the community. It is expected that algal blooms will be reduced or eliminated as the nutrient loadings to the Harbour are further reduced (Hamilton Harbour RAP 2002).

3.4.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairment Guidelines published by the IJC suggest that this beneficial use impairment is restored when: "â&#x20AC;Ś the waters are devoid of any substance which produces a persistent objectionable deposit, unnatural colour or turbidity, or unnatural odour (e.g. oil slick, surface scum)." (IJC 1991) This BUI was originally intended to address the issue of excess foam, oil slicks and adverse odours that resulted primarily from industrial discharges (George et al. 2004). The implementation of industrial discharge regulations (e.g. MISA) has generally resolved these original issues at most of the Areas of Concern including Hamilton Harbour. As a result, the delisting objective has become open to a wide range of interpretations.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (xi)

Aesthetics relies on several of the remedial actions taking place throughout the Harbour and its watershed. This BUI will show improvement as other actions (e.g. nutrient control) are implemented.

3.4.3 Current Monitoring Programs In the summer of 2002, Environment Hamilton (a local environmental group) operated a Harbour patrol boat. Citizens were invited to participate and learned how to identify and observe potential pollution problems, how to properly document these problems, and how to collect a water sample for analysis. They were also instructed how to report any observed problems to the appropriate government authorities. For more details, see their online publication The Environmentally Friendly Guide to Enjoying Hamilton Harbour. The patrol boat program was discontinued, but Environment Hamilton established a Hamilton Harbour Hotline that people can call if they observe any water quality problems. The local Ontario Ministry of the Environment Office and the Spills Action Centre also has a hotline for reporting pollution issues.

3.4.4 Gaps in Information and Monitoring There is no formal monitoring program for this BUI and investigation is complaint based. There are opportunities for agencies that routinely monitor Hamilton Harbour to document observations on the positive and negative aesthetic conditions of the Harbour.

3.4.5 Summary and Recommendations This report focuses on aesthetics as they relate directly to water quality. There is no formal monitoring program for this BUI. Investigation is complaint based. People using the waterfront are encouraged to observe, document and report potential water pollution occurrences to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) Spills Action Centre. As overall improvements to the water quality in Hamilton Harbour are achieved, particularly the loading targets from BUI (viii), the degradation of aesthetics BUI should not present an obstacle to delisting. Recommendation - BUI (xi)-1 That agencies which routinely monitor the Harbour (e.g. Environment Canada, Municipal Health Departments, etc.) document observations on aesthetic conditions. Recommendation - BUI (xi)- 2 That this BUI be considered restored when the final loading targets from Table 1 of the delisting objective for BUI (viii) are met.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (xii)

3.5 BUI (xii) - Added Cost to Agriculture or Industry Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objective for BUI (xii) When there are no significant additional costs required to treat water prior to use for industrial purposes (i.e. intended for commercial or industrial applications and non-contact food processing). Cost associated with zebra mussels or other invasive organisms are excepted. An added cost related to withdrawal of water from the Harbour to agriculture is not appropriate as this is not a use directly applicable to Hamilton Harbour.

3.5.1 Background and Current Status The International Joint Commission (IJC) does not list this BUI as being applicable to Hamilton Harbour. It was left in the RAP Stage 2 Update by the RAP Forum because of Stelco Hamilton and Dofasco's stated need to treat the water with chemical additions before it can be used for their processes. Algae control and high chloride content are issues that require additional inputs and costs before Harbour water can be used by Stelco Hamilton and Dofasco for their respective processes. The elevated nutrient levels in the Harbour water contribute to algal growth on heat exchangers and condensers. A mild bleach solution is added to the intake water to control the growth of the algae and maintain the efficiency of the equipment. Their monitoring data also indicates increased chloride levels in the spring. The presence of excess chlorides in intake water leads to increased rates of corrosion and can shorten the life span of the equipment it is in contact with. Lower chloride levels also allow for the water to be cycled more times when used in a closed loop system.

Photo Credit: Spirit of Nature

The associated costs of this BUI are difficult to quantify (Sebestyen pers. comm. 2005). There are alternatives to using Harbour water in both industries' cooling processes but there are increased costs associated with those options as well that could represent significant expenditures for both Stelco Hamilton and Dofasco.

3.5.2 Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairment According to the IJC's criteria for delisting, this BUI is considered restored when: "â&#x20AC;Śthere are no additional costs required to treat the water prior to use for agricultural purposes (i.e. including, but not limited to, livestock watering, irrigation and crop-spraying) and industrial purposes (i.e. intended for commercial or industrial applications and noncontact food processing)" (IJC 1991) As noted in the Hamilton Harbour delisting objective, agriculture is not a use that is directly

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Water Quality Beneficial Use Impairment (xii)

applicable to the Harbour. Similarly, the cost to industry associated with invasive organisms (e.g. zebra mussels) is not applicable.

3.5.3 Current Monitoring Programs Stelco Hamilton and Dofasco both monitor the quality of their intake water as part of their overall water quality monitoring programs. The water is treated as necessary to ensure it is suitable for their processes.

3.5.4 Gaps in Information and Monitoring There is uncertainty if this BUI is applicable to the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan. There are also questions about the type of data that will be required to delist. There are currently no criteria (e.g. costs per year, chloride concentrations, number of filamentous algal blooms, etc.) set out to address what conditions would determine whether the BUI has been restored or not.

3.5.5 Summary and Recommendations This BUI is not likely to hinder delisting. As the other BUIs are restored and the overall nutrient levels in the Harbour decrease, the costs Stelco Hamilton and Dofasco incur to treat and prevent algae and other problems with the intake water will likely decrease as well. Recommendation - BUI (xii)-1 That overall improvements to Harbour water quality will be sufficient to consider this BUI restored.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 4: General Comments on Delisting Objectives

4. GENERAL COMMENTS ON DELISTING OBJECTIVES Part of the success of the Hamilton Harbour RAP is the evolution of the Remedial Action Plan. During the examination of the delisting objectives for this water quality report, some inconsistencies and questions were noted regarding stated targets. In most cases, the issues were specific to the particular Beneficial Use Impairment and were discussed in the associated section. The following two comments are applicable to the delisting objectives in general.

a) Absence of timeframes in the delisting objectives There is an absence of timeframes in the delisting objectives. To address this, a statement could be added that outlines over how many monitoring periods the targets must be achieved in order to consider the overall target met. This has been done in delisting objectives for the Detroit River Area of Concern (BARC 2004).

b) Review of RAP water quality loading targets The upcoming review of the RAP water quality loading targets, identified in BUI (viii) Table 1, will be an excellent opportunity to address the issues raised with the delisting objectives. It will provide another way for the RAP process to evolve, as the review can take into account new and emerging issues in water quality as well as advances in modelling techniques. The review will ensure that the delisting objectives represent the best available information to demonstrate that Hamilton Harbour is restored in 2015. It is beneficial to address these issues at this stage in the RAP process. Initiating the review well in advance of the target delisting date of 2015 ensures adequate time for the stakeholders and decision-makers to assess and implement any program changes that may be necessary.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 4: General Comments on Delisting Objectives

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 5: Trends and Emerging Issues

5. TRENDS AND EMERGING ISSUES a) Reinforcing the importance of monitoring programs to the restoration and delisting of Hamilton Harbour Monitoring is a crucial component in determining whether or not Hamilton Harbour is restored. Repeat observation and analysis of data taken over time allows for the tracking of real changes. It can also detect impacts from remedial actions that occur over the long-term. In addition, monitoring "â&#x20AC;Ś ensures that remedial measures are resulting in the intended ecosystem recoveryâ&#x20AC;Ś it can reveal the response of ecosystems to remedial actions that have been designed to restore beneficial uses" (IJC Special Report 2003: p.17). Most importantly, an Area of Concern will be considered for delisting "when monitoring indicates that identified beneficial uses have been restored" (IJC 1987: p.26).

b) Funding for long-term and/or new monitoring programs It is important to secure funding for long-term monitoring. For example, it is BARC's opinion that the Royal Botanical Gardens must continue its work on Project Paradise under their scientific mandate. If the vital monitoring and restoration work they undertake is discontinued and no other agency is able to take over the work, there will be large gaps in information needed to address ecosystem recovery for the RAP Stage 3 document and subsequent delisting.

c) Loss of corporate memory due to upcoming retirements Several important individuals involved with the Hamilton Harbour RAP process are close to retirement and as such may not be involved in the preparation of the RAP Stage 3 Report that will delist Hamilton Harbour. This presents a problem for two reasons. Firstly, historical information that is currently not well documented but exists within the accumulated knowledge of these key people will be lost. Secondly, important monitoring programs may be in jeopardy once the key person leaves or retires.

d) Looking forward Monitoring data can assist with better management and stewardship of our water resources. It can lead to implementing actual changes in the way we manage the resource. A balance of both monitoring and management is essential. A proactive approach to identifying emerging issues may provide helpful information to determine future monitoring requirements. For example, examining the potential effects on loadings to the Harbour due to growth, urbanization, and other concerns such as ageing infrastructure may result in a clearer picture of future actions and monitoring required to ensure delisting by the target date of 2015 and subsequent continuation of the restored conditions. BARC notes that the RAP Stage 2 Update (2002) sets loading limits for the Harbour and these represent the carrying capacity of the Harbour. The RAP Stage 2 Update 2002 clearly states these are not to be increased due to growth.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 5: Trends and Emerging Issues

e) Positive progress due to collaborative efforts of many stakeholders Numerous stakeholders have come together to ensure a restored Harbour. Municipalities, industry, researchers and the general public have collaborated on what a restored Harbour should look like and how they can contribute. The efforts and progress of these stakeholders, particularly those members of the Bay Area Implementation Team, are commendable and indicative of a strong commitment toward restoring the water quality of Hamilton Harbour.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In this report, the Bay Area Restoration Council evaluated the programs in place to monitor the Beneficial Use Impairments related to water quality. We conclude that if current activities continue, there will be sufficient data for most BUIs to evaluate the progress and prepare the RAP Stage 3 Report. However, there are a few gaps that need to be addressed (see the recommendations in Chart 2), so that Hamilton Harbour can be delisted as an Area of Concern by 2015. The most detailed of the Beneficial Use Impairments is BUI (viii), which deals with eutrophication or undesirable algae. It will require the most monitoring information in order to be considered restored. There is sufficient monitoring of the wastewater treatment plant and industrial inputs to the Harbour; however more work is needed to determine the estimated loadings from the streams and the CSOs. Three questions guided the preparation of the Toward Safe Harbours report of 2005. The questions and findings follow: 1. Will we be able to satisfy the decision-makers that researchers have been measuring the correct indicators in Hamilton Harbour to meet RAP Stage 3 criteria? For most of the Beneficial Use Impairments, yes. The results of the upcoming review of the RAP water quality loading targets, identified in BUI (viii) Table 1, may reveal additional items that need to be addressed in terms of being able to delist by the target date. This review is also identified in the RAP Stage 2 Update 2002, Recommendation WQ - 1b.2. BARC and the persons interviewed for this report support the review. 2. Are there any gaps in the monitoring that would preclude presentation of the RAP Stage 3 document? Yes, some. The estimated loadings to Hamilton Harbour from the streams and CSO sources may not accurately reflect their contributions. As well, Secchi disk transparency is not currently being monitored at the beaches of the Harbour and there is a goal for it in Table 2 of the delisting objective for BUI (viii). This should not prove to be an obstacle to delisting as there is time to incorporate Secchi disk transparency into the monitoring and record enough measurements to show improvement and the eventual meeting of the goal. 3. Are there any obstacles that would prevent monitoring from occurring in the future? Yes. There are some threats to proving delisting targets will be met, including funding for long-term and/or new monitoring and key people leaving or retiring. According to BARC's Toward Safe Harbours 2002 Report Card, water quality restoration activities have resulted in improvements to date but more work is still needed. The improvements are due to the effectiveness of numerous collaborative efforts of many stakeholders and their commitment to a restored Hamilton Harbour. The Bay Area Restoration Council is optimistic that the same collaborative efforts can be applied to the work that remains.

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

Chart 2. List of Recommendations by BUI BUI (viii) - Eutrophication or undesirable algae

RECOMMENDATIONS BUI (viii)-1

That frequency of loading estimates be specified and that the frequency be sufficient to capture variations in loadings (e.g. monthly average, seasonal).

BUI (viii)-2

That the environmental conditions (see Table 2) and the final RAP loading targets (see Table 1) from the delisting objective for the WWTP and stream inputs be reviewed and adjusted as necessary as the initial loading targets are met (This is also reflected in the RAP Recommendation WQ - 1b.2 in the Stage 2 Update (2002).

BUI (viii)-3

That the compliance criteria set out in Table 3 of the delisting objective be re-examined to verify they are consistent with the loading targets in Table 1 and the environmental conditions in Table 2.

BUI (viii)-4

That continued effort be focused on management and stewardship activities to address suspended solid loadings to Hamilton Harbour.

BUI (viii)-5

That after the construction of the Red Hill Valley Parkway, monitoring of the Red Hill Creek is assessed to ensure it is adequate to meet the delisting objectives of the Remedial Action Plan.

BUI (viii)-6

That the methodology for estimating loads be reviewed to better quantify the loadings the streams deliver to the Harbour (See also Recommendation 5 in the 1996-2002 Contaminant Loadings and Concentrations to Hamilton Harbour report).

BUI (viii)-7

That as the water quality goals for the centre of the Harbour approach the final goals, monitoring for un-ionized ammonia begin in March to ensure compliance with the RAP criteria in Table 3 of the delisting objective.

General

(viii) - Streams

(viii) Hamilton Harbour

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

BUI

RECOMMENDATIONS

(viii) Cootes Paradise and Grindstone Creek Area

BUI (viii)-8

That temporal variations in the inputs and speciation of phosphorus be considered in the upcoming review of RAP water quality loading targets.

(ix) - Restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odour problems

BUI (ix)-1

That the results of the legislated monitoring of drinking water for the City of Hamilton and the Region of Halton continue to be made available to the public.

(x) - Beach closings

BUI (x)-1

That the source of the E. coli resulting in exceedances of the PWQO and subsequent beach closures at Bayfront and Pier 4 Park beaches continue to be investigated.

BUI (x)-2

That the Secchi disk criteria from Table 2 of the delisting objective of BUI (viii) be reviewed to determine if it is appropriate. If it is found to be applicable as currently written, that the criteria be added to the beach monitoring programs for Hamilton Harbour.

BUI (xi)-1

That agencies which routinely monitor the Harbour (e.g. Environment Canada, Municipal Health Departments, etc.) document observations on aesthetic conditions.

BUI (xi)-2

That this BUI be considered restored when the final loading targets from Table 1 of the delisting objective for BUI (viii) are met.

BUI (xii)-1

That overall improvements to Harbour water quality will be sufficient to consider this BUI restored.

(xi) - Degradation of aesthetics

(xii) - Added cost to agriculture or industry

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Recommendations

Toward Safe Harbours Progress Toward Delisting - Water Quality 2005 APPENDICES

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Appendix A - References

Appendix A - References Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC). 2002. Toward Safe Harbours 2002 Report Card. Bay Area Restoration Council. Hamilton, Ontario. Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC). 2003. Toward Safe Harbours: Progress Toward Delisting – Work Plan. Bay Area Restoration Council. Hamilton, Ontario. Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC). 2004. Toward Safe Harbours: Progress Toward Delisting - Fish and Wildlife. Bay Area Restoration Council. Hamilton, Ontario. City of Hamilton. 2004. Woodward Avenue Water Treatment Plant Annual Report – 2004. [ONLINE]. Available: http://www.hamilton.ca /public-works/water/Compliance-Regulation/ Environmental-Lab/pdf/2005/2004_Annual_Woodward.pdf [Accessed March 7, 2005]. City of Hamilton – Waste Water. [Online]. Available: http://www.hamilton.ca/publicworks/water/default.asp [Accessed February 28, 2005]. City of Hamilton – Waste Water Treatment. [Online]. Available: http://www.hamilton.ca /public-works/water/water-wastewater-treatment/waste-watertreatment.asp [Accessed February 28, 2005]. City of Palo Alto. Sampling Instructions. [Online]. Available: http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/cleanbay/pdf/sampins.pdf [Accessed February 22, 2005]. Dearden, P. and B. Mitchell. 1998. Environmental Challenge and Change: A Canadian Perspective. Toronto, Ontario: Oxford University Press. Environment Hamilton. The Environmentally Friendly Guide to Enjoying Hamilton Harbour. [Online]. Available: http://www.environmenthamilton.org /projects/harbourGuide/handbook.htm [Accessed February 15, 2005]. George, T. D. Boyd and N. Diep. 2004. DRAFT Canada-Ontario Agreement Area of Concern Monitoring Discussion. Identifying Sediment, Water, and Biological Monitoring Requirements to Track Progress Towards Restoration of Beneficial Use Impairments. Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Hamilton Harbour RAP Technical Team. 2004. 1996-2002 Contaminant Loadings and Concentration to Hamilton Harbour. Burlington, Ontario: Hamilton Harbour RAP Office. Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP). 1992. Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour. Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition. Second Edition of the Stage 1 Report. Burlington, Ontario: Hamilton Harbour Rap Office. Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP). 2002. Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Harbour. Stage 2 Update 2002. Burlington, Ontario: Hamilton Harbour RAP Office.

A-1

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Appendix A - References

Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP). 2003. Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Process and Derivation of Water Quality Loading Targets. Burlington, Ontario: Hamilton Harbour RAP Office. Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (RAP). 2004. Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Monitoring Catalogue. Burlington, Ontario: Hamilton Harbour RAP Office. Human Health: Glossary of technical terms – B. 2003. [Online]. Available: http://www.greatlakes.net/humanhealth/about/words_b.html [Accessed March 14, 2005] International Joint Commission (IJC). 1987. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended November 18, 1987. Windsor, Ontario. International Joint Commission (IJC). 1991. Commission Approves List/Delist Criteria for Great Lakes Areas of Concern. [Online] FOCUS On International Joint Commission Activities. 16 (1). Available: http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/html/listdelist/index.html [Accessed January 14, 2005]. International Joint Commission (IJC). 2003. A Special Report on the Status of Restoration Activities in the Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Windsor, Ontario. International Joint Commission (IJC). 2005. International Joint Commission – Who We Are. [Online] Available: http://www.ijc.org/en/background/biogr_commiss.htm [Accessed April 28, 2005]. National Small Flows Clearinghouse. 1998. Chlorine Disinfection. [Online] Available: http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/nsfc/pdf/eti/Chl_Dis_gen.pdf [Accessed April 4, 2005]. Okanagan College University, Department of Geography. Glossary of Terms: C. [Online]. Available: http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/conted/onlinecourses/enviroglos/c.html [Accessed February 21, 2005]. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (a). Certificates of Approval. [Online]. Available: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/5018e.htm [Accessed March 14, 2005]. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (b). Procedure F-5-5. [Online]. Available: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/F5-5.pdf [Accessed March 14, 2005]. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2005 Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA). [Online]. Available: http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/water/misa/index.htm [Accessed February 8, 2005]. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. 1998. Beach Management Protocol. Mandatory Health Programs and Services, Public Health Branch.

A-2

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Appendix A - References

Region of Halton. 2004a. Halton Facts: Halton Region Planning & Public Works Department – Water Purification Plant in Burlington. [Online]. Available: http://www.region.halton.on.ca/ppw/water/BurlingtonWaterPlantBurlingtonWaterFactShe et.pdf [Accessed March 7, 2005]. Region of Halton. 2004b. 2004 Burlington Water System Annual Report. [Online]. Available: http://www.region.halton.on.ca/ppw/water/waterquality/reports/2004/BurlingtonWaterSy stemAnnualReport2004.pdf [Accessed March 7, 2005]. TorontoBeach.ca. What does E. coli have to do with water quality? [Online]. Available: http://www.torontobeach.ca/beaches/ecoli.htm [Accessed February 16, 2005]. Theÿsmeÿer, T. 2003. Grindstone Estuary Environmental Conditions. In: Project Paradise Field Season Review 2002. Hamilton, Ontario. Water Quality Monitoring Plan. [Online]. Available: http://www.mhbriverwatch.dst.mn.us/river_watch/plan.html [Accessed February 21, 2005].

A-3

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Appendix A - References

A-4

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

Appendix B - Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objectives

Appendix B - Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objectives NO. (i)

BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENTS AND HAMILTON HARBOUR DELISTING OBJECTIVES Restriction on fish and wildlife consumption. That there be no restrictions on consumption of fish and wildlife from the Harbour attributable to local sources.

(ii)

Tainting of fish and wildlife flavour. When survey results confirm no tainting of fish or wildlife flavour.

(iii)

Degraded fish and wildlife populations. 1.

That the fish community has the following structure: a. Shift from a fish community indicative of eutrophic environments, such as white perch, alewife, bullheads, and carp to a self sustaining community more representative of a mesotrophic environment, containing pike, bass, yellow perch, and sunfish. b. Attain a littoral fish biomass of 200 - 250 kg/ha. c. Increase the species richness from 4 species to 6-7 species per transect. d. Increase the native species biomass from 37% to 80-90% of the total biomass. e. Reduce the spatial variability in fish biomass within the Harbour. f. Proposed nearshore fish community of Hamilton Harbour: Littoral Biomass (kg/ha) Piscivores (pike, bass) 40 - 60 Specialists (insectivores like pumpkinseeds, yellow perch) 70 - 100 Generalists (omnivores like carp, brown bullheads) 30 - 90 Category

The percent of fisheries biomass allocated to the three trophic groups was based on the effects of improved water quality in the Bay of Quinte and Severn Sound. The littoral fish biomass of 200-250 kg/ha was based on electrofishing data collected from Hamilton Harbour, Bay of Quinte and Severn Sound in 1990. g. Attain an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) of 55-60 for Hamilton Harbour.

B-1

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

NO. (iii) contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d

Appendix B - Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objectives

BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENTS AND HAMILTON HARBOUR DELISTING OBJECTIVES Degraded fish and wildlife populations (contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d). 2.

Colonial waterbirds: The overall objective is to have a self sustaining mixed community of colonial waterbirds generally with an increase of the rarer species and a reduction in the number of ring-billed gulls which currently nest in the Harbour. These figures are subject to revision once these general levels have been reached. Management of colonial waterbirds is experimental and achieving specific populations of particular species is highly speculative. Suggested Interim Targets Ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis) Common terns (Sterna hirundo) Herring gulls (Larus argentatus) Caspian terns (Sterna caspi) Double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) Black-crowned night herons (Nycticorax nycticorax)

Number of Pairs 5,000 > 600 350 > 200 200 200

Other wildlife including waterfowl: No target will be suggested for other species of birds or animals, but a target for habitat has been suggested which will enhance wildlife populations generally. In addition, management of some species may be necessary as a result of habitat enhancement. That fish and wildlife bioassays confirm no significant toxicity from water column or sediment contaminants.

(iv)

Fish tumours or other deformities. When incidence rates of fish tumours or other deformities do not exceed rates at unimpacted control sites that are locally relevant and when survey data confirm the absence of neoplastic or preneoplastic liver tumours in bullheads or suckers.

(v)

Bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems. When the incidence rates of deformities or reproductive problems in sentinel wildlife species do not exceed background levels in control populations.

B-2

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

NO. (vi)

Appendix B - Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objectives

BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENTS AND HAMILTON HARBOUR DELISTING OBJECTIVES Degradation of benthos. Using the BEAST (BEnthic Assessment of SedimenT) Methodology: 1. Littoral Zone (depth < upper limit of maximum extent of anoxic conditions) • Benthic community structure (BCS) not different from that of appropriate reference sites in the Great Lakes (i.e. Hamilton Harbour sites determined as "equivalent to reference conditions" by BEAST methodology) and BCS not correlated to sediment contaminant levels among sites. • Absence of acute or chronic sediment toxicity attributable to contaminants in sediments. 2. Profundal Zone (depth > upper limit of maximum extent of anoxic conditions) • BCS not correlated to sediment contaminant levels among sites. • Absence of acute or chronic sediment toxicity attributable to contaminants in sediments.

(vii)

Restrictions on dredging activities. When contaminants in sediments do not exceed biological and chemical standards, criteria, or guidelines such that there are no restrictions on disposal activities associated with navigational dredging.

B-3

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

NO. (viii)

Appendix B - Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objectives

BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENTS AND HAMILTON HARBOUR DELISTING OBJECTIVES Eutrophication or undesirable algae. That there are no persistent adverse water quality conditions for each of the components attributable to cultural eutrophication. The following net loading targets provide the specific objectives. Eutrophication goals and anticipated conditions in Hamilton Harbour, Cootes Paradise, and the Grindstone Creek area: TABLE 1: Net Loading Targets (Kg/d)

Woodward WWTP Skyway WWTP King St. WWTP (Dundas) Main St. WWTP(Waterdown) CSOs Streams* Industry (combined) Stelco Dofasco

Phosphorus Initial Final 140 60 30 12 5 1 70 5 90 65

Ammonia Initial Final 2270 530 470 115 22 5 160 20 400

Suspended Initial 3750 500 28 5 1400

Solids Fina l 900 200

200

270 4000 3500

1500 1500

* Stream loadings are extremely variable from year-to-year. The percentage of reduction is based on the estimated effect of best management practice.

B-4

Toward Safe Harbours - 2005

NO. (viii) cont’d

Appendix B - Hamilton Harbour Delisting Objectives

BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENTS AND HAMILTON HARBOUR DELISTING OBJECTIVES Eutrophication or undesirable algae (cont’d). TABLE 2: Environmental Conditions

Phosphorus conc. ( µg/L) Un- ionized Ammonia conc. (mg/L) Chlorophyll a conc. (µg/L) Secchi Disk T rans. (m) Min. DO con.(ppm) Submergent/emergent aquatic plant area (ha) Suspended Solids (ppm) Bacteria (E. coli organisms/100 mL water)

Hamilton Harbour Initial F inal Goals Goals 34 17 <0.02 <0.02 15-20 2 >1 105

5-10 3 >4 170

Cootes Paradise Initial Goals 60-70 <0.02

Grindstone Creek Area Initial Goals 60-70 <0.02

20 1.5 >5 240

20 1 >5 50

Beaches Initial Goals

1.2

<100

TABLE 3: Criteria for Determining Compliance with RAP Goals GOAL