St. Clair River Watershed Plan - St. Clair Region Conservation

Transcription

December, 2009
AOC Area 1-A
/DNH6W&ODLU
LYH
6W&ODLU5
St. Clair River
Watershed Plan
U
/DNH+XURQ
Acknowledgements
Author – Patty Hayman
Contributors – Rick Battson, Muriel Andreae, Donald Craig, Heather MacKenzie, Brian McDougall,
Chris Durand
Reviewers – Jody Wingfield, Environment Canada and April White, Environment Canada
Input provided by Ted Briggs, Ministry of the Environment, Sandra Kok, Environment Canada and
Luca Cargnelli, Environment Canada
Photos – St. Clair Region Conservation Authority
Published by the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority, December 2009
Unless otherwise noted, the maps were produced by the SCRCA GIS Department under license
with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources copyright Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2008
Table of Contents
1
2
Chapter 1 Introduction and Background................................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose.................................................................................................................................................................................................................1
1.3 AOC General Description................................................................................................................................................................................1
1.4 Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................................................................................................2
1.4.1 St. Clair River RAP Goals..............................................................................................................................................................2
1.4.2 St. Clair River RAP Work Plan.....................................................................................................................................................8
Chapter 2 Watershed Characterization....................................................................................................................................................................9
2.1 Physical Characteristics...................................................................................................................................................................................9
Soils and Topography................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Soils..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Shorelines.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
St. Clair River Shoreline................................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Lake St. Clair Shoreline................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Lake St. Clair Delta Shoreline..................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Terrestrial Ecology . ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Wetlands............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
Riparian Zones................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Woodlands........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
2.2 Aquatic Characteristics................................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Habitat................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20
Fisheries............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Mussels............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Aquatic (Benthic) Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................................................................................. 23
Species at Risk................................................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Mussels............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Fish ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Reptiles............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Dragonflies and Damselflies....................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Invasive Species.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24
2.3 Human Characteristics.................................................................................................................................................................................. 24
Population and Population Distribution................................................................................................................................................ 24
Population Projections................................................................................................................................................................................. 25
2.4 Climate............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Climate Trends................................................................................................................................................................................................. 29
The Great Lakes and Connecting Channels System.......................................................................................................................... 29
Predicted Changes in the Regional Climate......................................................................................................................................... 30
2.5 Hydrology, Water Use and Water Value.................................................................................................................................................. 31
First Nations...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Fishing ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Small Game Hunting . .................................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Reptiles and Amphibians ........................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Waterfowl Hunting ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Hydrology......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair................................................................................................................................................................. 32
Groundwater.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
St. Clair River Watershed Plan - AOC Area 1-A
3
4
5
Chapter 3 Subwatershed Characterization.......................................................................................................................................................... 35
3.1 Point Edward/Sarnia Subwatershed........................................................................................................................................................ 35
3.2 Talford Creek Subwatershed....................................................................................................................................................................... 37
3.3 St. Clair River Direct Drainage Subwatershed ..................................................................................................................................... 43
3.4 Baby and Bowens Creek Subwatersheds .............................................................................................................................................. 45
3.5 Clay Creek Subwatershed............................................................................................................................................................................ 48
3.6 McKeough Subwatershed........................................................................................................................................................................... 50
3.7 Marshy Creek Whitebread Tap Drain Subwatershed......................................................................................................................... 52
3.8 Running Creek and Lower Sydenham River Subwatershed............................................................................................................ 54
3.9 Lower Maxwell, Lower Bear and Lower Rankin Creek Subwatershed......................................................................................... 56
3.10 Walpole Island First Nation....................................................................................................................................................................... 58
Chapter 4 Summary of Impairments/Issues/Problems................................................................................................................................... 61
4.1 Prioritized Pollutants/Impairments and Watershed Concerns....................................................................................................... 61
4.2 Point Source Pollutants and Stressors..................................................................................................................................................... 61
Spills.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Municipal Wastewater Pollution Control Sources.............................................................................................................................. 63
Municipal Urban Stormwater Sources.................................................................................................................................................... 63
City of Sarnia.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Township of St. Clair...................................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Municipal Wastewater Pollution Control Sources.............................................................................................................................. 65
4.3 Non-point Source Pollutants and Stressors.......................................................................................................................................... 65
4.4 Sources of Critical Pollutants...................................................................................................................................................................... 65
4.4.1 Toxic Pollutants and Sediment.............................................................................................................................................. 65
Zones 1-3...................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
St. Clair River Delta Area.......................................................................................................................................................... 69
Southeast Bend Cutoff Channel........................................................................................................................................... 69
4.4.2 Bacteria.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 70
Beaches......................................................................................................................................................................................... 70
Non-beach Sampling............................................................................................................................................................... 73
4.4.3 Nutrients and Chlorides ......................................................................................................................................................... 74
St. Clair River................................................................................................................................................................................ 74
Tributaries..................................................................................................................................................................................... 77
Sydenham River......................................................................................................................................................................... 78
Tributary Sediments................................................................................................................................................................. 78
Chapter 5 Priority Areas/Sites and Alternative Actions................................................................................................................................... 79
5.1 Works Completed to Date........................................................................................................................................................................... 80
5.2 Prioritized Works and Actions.................................................................................................................................................................... 93
5.2.1 List of BUIs and Delisting Guidelines.................................................................................................................................. 93
5.2.2 Tracking Sheets Organized by Work Plan Subcommittees......................................................................................... 94
5.2.3 Works and Actions Organized by Subwatersheds.......................................................................................................108
5.3 St. Clair River Report Card Indicators and Recommended Strategies ......................................................................................112
St. Clair River Tributaries Watershed Report Card.............................................................................................................................112
Lake St. Clair Tributaries Watershed Report Card..............................................................................................................................112
5.4 Monitoring and Analysis ...........................................................................................................................................................................113
6
7
8
Chapter 6 Municipal Planning and Policy Analysis.........................................................................................................................................115
6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................................115
Official Plans...................................................................................................................................................................................................115
Municipal Zoning Bylaws .........................................................................................................................................................................115
Upper Tier Approval Authorities in the AOC......................................................................................................................................115
6.1.1 Considerations Based on AOC Goals, Objectives and Actions ...............................................................................117
6.1.2 Municipal Documents............................................................................................................................................................117
Lambton County Official Plan.............................................................................................................................................117
City of Sarnia Official Plan.....................................................................................................................................................117
City of Sarnia Natural Heritage Policies...........................................................................................................................118
Township of St. Clair Official Plan.......................................................................................................................................118
Fawn and Stag Island..............................................................................................................................................................118
General........................................................................................................................................................................................118
Natural Heritage.......................................................................................................................................................................118
Stormwater Management and Industrial Lands...........................................................................................................119
Chatham-Kent Official Plan..................................................................................................................................................119
Natural Heritage.......................................................................................................................................................................119
Stormwater Management and Subwatershed Planning...........................................................................................119
Land Use Planning Recommendations – Summary....................................................................................................120
Lambton County Official Plan.............................................................................................................................................120
6.1.3 Urban Areas...............................................................................................................................................................................120
6.1.4 Rural Areas ................................................................................................................................................................................120
Chapter 7 Evaluation Process..................................................................................................................................................................................121
7.1 Watershed Plan Implementation ...........................................................................................................................................................121
7.2 Methods of Evaluating Actions and Progress.....................................................................................................................................122
Chapter 8 Revising and Updating the Plan........................................................................................................................................................123
Appendix A: Base Map and Industry Locations.................................................................................................................................................125
Appendix B: 2007 CRIC Work Plan..........................................................................................................................................................................136
Appendix C: St. Clair River Tributaries Report Card..........................................................................................................................................173
Lake St. Clair Tributaries Report Card..........................................................................................................................................177
Appendix D: List of Acronyms.................................................................................................................................................................................181
Appendix E: References..............................................................................................................................................................................................183
List of Tables
Table 1: St. Clair River Area of Concern Beneficial Use Impairments Report Card.....................................................................................4
Table 2: % Wetland Cover Within Each Subwatershed..................................................................................................................................... 15
Table 3: % Woodland Cover Within Each Subwatershed................................................................................................................................. 18
Table 4: Species at Risk – St. Clair Region............................................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 5: Census Region Area Within AOC Area 1-A............................................................................................................................................ 24
Table 6: Lambton County Population Distribution............................................................................................................................................ 25
Table 7: Chatham-Kent Population Distribution................................................................................................................................................. 25
Table 8: Historic Populations in AOC Area 1-A..................................................................................................................................................... 27
Table 9: St. Clair Region Annual Precipitation 1950-2005 in mm.................................................................................................................. 27
Table 10: Fish Species Electro-fished by SCRCA in St. Clair River Tributaries............................................................................................ 37
Table 11: Surface Water Quality Parameters Analyzed 2004-2008............................................................................................................... 40
Table 12: Descriptive statistics of monitoring data of nutrients collected at Lambton DWTP, Walpole DWTP,
Port Lambton and the SMC water intake point.............................................................................................................................................. 75
Table 13: Talford and Clay Creek Monitoring Data - Nutrients....................................................................................................................... 77
Table 14: Works Completed to Date........................................................................................................................................................................ 80
Table 15: Impairment of Beneficial Use (BUI) and Delisting Guidelines..................................................................................................... 93
Table 16: Habitat & Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions................................................................................................................. 94
Table 17: Point Source Priority Actions................................................................................................................................................................... 98
Table 18: Sediment Priority Actions.......................................................................................................................................................................100
Table 19: Monitoring & Research Priority Actions............................................................................................................................................102
Table 20: Outreach & Education Priority Actions..............................................................................................................................................106
Table 21: Clay Creek Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions.......................................................108
Table 22: Baby Creek Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions.....................................................109
Table 23: Direct Drainage Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions............................................109
Table 24: Whitebread/Marshy Creek Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions........................110
Table 25: Bowens Creek Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions...............................................110
Table 26: Talford Creek Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions..................................................111
Table 27: Running/Lower Sydenham Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions......................111
Table 28: Maxwell/Bear/Rankin Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions.................................111
Table 29: Pt. Edward/Sarnia Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions........................................112
Table 30: Walpole Island Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions...............................................112
Table 31: % Woodland Cover Within Each Subwatershed.............................................................................................................................119
List of Figures
Figure 1: Annual Air Temperatures in the AOC and Surrounding Area for Comparison....................................................................... 28
Figure 2: Annual Precipitation from Sarnia, Wallaceburg and Strathroy Climate Stations.................................................................. 28
Figure 3: Average Temperature 1950-2005 from Sarnia, Wallaceburg and Strathroy........................................................................... 29
Figure 4: Lake St. Clair Water Levels......................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 5: Total organic carbon (TOC) loadings from industries to the St. Clair River, 1975-1990,
as a percentage of 1975 loading (1975 loading 30,887 kg/day)............................................................................................................. 62
Figure 6: Annual loadings of pollutant categories – TOC, ammonia, phenol, tSS and oil and grease to the St. Clair River,
1975-1994, as a percentage of 1975 loadings............................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 7: Mercury concentrations in sediments and water in the St. Clair River – Detroit River corridor...................................... 66
Figure 8: Total PCB concentration in sediment and whole water samples taken from the
St. Clair River – Detroit River corridor .............................................................................................................................................................. 67
Figure 9: For Contaminated Sediment Areas Zones 1-3................................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 10: Bacterial monitoring results from weekly summer samples collected at AOC Area 1-A sites
showing the percentage of sampling that exceeded the recreational water quality guideline for full body contact....... 70
Figure 11: Summer average mean Escherichia coli counts for AOC Area 1-A sampling sites.............................................................. 71
Figure 12: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008 bacterial monitoring stations........................................................................ 73
List of Maps
Map 1: AOC Base Map......................................................................................................................................................................................................3
Map 2: AOC Subwatersheds....................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Map 3: AOC Soils............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Map 4: St. Clair River Delta.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Map 5: Historic Land Use............................................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Map 6: AOC Wetlands................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Map 7: Percent Wetland Cover.................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Map 8: Percent Woodland Cover.............................................................................................................................................................................. 19
Map 9: Generalized Land Cover and Designated Growth Areas................................................................................................................... 26
Map 10: Pt. Edward and Sarnia Subwatershed.................................................................................................................................................... 36
Map 11: Subwatershed DFO....................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Map 12: Talford Creek Subwatershed..................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Map 13: St. Clair Direct Drainage Tributaries........................................................................................................................................................ 44
Map 14: Baby Creek Subwatershed......................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Map 15: Bowens Creek Subwatershed................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Map 16: Clay Creek Subwatershed........................................................................................................................................................................... 49
Map 17: McKeough Subwatershed.......................................................................................................................................................................... 51
Map 18: Whitebread-Marshy Creek Subwatershed............................................................................................................................................ 53
Map 19: Running Creek Subwatershed.................................................................................................................................................................. 55
Map 20: Maxwell, Bear, Rankin Creek Subwatershed........................................................................................................................................ 57
Map 21: Walpole Island Subwatershed.................................................................................................................................................................. 59
Map 22: Wallaceburg Drinking Water Intake........................................................................................................................................................ 64
Map 23: Health Unit and CA Bacterial Monitoring Stations............................................................................................................................ 72
Map 24: Stewardship Projects.................................................................................................................................................................................... 92
Map 25: Generalized Land Cover............................................................................................................................................................................116
Map 26: Baby Creek Subwatershed.......................................................................................................................................................................125
Map 27: Bowens Creek Subwatershed.................................................................................................................................................................126
Map 28: Clay Creek Subwatershed.........................................................................................................................................................................127
Map 29: Maxwell, Bear, Rankin Creek Subwatershed......................................................................................................................................128
Map 30: McKeough Subwatershed........................................................................................................................................................................129
Map 31: Running Creek Subwatershed................................................................................................................................................................130
Map 32: Point Edward and Sarnia Subwatershed.............................................................................................................................................131
Map 33: St. Clair Direct Drainage Tributaries......................................................................................................................................................132
Map 34: Talford Creek Subwatershed...................................................................................................................................................................133
Map 35: Walpole Island Subwatershed................................................................................................................................................................134
Map 36: Whitebread, Marshy Creek Subwatershed.........................................................................................................................................135
1
Chapter 1
Introduction and Background
1.1 Introduction
The 1995 St. Clair River Stage 2 – Recommended Plan identified that contaminants from nonpoint sources may be contributed to five of nine beneficial use impairments. Six major nonpoint sources of contaminants were identified and they included:
• Urban storm runoff
• Rural storm runoff
• Waste sites without leachate and runoff collection
• Malfunctioning septic systems
• Generation and disposal of household hazardous waste
In order to reduce contaminant loadings, the Stage 2 Plan recommended that the preparation
of Watershed/Subwatershed Management Plans be drafted which focus on actions necessary
to improve water quality and fish and wildlife habitat.
In the interim, a St. Clair River RAP Progress Report (2003) was prepared by Environment
Canada. The report found significant progress in the implementation of municipal and
industrial point source corrective measures. Remedial actions pertaining to waste sites
and malfunctioning septic systems have also been undertaken. While many of the actions
allowed a movement toward delisting of the St. Clair River as an Area of Concern (AOC),
information gaps existed and solutions to removing impairments needed to be determined.
In particular, habitat continues to be lost despite restoration and enhancement actions taken
by land stewardship initiatives, non-profit groups and other organizations. The progress
report recognized that an effort had to be made to quantify the current habitat status for
each subwatershed. This included inventorying existing terrestrial habitat and non-point
source pollution projects. Non-point source pollution projects are also referred to as Best
Management Projects. With an emphasis on recommendations to address non-point source
pollution, a Watershed Plan outline was supported. With a better understanding of local
conditions in each subwatershed, development of a clear and practical remedial action
program to restore and delist the AOC can be possible.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of the Watershed Plan was to identify specific environmental conditions within
the 14 subwatersheds with an emphasis on non-point source pollution actions. The plan was
to update the 2003 Progress report where relevant.
1.3 AOC General Description
The 1991 Stage 1 “Problem Definition” defined the Area of Concern as the St. Clair River proper.
The boundaries extended from the Blue Water Bridge to the southern tip of Seaway Island,
west to St. John’s Marsh and east to include the north shore of Mitchell’s Bay on Lake St. Clair.
This area encompasses Walpole Island First Nation Territory.
1
In 1995, the Stage 2 – Recommended Plan expanded the scope of the Remedial Action Plan to encompass the immediate
drainage basin (Area 1-A) of the St. Clair River and include the immediate watershed area including the tributary creeks
(Talford, Baby, Bowens, Clay, Marshy, etc.) in Ontario. See Map 1: AOC Base Map.
This Watershed Plan examines the environmental conditions with the 14 subwatersheds identified formally as St. Clair
River AOC Area 1-A.
1.4 Goals and Objectives
1.4.1 St. Clair River RAP Goals
In 1995, the specific water use goals and objectives to direct action were developed. A series of goals were defined and
adapted. They are listed below. The intent was to implement the actions and eventually delist the individual Beneficial
Use Impairments (BUIs).
1. Restriction on Fish and Wildlife Consumption
Eliminate the need for restrictions on human consumption of fish and wildlife for reasons of health.
2. Tainting of fish and wildlife flavour-recommended for re-designation as “not impaired”
Eliminate the reporting of fish tainting reported.
3. Degradation of fish and wildlife populations
Attain and maintain healthy, diverse and self-sustaining biological communities and habitats. Ensure no net loss of
fish and wildlife habitat and reclaim, rehabilitate and enhance habitat where possible.
4. Fish tumours or other deformities
Ensure the fish population does not exhibit fish tumours or other deformities.
5. Bird (or other animal) deformities or reproduction problems
Ensure bird (or other animal) population does not exhibit deformities or reproduction problems.
6. Degradation of benthos
Ensure the benthic community structure and contaminant body burdens are not negatively impacted.
7. Restrictions on dredging activities
Eliminate restrictions on dredging activities due to contaminant levels.
8. Restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odour problems
Eliminate the need to close water treatment plant intakes due to chemical spills.
9. Beach closings and water contact sports
Eliminate beach closings due to bacterial levels.
10. Degradation of aesthetics
Eliminate reportings of oily surface films, spills and combined sewer overflow (CSO) events.
11. Added costs to agriculture or industry
Eliminate water treatment plant closures or associated interruptions in water supply to industrial and agricultural
users.
12. Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Eliminate the loss of fish and wildlife and habitat and restore habitat necessary to maintain healthy, diverse and selfsustaining biological communities.
The objectives necessary to obtain the above listed goals are outlined in the Beneficial Use Report Card. The Report Card
provides a description of the impairment and objectives necessary to restore environmental conditions in a summary
form.
2
Map 1: AOC Base Map
3
Table 1: St. Clair River Area of Concern Beneficial Use Impairments Report Card
Stage 2
Status in
1995
Current
Status 2007
Restrictions on
fish and wildlife
consumption
Impaired
(for fish)
Impaired
(for fish)
The Guide to Eating Ontario Sport
Fish (OMOE) and the Michigan
Fish Advisory (MDEQ) indicate that
consumption restrictions remain in
place for various fish species due to
mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), mirex/ photomirex, and
pesticides.
Decreasing trend in environmental
concentrations of certain chlorinated
organic compounds in water (19862000) reported by Environment
Canada’s Head and Mouth survey,
and the removal of contaminated
sediment by Dow Chemical Canada
Inc. (1994) should contribute to
improved health and quality of
wild fish, as well as current efforts
on contaminated sediments in
Zones 2&3 and past and ongoing
improvements to industrial discharge
quality.
Tainting of fish
and wildlife
flavour
Requires
further
Assessment
Requires
further
Assessment
In 1995 a controlled subjective
olfactory sensory evaluation
of walleye caught from the St.
Clair River was conducted and
revealed that no identifiable
tainting was detected by a panel
of BPAC members and public.
It was recommended that the
status of this BUI be changed from
“requires further assessment” to
“not impaired”. This change was to
be based on confirmation by an
extensive angler survey in late 1997
which revealed that just under
half of St. Clair fish consumers
(291) had concerns about the
fish they caught. Of these, 4%
reported fish tainting and provided
specific descriptions such as “didn’t
smell/taste right” and odours
and flavours like “oil”, “crude”,
“petrochemicals” and “gasoline”
(Dawson, 2000). Given that these
reports were derived from
experiences in the early to mid
1990s, and the study did not
include Walpole Island First Nation
residents this BUI was identified as
still “requiring further assessment”.
An angler survey was conducted
in the spring of 2007 to look at the
fish tainting issue. It indicated that,
based on the results of this study
and the results of two previous
studies examining fish quality,
tainting of smell and taste appear
not to be a major concern amongst
St. Clair River anglers. The weight of
evidence accumulated to date leads
us to conclude that tainting of fish
and wildlife is not impaired. This
recommendation has been endorsed
by the Canadian RAP Implementation
Committee (CRIC) and will be
taken to the next BPAC meeting for
endorsement.
Degradation of
fish and wildlife
populations
Not Impaired
Not Impaired
Contaminant concentrations in
snapping turtles, terns and mink
remain above RAP contaminant
yardstick values (numerical
environmental objectives),
however, no impacts to
populations observed.
None Required
Beneficial Use
Impairment
Description of impairment
4
Past and planned actions to restore
environmental conditions
Stage 2
Status in
1995
Current
Status 2007
Fish tumours or
other deformities
Requires
further
Assessment
Requires
further
Assessment
Liver samples from 63 fish
representing 17 species from
different trophic levels were
evaluated using histopathologic
criteria by the University of Guelph
(Hayes, 2002). No neoplasms were
found in any of the liver samples
examined. One carp assessed from
the Sarnia Bay station had several
altered foci of the type observed
in some fish species from locations
where liver cancers occur. Thus,
there is a possibility that these
lesions might have been generated
by exposure to mutagenic insult.
Many of the fish may have been
too young to develop neoplasms.
Further assessment on older fish
was recommended (Hayes, 2002).
Awaiting a report on the 2006 fish
collection and liver evaluation from
EC-NWRI before undertaking a
comprehensive review of the current
status. Integrate previous studies with
the 2006 results to determine if this
BUI is impaired or not impaired.
Bird (or other
animal)
deformities or
reproduction
problems
Impaired
Requires
further
Assessment
When this was revisited in the
2005 Progress Report it was noted
that the Stage 2 declaration of this
Beneficial Use as being Impaired
was based on chironomid mouth
part anomalies with no evidence
of other bird or other animal
deformities and it was felt that this
was being dealt with through the
degradation of benthos BUI.
Integrate previous studies on birds,
reptiles and mammals with the
2006/2007 EC-CWS amphibian
results. Complete a comprehensive
assessment of vertebrate classes to
determine the status of this BUI.
Degradation of
benthos
Impaired
Impaired
Benthic communities in the two
priority zones remain impacted
and significant relationships were
found between contaminant
body burdens (mercury (Hg),
hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD),
HCB, OCS, PCBs) in invertebrates
(oligochaetes, chironomids
and mayflies) and sediment
contaminant concentrations,
demonstrating the extent of
bioaccumulation. Sediment
mercury contamination also
impacts tubificid (a type of worm
found in sediments) population
density.
Complete contaminated sediment
assessment and undertake
management actions as required.
Undertake shoreline erosion/
softening projects to improve St. Clair
River shoreline habitat. Continue to
work with industry on monitoring
and ongoing improvements to
discharge quality.
Beneficial Use
Impairment
5
Stage 2
Status in
1995
Current
Status 2007
Restrictions
on dredging
activities
Impaired
Impaired
High levels of contaminants
in the sediments exceeding
the PSQG including mercury,
hexachlorobutadiene,
hexachlorobenzene,
Octachlorostyrene have been
found along the Ontario shoreline.
Most of the exceedences occur
along the Sarnia industrial
waterfront as far downstream as
Stag Island.
To date, approximately 13,370 m3
of bottom sediment historically
contaminated with mercury have
been removed from the highest
priority area (Zone 1) offshore of
Dow Chemical Canada Inc. The COA
Contaminated Sediment Assessment
Framework is currently being
used to assess the impact of the
sediment within Zones 2 & 3. Once
this assessment is complete (2009),
management actions (if required) will
be developed for the sites.
Euthrophication
or undesirable
algae
Not Impaired
Not Impaired
The waters of the St. Clair river
are mesotrophic and algae do not
occur at nuisance levels.
None required.
Restrictions on
drinking water
consumption, or
taste and odour
problems
Impaired
Impaired
The Stage 2 document indicated
that periodic closing of water
treatment plants intakes in Ontario
occurred as a result of chemical
spills. While there were no MOE
or MDEQ issued drinking water
advisories or mandated water
treatment shutdowns for several
years prior to 2000, this BUI is still
identified as impaired given the
incidence of spills in 2003-2004.
Review and, if necessary, revise the
delisting criteria for “restrictions on
drinking water consumption or taste
and odour problems”. The criteria
based on a two year timeline for no
water plant intake shutdowns can
lead to ongoing re-designations
between impaired and not impaired
status. The Industrial Pollution Action
Team (IPAT) examined causes of
industrial spills to the St. Clair River
and made recommendations on spill
prevention measures for industries
and others. Implementations of IPAT
recommendations are ongoing. Ont.
Regulation 224/07 “Spill Prevention
and Contingency Plans” was put in
place and defines the mandates for
spill prevention and contingency
plans and must be in place by
September 2008.
Beach closings/
water contact
sports
Impaired
Impaired
Signs warning of possible
intermittent pollution are in place
at four Ontario parks (Willow,
Seager, Lambton, Cundick,
Brander) until bacterial levels are
below Ontario Ministry of Health
guidelines. Combined sewer
overflows, storm sewer outfall
discharges and by-passes from the
Sarnia WPCP still constitute major
sources of pollution to the St. Clair
River and contribute to beach
postings.
The City of Sarnia is currently working
to eliminate CSOs within the city. The
City of Sarnia WPCP has completed
an upgrade from primary to
secondary treatment. The villages of
Corunna and Courtright are currently
undertaking an EA to upgrade their
joint WPCP to secondary treatment.
The communities of Frogpoint and
Wilkesport have gone off septic
systems and installed pipeline.
Ongoing NPS work.
Beneficial Use
Impairment
6
Stage 2
Status in
1995
Current
Status 2007
Degradation of
aesthetics
Impaired
Impaired
This BUI is impaired as a result
of oily surface films, spills and
combined sewer overflow (CSO)
events.
Develop an appropriate methodology
(e.g. questionnaire, contact
MOE district office, Health Units,
municipalities and the MNR to
determine if there have been recent
complaints) to evaluate degradation
of aesthetics in the St. Clair River AOC,
including all partners (U.S., Canadian
and First Nations) in the development
of study and the decision BUI status.
Ont. Regulation 224/07 “Spill
Prevention and Contingency Plans”
was put in place and defines the
mandates for spill prevention and
contingency plans and must be in
place by September 2008.
The City of Sarnia is currently working
to eliminate CSOs within the city.
Added costs to
agriculture or
industry
Impaired
Impaired
Because there had been no
water treatment plant closures
or associated interruptions in
water supply to industrial users
between 1994 and 1997, it was
recommended that the status
of this BUI be changed from
“impaired” to “not impaired”. This
beneficial use impairment also
requires current review based on
recent chemical spills to the St.
Clair River.
This BUI requires a full assessment to
determine whether there are added
costs through a survey of river water
users.
Degradation of
Phytoplankton
and Zooplankton
Populations
Not Impaired
Not Impaired
The species composition of
phytoplankton and zooplankton
reflect the oligotrophic to
mesotrophic conditions of lower
Lake Huron
None required.
Loss of Fish and
Wildlife Habitat
Impaired
Impaired
Habitat has been lost due to
filling, draining, dredging and
bulkheading for industrial, urban,
agricultural and navigational uses.
Significant losses of wetlands
have occurred particularly in the
Walpole Island delta region.
Ongoing NPS and habitat projects
within the AOC, (as per the Updated
Habitat and NPS Rehabilitation
Priority Sites). Undertake shoreline
erosion/softening projects to improve
St. Clair River shoreline habitat.
Improve the biological connectivity
within the AOC with a focus on Area
1-A.
Beneficial Use
Impairment
7
1.4.2 St. Clair River RAP Work Plan
The 2007 Canadian Work Plan is a continuation of, and revision to, the Bi-national work plan of the 1995 St. Clair River
Stage 2 – Recommended Plan. Four subcommittees studied and completed work plans for the following categories: Point
Source, Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution, Monitoring and Research, and Sediment. These work plans propose
actions that will lead to the rehabilitation of Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs) of the St. Clair River that presently have a
status of “Impaired”, or “Require Further Assessment”. A particular BUI may be re-designated to a status of “Not Impaired”
when the delisting criteria are achieved. When all BUIs have been re-designated as “Not Impaired”, a recommendation
and submission to the IJC can be made to delist the St. Clair River as an AOC. The prioritized actions identified in Section
5 are basically a reiteration of the actions and issues listed in the 2007 Work Plan with some modification based on the
examination of site specific subwatershed characteristics and conditions.
8
2
Chapter 2
Watershed Characterization
2.1 Physical Characteristics
The AOC 1-A area is a compilation of Canadian subwatersheds which directly drain to the
St. Clair River. The AOC area drains approximately 14% of western Lambton County and 4%
of northwest Chatham-Kent. This proportional area amounts to approximately 433 km² of
Lambton County and approximately 108 km² of Chatham-Kent. Walpole Island is situated
within the delta of the St. Clair River. 147 km² of Walpole Island lands drain to the delta
watercourse features. The AOC includes 60 km of shoreline along the St. Clair River, 25 km
along the Chenal Ecarte and 7 km along Lake St. Clair. The St. Clair River is wholly situated
within Lambton County with a small 1.8 km section along the Chenal Ecarte. The municipality
of Chatham-Kent physically abuts the Chenal Ecarte for a distance of 23.2 km and Lake St. Clair
for a distance of 7 km. Tributaries which ultimately discharge to the St. Clair River measure 285
km, while the total kilometres of tributaries that discharge to the Chenal Ecarte and Lake St.
Clair measure 4,963 km. See Map 1: AOC Base Map.
Eleven subwatersheds have been identified and their hydrologic boundaries are provided on
Map 2: AOC Subwatersheds. The lands can be described by bedrock, overburden, surficial
geology, soils, physiography and topography. These properties all have significant impacts on
groundwater hydrology and surface water drainage. The flow characteristics of the St. Clair
River and the surrounding physical characteristics had a significant impact on the human
settlement and development in the area. In return, human activities have had an effect on
water quality and flow in the watershed.
Bedrock topography slopes to the west with the lowest or deepest bedrock surface elevations
along the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair. Millions of years ago when the bedrock was
exposed, stream erosion played a major role in sculpting the bedrock topography of southern
Ontario. Similar to our modern day river valleys, these ancient channels formed persistent
topographic lows into which surface drainage was focused over long periods of time1. A small
scale bedrock valley is believed to exist from the Sarnia-Corunna area. This valley is parallel
to the St. Clair River approximately 300 to 1,000 metres east of the river. The valley is 30 to
35 metres below surrounding bedrock and is generally 60 to 70 metres below ground. It is
generally filled with sand and gravel deposits2. The presence of Salina formations has led to
the use of these caverns by petrochemical and processing industries for storage. Caverns are
constructed in the salt formation(s) by a solution-mining process. The rock salt has extremely
low permeability and porosity, making these ideal as storage mediums for industries.
1 Eyles, N., Arnaud, E., Scheidegger, A.E., and Eyles, C.H. 1997. Bedrock jointing and geomorphology in southern Ontario, Canada; an example of tectonic
predesign: Geomorphology, 19, 17-34.
2 INTERA Technologies Ltd., 1992 Hydrogeologic Study of the Fresh Water Aquifer and Deep Geologic Formations, Sarnia, Ontario
9
10
Map 2: AOC Subwatersheds
Soils and Topography
Much of the overburden covering the bedrock in the study area was the result of fine-grained material deposited at the
bottom of ancient glacial lakes. The topography is relatively flat and the watersheds contain mostly clay and silt soils.
Glacial lake meltwaters and changing lake levels created elevated sand ridges such as those found in the north Sarnia
portion of the study area. However, the dominant physiographic feature of the AOC area consists of the Lambton Clay
Plain and the Chatham Flats/Clay Plain.
Lambton Clay Plain – this till plain was deposited beneath the glaciers and is relatively flat, reworked till plain. The
material was previously deposited and then over-ridden by a subsequent glacial event.
Chatham Flats/Clay Plain – this plain parallels the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair shorelines and is characterized by deep
lacustrine clay deposits with extreme flatness.
Soils
The soil maps produced for the watershed illustrate the soils generalized into five soil groups. The soil maps were
developed from detailed county soil surveys and provide a brief description of the soil types. See Map 3: Soils.
Shorelines
St. Clair River Shoreline
The river is a relatively straight channel with hardened erosion control structures such as riprap and retaining walls lining
most of the shoreline. There are some narrow beaches, vegetated slopes, and parks. The head of the St. Clair River has
relatively high velocities, and is considered a pinch point due to the narrow configuration of the channel at the Lake
Huron outlet. Historic photos indicate some infilling has occurred in the Point Edward/Sarnia area.
Lake St. Clair Shoreline
The shoreline varies from broad wetland to hardened retaining walls. Much of the area has been dyked inland from the
lake to allow dewatering by pumping. The extensive pump works permits extensive cultivation in the low lying region.
Lake St. Clair Delta Shoreline
Before discharging to Lake St. Clair, the St. Clair River divides into several channels creating an extensive delta. The delta
is made up of discrete islands; Walpole Island, the largest one, is accompanied by Squirrel Island and St. Anne Island with
several other small islands divided artificially by canals. See Map 4: St. Clair River Delta. Walpole Island Shoreline is less
hardened and consists of natural vegetated shorelines. Dependent on lake levels, wide beaches exist along the Walpole
Island shoreline.
Terrestrial Ecology
Historical surveyors’ notes from the early 1800s have been compiled and analyzed for the St. Clair Region which provides
a reasonable perspective on the land use changes over time. Map 5: Historic Land Use indicates the vegetative cover
present prior to the area being populated by European settlers. With the exception of marshland in the Sarnia (old Lake
Wawanosh area), wetlands were not predominant in the upper St. Clair River area. Forest dominated the landscape.
However, in the lower St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair area, both wet woods and marsh wetlands as well as prairie
meadows would have been more numerous than upland woods.
11
12
Map 3: AOC Soils
Map 4: St. Clair River Delta
13
14
Map 5: Historic Land Use
Wetlands
Protection of the remaining wetlands is extremely important for maintaining base flow to watercourses, water filtering
functions, and natural heritage biodiversity. Wetlands also act as a carbon sink, filter the air and provide valuable social
and educational resources. Environment Canada has provided guidelines indicating that greater than 6% of each major
subwatershed should be in wetland habitat; or the original percentage of wetlands should be restored3. The table below
indicates the area of Ministry of Natural Resources identified wetlands per subwatershed.
Table 2: % Wetland Cover Within Each Subwatershed
Subwatershed
Baby Creek
Total wetland area
(km2)
Subwatershed area
(km2)
% wetland
0
21.0097
0
Bowens Creek
0.592
6.6198
8.942868365
Clay Creek
2.406
56.6698
4.245647594
Whitebread/Marshy Creek
0.01
43.849
0.022805537
Maxwell Creek/Bear/Rankin
2.88
56.279405
5.11732489
McKeough
0.044
21.7352
0.202436601
Running Creek Lower Sydenham
0.307
49.3795
0.621715489
Sarnia/Pt. Edward
0.024
34.813787
0.068938205
St. Clair
0.709
47.793409
1.483468149
Talford Creek
0
57.168
0
Walpole Island
0
147.120635
0
6.972
542.438236
1.285307623
Total
Review of the historical surveyors’ notes from the early 1800s revealed extensive wet meadows and open marshes
stretched south from Wallaceburg into Geographic Dover Township. This was an extension of the existing St. Clair
Marshes, situated along Lake St. Clair, as shown in the Maxwell/Bear/Rankin subwatershed map. See Map 6: AOC
Wetlands.
Widespread drainage works over the past 150 years have reduced the wetland cover to less than 1% in the entire St. Clair
Region watershed. The diversity has also been affected, as the majority of the wetlands are those deciduous swamps
existing in the remnant woodlands at the back of farms. Along Lake St. Clair, there are remnants of marsh and some
marshlands have also been recreated with dykes and pump works. Currently, the largest MNR identified wetland complex
is the Bickford Oak Woods wetland in St. Clair Township. This swamp or slough forest is 3.6 km². It is the largest wetland in
the entire St. Clair Region watershed, not to mention Lake St. Clair and St. Clair River direct drainage watersheds referred
to as AOC Area 1-A. Situated within 3 subwatersheds, it represents a core Natural Heritage feature within the AOC. See
Map 7: Wetland Cover.
Riparian Zones
The area of land adjacent to the watercourse is often called the riparian zone or buffer zone. Natural or permanent
vegetation adjacent to watercourses provides many benefits to the watercourse. The vegetation filters sediment and
pollutants from surface runoff, shades and cools the water, provides shoreline habitat for fish, reduces bank erosion, and
contributes organic matter such as woody debris and leaves for aquatic organisms.
Environment Canada’s riparian habitat guidelines recommend 75% of stream length be naturally vegetated, ideally with a
30 metre wide natural stream buffer3 . MNR conducted a 2006 GIS riparian buffer exercise and found that the percentage
of tributaries buffered by greater than five (5) metres of natural vegetation in Area 1-A is approximately 12 percent. This
represents half the riparian buffering in the Sydenham River watershed, the Sydenham watershed being adjacent to
3 Environment Canada, 2004. How much habitat is enough? A framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Second Edition. Available from Canadian Wildlife Service,
Downsview, Ontario or wildlife.ontario.ec.gc.ca
15
16
Map 6: AOC Wetlands
Map 7: Percent Wetland Cover
17
the St. Clair River tributary watershed (AOC). This exercise highlighted the need for improved buffering in Area 1-A4. See
Appendix B for CRIC Work Plan.
Woodlands
Environment Canada3 has provided guidelines on forest habitats, specifically indicating that at least 30 percent of the
watershed should be in forest cover in order to support viable fish and wildlife populations. The table below provides
the % forest cover for each subwatershed and the % forest cover for the AOC Area 1-A and entire St. Clair Region
Conservation Authority watershed as a comparison.
Table 3: % Woodland Cover Within Each Subwatershed
Subwatershed
Baby Creek
Total Woodland
area (km2)
Subwatershed
area (km2)
% woodland
cover
% Cover of
SCRCA Total
Woodlands
2.515950134
21.0097
11.97518353
0.512413469
Bowens Creek
2.432339711
6.6198
36.74340178
0.49538487
Clay Creek
11.46666219
56.6698
20.23416739
2.335369082
2.403702394
43.849
5.481772433
0.489552422
Maxwell Creek/Bear/Rankin
0.730317433
56.279405
1.297663742
0.148740821
McKeough
3.027565271
21.7352
13.92931867
0.616612072
Running Creek Lower Sydenham
0.274812467
49.3795
0.55653149
0.055969953
Sarnia/Pt. Edward
1.76804607
34.813787
5.078580133
0.360090849
St. Clair
4.03589899
47.793409
8.444467708
0.821975354
Talford Creek
12.7683515
57.168
22.33478782
2.600478921
Walpole Island
21.31325917
147.120635
14.48692712
4.340785981
Total
60.2209552
542.438236
11.10190086
12.77737379
SCRCA Area
4130 km2
Woodland Cover
491 km2
% Woodland Cover 11.88861985%
Historic records of the region indicate that there were extensive deciduous woodlands across the region. The area is
classified as Great Lakes Deciduous Forest, which includes sugar maple, American beech, red oak, basswood and white
ash. In comparing the southwest AOC area to the entire St. Clair Region, there are more southerly “Carolinian” species
including black cherry, black walnut, sycamore, white oak, swamp white oak, chinquapin oak, and shagbark hickory.
Several rarities such as tulip tree, blue ash, Kentucky coffee tree, hop tree, shumard oak, big shellbark hickory and
pawpaw are also found in the region.
Today, in Lambton County and Area 1-A, the largest area of woodland is within the Walpole Island First Nation and the
second largest within Aamjiwnaang First Nation. The largest contiguous forest outside First Nation lands is Bickford Oak
Woods, in St. Clair Township.
The linear east-west pattern of most woodlots in the area is due to the practice of clearing the acreage closest to the
concession road for farming, while retaining the “back 40” in treed cover. Map 8: Woodland Cover shows the woodland
cover with the First Nation lands identified. The lowest amount of cover is found in the Lake St. Clair subwatershed areas,
where marshland occurred historically prior to European settlement. This area is intensively farmed due to the favourable
soils and artificial drainage. The mapping information indicates that direct St. Clair tributary watersheds have minimal
woodland cover in comparison to the surrounding subwatersheds.
4 St. Clair River Canadian RAP Work Plan 2007, p. 14
18
Map 8: Percent Woodland Cover
19
2.2 Aquatic Characteristics
Aquatic ecosystems provide habitat for aquatic organisms and for some specific life stages of semi-aquatic species.
Aquatic ecosystems include watercourses (streams, rivers, and drains), water bodies (lakes, reservoirs, and ponds), and
wetlands.
Habitat
When comparing the quality of aquatic habitat of the AOC tributaries to the rest of the Sydenham watershed, it is
suffering the greatest environmental impact.
Fisheries
During the last 30 years, 67 species of fish have been recorded in the AOC Area. This represents 40% of the 165 fish
species known in Ontario. The master species list was prepared using information from the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources (OMNR), the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and both SCRCA and UTRCA
staff, who have sampled the fish communities using seine netting, minnow trapping, backpack electro-fishing and boat
electro-fishing. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans completed a boat electro-fishing survey of the St. Clair River
fishes in 20045 and compared their results with an OMNR 1994 study.
These species are listed in Table 4. The table also ranks according to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife
in Canada (COSEWIC)6. Five of these species are considered Species at Risk (SAR) by COSEWIC. Additional information on
SAR is provided in Table 4.
Table 4: Species at Risk – St. Clair Region
Common Name
Scientific Name
Type of
organism
COSEWIC
SARO
SRANK
Plants
Colicroot
Aletris farinosa
Plant
THR
THR
S2
Green Dragon
Arisaema dracontium
Plant
SC
SC
S3
Bluehearts
Buchnera americana
Plant
END
END-NR
S1
False Hop Sedge
Carex lupuliformis
Plant
END
END-R
S1
American Chestnut
Castanea dentata
Plant
END
END-NR
S2
Hill’s Thistle
Cirsium hillii
Plant
THR
THR
S3
Dune Thistle
Cirsium pitcheri
Plant
END
END-NR
S2
Small White Lady’s-slipper
Cypripedium candidum
Plant
END
END-R
S1
American Columbo
Frasera caroliniensis
Plant
SC
SC
S2
Blue Ash
Fraxinus quadrangulata
Plant
SC
SC
S3
White Prairie Gentian
Gentiana alba
Plant
END
END-NR
S1
Kentucky Coffeetree
Gymnocladus dioicus
Plant
THR
THR
S2
Swamp Rosemallow
Hibiscus moscheutos
Plant
SC
SC
S3
Butternut
Juglans cinerea
Plant
END
END-NR
S3?
Dense Blazingstar
Liatris spicata
Plant
THR
THR
S2
Purple Twayblade
Liparis liliifolia
Plant
END
END-NR
S2
Riddell’s Goldenrod
Oligoneuron riddellii
Plant
SC
SC
S3
Broad Beech Fern
Phegopteris hexagonoptera
Plant
SC
SC
S3
Heartleaf Plantain
Plantago cordata
Plant
END
END-R
S1
5 Edwards, A., J. Barnucz and N.E. Mandrak, 2006. Boat electro-fishing survey of the fish assemblages in the St. Clair River, Ontario. Can. Manuscr.Rpt.Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2742:v + 57 p.
6 NHIC website www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.html
20
Type of
organism
COSEWIC
SARO
SRANK
Plantanthera leucophaea
Plant
END
END-NR
S2
Pink Milkwort
Polygala incarnata
Plant
END
END-R
S1
Common Hoptree
Ptelea trifoliata
Plant
THR
THR
S3
Shumard Oak
Quercus shumardii
Plant
SC
SC
S3
Prairie Rose
Rosa setigera
Plant
SC
SC
S3
Willowleaf Aster
Symphyotrichum praealtum
Plant
THR
THR
S2
Common Name
Scientific Name
Eastern Prairie White-fringed Orchid
Drooping Trillium
Trillium flexipes
Plant
END
END-R
S1
Bird’s-foot Violet
Viola pedata
Plant
END
END-R
S1
Reptiles
Spiny Softshell Turtle
Apalone spinifera
Reptile
THR
THR
S3
Eastern Foxsnake
Elaphe gloydi
Reptile
THR
THR
S3
Eastern Ratsnake
Elaphe obsoleta
Reptile
THR
THR
S3
Blanding’s Turtle
Emys blandingii
Reptile
THR
THR
S3
Northern Map Turtle
Graptemys geographica
Reptile
SC
SC
S3
Eastern Hognose Snake
Heterodon platirhinos
Reptile
THR
THR
S3
Milksnake
Lampropeltis triangulum
Reptile
SC
SC
S3
Queen Snake
Regina septemvittata
Reptile
THR
THR
S2
Common Musk Turtle
Sternotherus odoratus
Reptile
THR
THR
S3
Butler’s Gartersnake
Thamnophis butlerii
Reptile
THR
THR
S2
Eastern Ribbonsnake
Thamnophis sauritus
Reptile
SC
SC
S3
Birds
Black Tern
Chilodonias niger
Bird
NAR
SC
S3B
Northern Bobwhite
Colinus virginianus
Bird
END
END
S1S2
Cerulean Warbler
Dendroica cerulea
Bird
SC
SC
S3B
Prairie Warbler
Dendroica discolor
Bird
NAR
NAR
S3S4B
Acadian Flycatcher
Empidonax virescens
Bird
END
END
S2B
Yellow-breasted Chat
Icteria virens
Bird
SC
SC
S2S3B
Least Bittern
Ixobrychus exilis
Bird
THR
THR
S3B
Loggerhead Shrike
Lanius lucovicianus
Bird
END
END-R
S2B
Red-headed Woodpecker
Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Bird
SC
SC
S3B
Prothonotary Warbler
Protonotaria citrea
Bird
END
END-R
S1S2-B
King Rail
Rallus elegans
Bird
END
END-R
S2B
Forster’s Tern
Sterna forsteri
Bird
DD
DD
S2S3B
Hooded Warbler
Wilsonia citrina
Bird
THR
THR
S3B
Eastern Sand Darter
Ammocrypta pellucida
Fish
THR
THR
S2
Lake Chubsucker
Erimyzon sucetta
Fish
THR
THR
S2
Grass Pickerel
Esox americanus
Fish
SC
S3
Greenside Darter
Etheostoma blenniodes
Fish
SC
SC
S4
Fishes
21
Common Name
Scientific Name
Type of
organism
COSEWIC
Blackstripe Topminnow
Fundulus notatus
Fish
SC
SC
S2
Bigmouth Buffalo
Ictiobus cyprinellus
Fish
SC
SC
SU
Spotted Gar
Lepisosteus oculatus
Fish
THR
THR
S2
Striped Shiner
Luxilus chrysocephalus
Fish
NAR
NAR
S4
Spotted Sucker
Minytrema melanops
Fish
SC
SC
S2
Golden Redhorse
Moxostoma erythrurum
Fish
NAR
NAR
S4
Pugnose Shiner
Notropis anogenus
Fish
END
END
S2
Ghost Shiner
Notropis buchanani
Fish
NAR
NAR
S2
Brindled Madtom
Noturus miurus
Fish
NAR
NAR
S2
Channel Darter
Percina copelandii
Fish
THR
THR
S2
SARO
SRANK
Mussels
Northern Riffleshell
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Mussel
END
END
S1
Snuffbox
Epioblasma triquetra
Mussel
END
END
S1
Wavyrayed Lampmussel
Lampsilis fasciola
Mussel
END
END
S1
Round Hickorynut
Obovaria subrotunda
Mussel
END
END
S1
Round Pigtoe
Pleurobema sintoxia
Mussel
END
S1
Kidneyshell
Ptychobranchus fasciola
Mussel
END
END
S1
Mudpuppy Mussel
Simpsonaias ambigua
Mussel
END
END
S1
Rayed Bean
Villosa fabalis
Mussel
END
END
S1
American Badger
Taxidea taxus
Mammal
END
END
S2
Gray Fox
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Mammal
THR
THR
SNA
Mammals
Recent surveys (between 1999 and 2004) have concentrated on the St. Clair and Sydenham Rivers. Additional species
would probably be added to the list if the tributaries along Lake St. Clair and the Great Lakes connecting channels
were investigated thoroughly. This is suggested by the five species at risk found in the Whitebread Drain7. More recent
surveys as a result of a proposed Shell refinery have also found northern pike in St. Clair River tributaries. All the tributary
watercourses in the AOC area are warm temperature streams.
Mussels
Freshwater mussels are valuable indicators of environmental degradation because they are affected by many kinds of
habitat alteration and pollution. They are useful for bio-monitoring environmental contamination because they are longlived, sedentary bottom-dwellers and accumulate many toxic substances8.
Mussel surveys and monitoring programs have been extensive in the Sydenham River watershed, but not for the
tributaries. Past monitoring found that when compared to drainage basins of similar size in the State of Ohio, the
Sydenham River had greater than average mussel and fish diversity, with over 30% more species of mussels than the
average watercourse of this size9. However, the work in the late 1990s indicated that in general, habitat conditions for
mussels were deteriorating and the diversity and population of mussels were declining. This decline is also suspected in
the AOC subwatersheds, however, mussel species distribution in the area outside the Sydenham River watershed is an
information gap.
7 Shawn Staton 2004 pers. commun.
8 Metcalfe-Smith, J., A. MacKenzie, I. Carmichael and D. McGoldrick. 2005. “Photo Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of Ontario” St. Thomas Field Naturalist Club Incorporated, St. Thomas, ON. 60pp.
(in press)
9 Metcalfe-Smith, J. L. 1999. Sydenham River Mussel Communities. Unpublished report from National Water Research Institute. 12pp.
22
Aquatic (Benthic) Macroinvertebrates
Aquatic macroinvertebrates have been used effectively to evaluate the quality of water in rivers, streams and lakes.
Benthic, or bottom-dwelling, macroinvertebrates live on or in the substrate of water bodies and include organisms such
as mayflies, stoneflies, aquatic worms and snails. These river bottom bugs provide an excellent tool for water quality
assessment because different species have different tolerances to pollution. Several benthic monitoring studies have
been undertaken by various organizations in the AOC area. Each of these utilized different protocols, but basically the
general findings were that water quality was impaired at all sites evaluated on Clay Creek, Baby Creek, Talford Creek,
Bowens Creek and Grape Run. The upstream sites on Baby and Clay Creeks were the least impaired sites. Consistent
monitoring over several years by the Conservation Authority indicates no improvement, with readings averaging “Poor”.
Bio-monitoring of the St. Clair River itself has occurred since at least 195710, when contaminants were identified in the
river sediments. Due to presence of contaminants in varying degrees of concentration, degradation of the benthos
in the St. Clair River was a major environmental issue. Recent sediment assessments of Talford creek identified the
presence of contaminants; the most degraded samples taken from the creek outlet to the St. Clair River. Deposition of the
contaminants at the mouth of Talford Creek can be attributed to spills upstream in the St. Clair River. The contaminated
sediment has resulted in the benthic community being impaired, along with body burdens of benthics. Six years of
monitoring the benthics in the tributaries of the St. Clair River has concluded that the benthic communities are impaired.
When comparing the quality of aquatic habitat of the St. Clair River/Lake St. Clair Tributaries to the rest of the Sydenham
watershed, the AOC tributaries are suffering the greatest environmental impact with the SCRCA score of “Poor”. This is
based on six years of benthic monitoring.
Species at Risk
Species at Risk classifications are defined as follows:
Endangered – A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction.
Threatened – A species that is likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed.
Special Concern – A species is of special concern because of characteristics that make it particularly sensitive to human
activities or natural events.
Table 4 provides a summary of Species at Risk for the region which includes the AOC 1-A area11. This table also includes
information on the provincial ranking for species (SARO – Species at Risk Ontario) together with the COSEWIC (Committee
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada). The table includes plants, reptiles, birds, fishes, mussels, and mammals.
Neither MNR nor Environment Canada has status ranking for the insects as yet. However, Odonate species (dragonflies
and damselflies) are tracked by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) and the Nature Conservancy (TNC).
Mussels
Although the Sydenham River has been surveyed thoroughly for mussels, the St. Clair tributaries have not. Some species
of freshwater mussels including the Mapleleaf (Threatened) have been found in Clay Creek, however detailed surveys
have not been undertaken.
Fish
Five Species at Risk were recently found in Whitebread Drain which is a tributary of the lower St. Clair River. These species
included Spotted Sucker (Special Concern), Pugnose Shiner (Endangered), Pugnose Minnow (Special Concern), Grass
Pickerel (Special Concern) and Blackstripe Topminnow (Special Concern)12. Little Bear Creek in Dover Township has
Pugnose Shiner (Endangered). Grass Pickerel (Special Concern) was also found in both Maxwell Creek and Little Bear
Creek watercourses.
Reptiles
Eight species of reptiles which are Species at Risk have been found in the AOC, including four turtle species and four
snake species. NHIC records Spiny Softshell turtles from the outlet of Clay Creek in 1986, but more recent NHIC records are
only on the Sydenham River.
10 http://lis.sarnia.com/pdf%20files/Water2Biomonitoring.pdf Retrieved November 6 2005.
11 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Resource Centre (NHIC), 2006
12 Staton 2004 pers. comm.
23
Dragonflies and Damselflies
Neither MNR nor Environment Canada has status ranking for these insects. However Odonate species (dragonflies and
damselflies) are tracked by NHIC and TNC (Regional ranking by The Nature Conservancy of Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A.). Of
those 39 species recorded by NHIC for the AOC within the last 30 years, six odonates from the AOC are provincially rare.
It is important to monitor Species at Risk as they are sensitive to environmental change and may provide warning signs
of deteriorating environmental health. The distribution and abundance of Species at Risk in the St. Clair Region may be
valuable indicators of a change in the environmental health of the region. Principal stresses affecting populations of
Species at Risk in the AOC are toxic compounds, sediment loadings causing turbidity and siltation, nutrient loads, thermal
effects and exotic species. Identification of Species at Risk in the AOC is incomplete. Detailed surveys of mussels and fish
are needed. Identification of the stresses on aquatic systems is also an information gap.
Invasive Species
Invasive species have had a significant negative impact on the ecosystem by out-competing native species, carrying
pathogens, disrupting communities, causing extinction, altering the food chain, disturbing habitat, affecting
environmental/ecosystem health, and impacting water quality13.
Introduced fish species include the Common Carp, Goldfish, Alewife, Round Goby and Sea Lamprey. The most serious
invasive species for this region to date has been the Zebra Mussel. This European species has already decimated the
native mussels of the St. Clair River and delta. Prolific with an ability to tolerate a wide range of environmental conditions,
Zebra Mussels compete with native mussels for food supply and have a severe effect on water intakes by reducing pipe
diameters.
Common Reed/Giant Reed (Phragmites australis) has overtaken the majority of wetlands along the St. Clair River and its
tributaries. Growing into dense monocultures, it prevents the growth of native terrestrial species, such as cattails, which
impacts the use of the habitat by fish and wildlife and impacts the hydrology as well.
Emerald ash borer is native to China and eastern Asia. As of June 2008, it is now found in Lambton County. Its impact on
woodlands is not known yet but ash trees form a large part of the local tree cover.
2.3 Human Characteristics
The majority of the AOC area is within the Census Canada region of Lambton County. Lambton County makes up 80%
of the watershed area while the remainder is in the census region of Chatham-Kent. Table 5 provides a summary of the
proportion of the regions in the study area.
Table 5: Census Region Area Within AOC Area 1-A
Area within AOC Area 1-A
Census Region
Total Area
(sq km)
(sq km)
Percentage of
Municipality
Percentage of AOC
Area 1-A Watershed
Lambton County
3,002
433
14
80
Chatham-Kent
2,490
108
4
20
Total
8,825
541
18
100
Population and Population Distribution
The total population in the study area is about 234,000 based on the 2001 census. Most of the population is concentrated
in urban communities surrounded by agricultural land as illustrated by the urban/industrial areas shown on Map 9:
Generalized Land Cover and Designated Growth Areas.
13 Cinura, K.A., L.A. Meyerson, and A. Gutierrez. 2004. The ecological and socio-economic impacts of invasive alien species in inland water ecosystems. Report to the Conservation on Biological Diversity
on behalf of the Global Invasive Species Programme, Washington, D.C. p 34 (may be downloaded at http://www.biodiv.org/doc/ref/alien/ias-inland-waters-en.pdf )
24
Lambton County and Chatham-Kent population distributions are outlined in Table 6 and Table 7 respectively.
Table 6: Lambton County Population Distribution
Population
2006
Population
2001
Land Area
in sq km
Population
Density
Per sq km
% of area within
AOC Area 1-A
128, 204
126,971
3002
43
80
• City of Sarnia
71,419
70,876
800
89
20
• St. Clair
14,649
14,659
620
24
37
• Point Edward
2,019
2,101
3
673
100
• Walpole Island FN
1,878
1,843
147
13
100
• Aamjiwnaang FN
706
695
13
54
100
Population
2006
Population
2001
Land Area
in sq km
Population
Density
Per sq km
% of area within
AOC Area 1-A
Chatham-Kent
~108,054
107,341
2470
44
4%
• Wallaceburg Centre
~11,225
11,114
11
1020
100%
• Chatham (Township)
~8,208
6.002
356
23
14
• Dover (Township)
~3,920
3,923
280
14
20
Lambton County
Table 7: Chatham-Kent Population Distribution
In the AOC, the City of Sarnia has the largest population (70,876). The majority of the dense urban fabric is situated within
the AOC. The city does have a large rural land base as a result of the amalgamation of the City and the adjacent township.
However, the majority of the rural land base is outside the study area and drains to Lake Huron. The second largest urban
centre is the former Town of Wallaceburg with a population of 11,772. Population totals for St. Clair Township indicate
a higher population than Wallaceburg at 14,659; however, this population is spread throughout a larger land base and
population totals from the smaller centres such as Corunna and Sombra are not available.
Population Projections
Table 8: Historic Populations gives the populations for 2001 and 1996 with the % change for the communities in the
study area.
Both Lambton County and Chatham-Kent experienced a decline in population over the five year period from
1996 to 2002.
25
26
Map 9: Generalized Land Cover and Designated Growth Areas
Table 8: Historic Populations in AOC Area 1-A
2006
Population
2001
Population
1996
Population
1996 to 2001
Population
Change %
2001 to 2006
Population
Change %
Lambton County
128,204
126,971
128,975
-1.6
+0.97
• City of Sarnia
71,419
70,876
72,738
• St. Clair
14,649
14,659
15,081
• Point Edward
2,019
2,101
2,257
• Walpole Island FN
1,878
1,843
1,525
+20.9
+1.9
-1.8
+0.66
• Aamjiwnaang FN
706
695
n/a
Chatham-Kent
108,054
107,341
109,350
• Wallaceburg Centre
~11,225
11,114
11,772
• Chatham (Township)
~8,208
6,022
6,321
• Dover
~3,920
3,923
4,040
+1.6
The Ontario Ministry of Finance Report, 200414 projected only a 0.6% and 3.3% increase in growth rate over the next 27
year period for Chatham-Kent and Lambton County respectively. This is well below the provincial average of 27.8%.
The Sarnia/St. Clair Township industrial base suffered setbacks in the 1980s and 1990s, impacting job opportunities, thus
affecting population growth. Business leaders recently began pursuing opportunities in alternative energy and industrial
bio-projects which are directed at diversification of the local economy. Some gains, although minor, have been made due
to this diversification.
2.4 Climate
Different networks have been established to monitor meteorological and climatic trends. The two main ones are the
Environment Canada network, and the Conservation Authority networks. The Environment Canada network of automatic
and synoptic stations is best for observing long-term trends. These stations have longer periods of record, measure winter
precipitation and have uniform quality control. The local Sarnia monitoring station has a period of record from 1882 –
present.
Data from some of the Environment Canada climate stations are provided in Figure 1 and Figure 2 to illustrate climatic
differences across the region. Figure 2 illustrates an Environment Canada annual precipitation plot graph for Sarnia,
Wallaceburg and Strathroy 1950 to 2005. Table 9: St. Clair Region Annual Precipitation 1950-2005 illustrates how annual
precipitation can vary by over two times from year to year. For example, at Sarnia, the minimum annual precipitation was
as low as 443 mm in 1963 and the maximum precipitation was as high as 1,092 mm in 1984. The variation in precipitation
from year to year means there can be a significant difference in the water available to recharge ground water aquifers or
maintain stream flow.
Table 9: St. Clair Region Annual Precipitation 1950-2005 in mm
Location
Average
Max (year)
Min (year)
Sarnia
819
1,086 (1984)
443 (1963)
Wallaceburg
806
1,170 (1996)
561 (1963)
Strathroy
914
1,162 (1976)
532 (1963)
14 Ontario Ministry of Finance, Ontario Population Projections, 2004-2031
27
0
k
rd
don
toc
atfo
Lon
ods
Str
o
W
e 2.3.1.2-1:
n
ia
roy
am
rnia
ow
trol
ath
ath
Sa
get
Pe
d
i
Str
Ch
R
Station
Annual Precipitation Normals
Annual Air Temperatures in Watershed Region
1971 - 2000
16
Maximum outlined
Temperature
values using the procedures
in the paper Filling Gaps In Meteorological Data Sets Used For
Average
Temperature
Long –Term
Watershed
Modelling
presented
at the Ontario Water Conference in 2000 59.
14
Minimum Temperature
o
Air Temperature ( C)
Table 2.3.1.2-3:
St. Clair Region Annual Precipitation 1959-2005 illustrates the variation over the
12
years. Annual precipitation can vary by over two times from year to year. For example, at Sarnia, the
minimum10annual precipitation was as low as 443 mm in 1963 and the maximum precipitation was as high
as 1,092 mm in 1984. The variation in precipitation from year to year means that there can be a
significant8 difference in the water available to recharge groundwater aquifers or maintain stream flow.
Table 2.3.1.2-3:
6
St. Clair Region Annual Precipitation 1950-2005 in mm
4
Location
Sarnia
2
Wallaceburg
Strathroy
Average
819
806
914
0
n
ndo
d
tfor
ck
sto
Max (year)
1086 (1984)
1170 (1996)
1162 (1976)
ia
trol
ia
arn
Min (year)
443 (1963)
561 (1963)
532 (1963)
m
tha
y
thro
n
tow
a
a
S
ge
Lo
ha
Pe
od
Strdata
Str been
Environment Canada
Rid used to plot graphs of the total annual
W ofrom 1950 to 2005 Chas also
X Data
precipitation for the Sarnia, Wallaceburg and Strathroy climate stations. These plots are shown in Figure
2.3.1.2-3:
Clair Region
Annual Precipitation.
FigureSt.
1: Annual
Air Temperatures
in the AOC and Surrounding Area for Comparison
e 2.3.1.2-2:
Annual Average Temperature
onment Canada data from 1950 to 2005 has been used to provide background information on the
nnual precipitation
at the Sarnia, Wallaceburg and Strathroy climate stations in the St. Clair Source
1200
tion Area. The meteorological files have been reviewed to clean up records and fill in missing data
1100
38
hed Characterization Report - St. Clair Region Source Protection Area - Volume 1
1000
Annual Precipitation (mm)
900
800
700
600
500
400
SARNIA
WALLACEBURG
STRATHROY
Linear (SARNIA)
Linear (WALLACEBURG)
Linear (STRATHROY)
10 per. Mov. Avg. (SARNIA)
10 per. Mov. Avg. (WALLACEBURG)
10 per. Mov. Avg. (STRATHROY)
300
Year
Figure
2.3.1.2-3:
St. Clairfrom
Region
Annual
Precipitation
(1950-2005)
Figure
2: Annual Precipitation
Sarnia,
Wallaceburg
and Strathroy
Climate Stations
28
2005
2001
1997
1993
1989
1985
1981
1977
1973
1969
1965
1961
1957
1953
1950
200
are shown. The minimum annual average temperature was 6.8°C (Sarnia – 1972) and the maximum was
11.2 (Wallaceburg – 1998).
In general, the stations have similar highs and lows in the 10 year running averages. The most southerly
station, Wallaceburg, has higher 10 year averages and linear trend lines than the other stations. The Sarnia
station appears to show a more moderate linear trend line that may reflect the proximity to a large body of
water.
The temperature data sets for the individual stations have been plotted in separate figures to provide a
clearer
picture for
the different locations. The average temperature for each station over the 56 years has
Climate
Trends
also been
plotted
on
the figures
provide
some linear
additional
reference
tobeen
helpcalculated
show theand
variation
Figure 2 also includes
ten-yearto
running
average
trend lines,
whichand
have
plottedinon the graphs.
annual
temperature.
The
ten-year running averages begin in 1959 which is the first year a ten-year average can be calculated for this data set.
Generally, the ten-year average indicates a downward trend in more recent years.
Average Annual Temperature (ºC)
11
9
7
SARNIA
WALLACEBURG
STRATHROY
Linear (SARNIA)
Linear (WALLACEBURG)
Linear (STRATHROY)
10 per. Mov. Avg. (SARNIA)
10 per. Mov. Avg. (WALLACEBURG)
10 per. Mov. Avg. (STRATHROY)
2005
2001
1997
1993
1989
1985
Year
1981
1977
1973
1969
1965
1961
1957
1953
1950
5
Figure
3: Average Temperature
1950-2005
from Sarnia,
Wallaceburg
and Strathroy
Figure
2.3.1.2-7:
St. Clair Region
Average
Temperature
(1950-2005)
Figure 3 indicates that the stations have similar highs and lows in the ten-year running averages. An upward trend is
occurring at all stations in recent years.
The Great Lakes and Connecting Channels System
The AOC includes the connecting channel, St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair. Due to its size, Lake St. Clair is not officially
considered
a “Great
Lake”,
but isWeather
an important
partOffice.
of the Climate
system. Trends
The Great
Lakes andSouth
connecting
receive their
NOAA’s
National
Weather
Service
Forecast
in Southeast
Dakotachannels
from
water
supplies
from
the
precipitation
that
falls
on
the
lakes
and
channels
themselves
and
the
portion
of
the
precipitation
1895 through 2005. www.crh.noaa.gov
in their drainage basins which eventually flows into the system. Great Lake water levels vary from season to season and
from year
to year because
of the
effects
of precipitation,
runoff
and evaporation.
42
Watershed
Characterization
Report
- St.combined
Clair Region
Source
Protection Area
- Volume
1
61
A plot of the average annual water level recorded in Lake St. Clair since 1918 is provided in Figure 4 Lake St. Clair Water
Levels. More than a century of records in the Great Lakes basin indicates no regular, predictable cycle. However, it does
illustrate the effect climatic and meteorological conditions can have on water supplies.
29
of the precipitation in their drainage basins that eventually flows into the lakes. Great Lakes water levels
vary from season to season and from year to year because of the combined effects of precipitation, runoff
and evaporation.
A plot of the average annual water level recorded in Lake St. Clair since 1918 is provided in Figure
2.3.1.2-11: Lake St. Clair Water Levels. More than a century of records in the Great Lakes basin
indicates no regular, predictable cycle. However, it does illustrate the effect that climatic and
meteorological conditions can have on water supplies.
Figure2.3.1.2-11:
4: Lake St. Clair Water
Levels
Figure
Lake
St. Clair Water Levels
Extremely low levels were recorded in 1926, the mid-1930s and mid-1960s while high levels occurred in 1952, 1973 and
1985-8615. From the mid 1970s to the late 1990s, there has been a 20-year period of high water levels. In the early 2000s,
they have returned to lower levels experienced in the past. At one point, it was predicted that the system was going to
44 lowering.
Watershed
- St.the
Clair
Region Source
Protection
1 winter 2008 prevented this
achieve a Characterization
new record low. Report
However,
precipitation
received
in theArea
fall of- Volume
2007 and
Predicted Changes in the Regional Climate
A review of the available regional analyses regarding temperature and precipitation trends, and expected effects on
southwestern Ontario suggests the following:
• Spring and summer temperatures in the Great Lakes Region are predicted to be 1.5 to 2.0º C above current averages by
2030. Predictions are not as precise, but fall and winter temperatures are expected to begin warming by the middle of
this century. It is expected that warmer temperatures will increase the water temperatures of the lakes, increasing them
by 1 to 7º C. 150 years of records indicate that ice cover on inland waters will decrease and evaporation will therefore
increase.
• Average annual precipitation is predicted to increase up to 10% by 2030 and up to 20% by the end of the century.
Depth of snow cover in winter is actually expected to decrease due to the overall warming trends. Snow will melt or fall
as rain.
The impact of these trends means extreme or greater-than-normal variations in runoff to lakes, streams and groundwater.
Runoff in winter, spring and fall will be slightly higher and summer moisture and runoff conditions are expected to be
drier. Although a decrease in lake levels is not certain via modelling, the frequency of extreme weather events has been
predicted and indeed data are already showing trends in this direction. The number of heavy 24-hour and multiple day
rainstorms is likely to increase steadily until at least the next century. Increased extreme rainfall may be accompanied by
long dry spells, between storms16. If the business-as-usual scenario with current trends continues in the future, the past
records as provided in the Climate Figures and tables would change, creating substantially different ten-year average
trends. First and foremost, stormwater discharge and inputs to watercourses will be impacted as well as the current state
of the aquatic systems. Climate change will influence other components of society and more details can be provided in
references dealing with climate change adaptation.
15 Environment Canada, Freshwater Website, Fluctuating Water Levels (Great Lakes), July 2006
16 Natural Resources Canada, 2007, From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate, Chapter 6: Ontario or Jacques Whitford, Consultant, Draft EA, Apr 14, 2008, Shell Refinery, p. 6-107-109.
30
2.5 Hydrology, Water Use and Water Value
The water uses reflected below emphasize direct use of water within the AOC. The St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair are
important sources of drinking water for several communities on the Canadian side. Both Wallaceburg and Walpole Island
F.N. drinking water intakes are situated within the River. The southern Lake St. Clair communities of Belle River, Stoney
Point and Tecumseh, take raw water from Lake St. Clair. Population totals for these communities are approximately
285,000 Ontario residents. Also directly impacted by Lake St. Clair water quality, the City of Windsor takes raw water from
the Fleming Channel of the Detroit River opposite Belle Isle. The water treatment plants have a combined rated capability
of 337,600 m3/day. The majority of residents within the AOC are obtaining raw water via pipelines from the Great Lakes or
connecting channel intakes.
The industries situated along the upper St. Clair River utilize St. Clair River surface water for industrial cooling as well as in
other plant processes17.
The shipping channel situated within Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River is an important economic transportation
corridor. Recent numbers for commercial traffic indicate there were a total of 6,262 passings. This would include vessels
over 20 m in length. The channel is important for the large petrochemical industry in the Upper St. Clair River as there
are four designated oil handling facilities where petroleum products are loaded or unloaded from ships. The channel
is an integral part of the St. Lawrence Seaway system because it links the upper Great Lakes with the lower Great Lakes
and the Atlantic Ocean. Navigational dredging of the corridor to ensure adequate draft for ships began in 1873. The
maximum natural depth of the St. Clair River is 30.5 m with a mean depth of 11 m. Lake St. Clair has an average depth of
3.7 m, a maximum natural depth of 6.4 m and maximum dredged shipping channel depth of 8.3 m. The construction of
the St. Clair Cutoff Channel created a large volume of dredged material that was deposited beside the new channel at the
edge of Lake St. Clair, creating Seaway Island.
Within the AOC area, there are seven marinas along the Canadian shore. This is relatively low in comparison to the 211
marinas found on the U.S. side of Lake St. Clair shores.
There are five identified swimming beaches along the St. Clair River (Sarnia Centennial Park, Willow Park, Seager Park,
Marshy Creek Park and Brander Park) and two along Lake St. Clair (Willow Park in Walpole FN and Mitchell’s Bay).
First Nations
The AOC area is considered to be traditional territory of Walpole Island First Nation, Aamjiwaang First Nation, and Kettle
and Stony Point First Nations18. Long before the arrival of Europeans, the ancestors of these first nations used animals,
fish, plants and minerals for subsistence, commerce, social and ceremonial purposes. The following is a summary of
resource uses more directly related to water use outlined in the 2008 TEK study.
Fishing
Nearly all participants in the Walpole Island TEK study consume locally caught fish. Walpole Island is the main area fished,
with numerous channels and other water bodies in and around the Island also being productive. Species fished for
include pickerel (also known as walleye), perch, sunfish, bass, white bass, silver bass, pike, catfish, carp, ling, smelt and
sturgeon. Smelt fishing on the beaches was popular, but due to the crash in the smelt population, it is no longer.
Small Game Hunting
Significant muskrat trapping and hunting occurred in the 1950s-1960s, but this has drastically declined. Prior to 1980,
more than 100,000 animals were taken annually (RAP, Stage 1); decreasing to only 10,000 pelts post 1980s, and has
continued to decline. Mink occupied the marshlands and their pelts were valuable historically but their value and
consumption has declined as well.
17 Lambton County Groundwater Study, Dillon and Golder, 2004
18 Traditional Ecological Knowledge Study: Walpole Island First Nation and the St. Clair River Corridor, Final Report, 2008, Victor P. Lytwyn, Ph.D., for Walpole Island FN.
31
Reptiles and Amphibians
Hunting frogs was once a mainstay in the summertime; as they were plentiful. Turtles were sought in small quantities;
used in soups and their shells and hearts for medicinal purposes.
Waterfowl Hunting
The Chenal Ecarte shoreline and lower island canals are used extensively to hunt ducks for personal consumption and to
share amongst local residents. Guiding tourists for the purpose of duck hunting was a significant business in the Walpole
area. An income of at least $1.5 million Canadian was generated by First Nations for licenses, lease fees and revenue from
guiding (RAP, Stage 1). However with the downturn in the economy and impaired duck population, guiding for hunting
purposes has decreased.
Hydrology
St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair
Roughly 98% of the water entering Lake St. Clair originates from the St. Clair River and the upper Great Lakes, which have
a combined drainage of 146,600 km².
The St. Clair River has a short retention time (approximately 21 hours) as it drains into Lake St. Clair. The average annual
discharge of the river is approximately 5,000 m³/s. Flow velocities can range from 1.67 m/s at the Blue Water Bridge (head
of the St. Clair River) to 0.31 m/s at Lake St. Clair. The total average fall from Lake Huron to Lake St. Clair is 1.5 metres.
The St. Clair River behaves like three separate panels of water: two nearshore sections strongly influenced by discharges
and a centre panel which passes through the river with minimal change”19 . Studies have shown that transboundary
movement of river water does not occur and that contaminant plumes tend to hug the shoreline resulting in
approximately 5 percent of the total flow available for dilution. Sediment and water sample transects across and
throughout the river have led to the acceptance that contaminant plumes spread slowly downstream and are generally
confined to within 300 m of the Canadian shoreline at Port Lambton20. With the advent of climate change and lowering
lake levels, St. Clair River modelling is currently being examined with updated bathymetry and new, state-of-the-art
models.
The St. Clair delta is the river’s most significant landform. The delta is a classical bird-foot morphology and typically
characterizes a marine type delta. The delta continues to develop, however, very little deposition occurs on the eastern
side due to channel dredging on the western side for navigation21. The flow from the St. Clair River into the lake is divided
by the St. Clair delta into three main channels (North Channel, South Channel and Chenal Ecarte) in the upper portion of
the delta and a number of secondary channels in the lower portion of the delta. See Map 4: St. Clair River Delta.
Based on the volume of the lake and inflow from the St. Clair River, the average residence time for Lake St. Clair is about
nine days. Wind direction and velocity can have significant impacts on the residence times and circulation patterns in the
lake. The residence time for the water from the individual channels and the major tributaries can range from four days for
the Middle Channel to more than 30 days for water from a major tributary (i.e. the Thames River).
19 St. Clair AOC Stage 1 RAP, 1992
20 “Ibid”
21 “Ibid”
32
Groundwater
The groundwater quality in the AOC 1-A area is not unlike the general groundwater quality of Lambton County. It is
heavily influenced by the presence of thick layers of clay soils, with a low susceptibility for contamination. Groundwater
flow is east to west towards the St. Clair River and is not a significant discharge feature to the River. The low permeability
of the clay till soils restricts recharging of the deep aquifer and, in fact, the freshwater aquifer that is situated at the base
of the overburden has been found to be recharged thousands of years ago. The aquifer is described as being “brackish”,
with methane and hydrogen sulphide present, in the western part, adjacent the St. Clair River. The higher chloride and
sodium concentrations in the western portion of the aquifer are generally attributed to regional discharge conditions
from deeper formations (saline Hamilton Group aquitard)22. The St. Clair Region Conservation Authority, in partnership
with the Ministry of Environment, samples one groundwater well in the AOC 1-A watershed as part of an overall network
of wells. The well is situated in Guthrie Park along the St. Clair River north of Corunna and has been sampled and
analyzed for four consecutive years (2006-2009). The well is not used as a source of drinking water. Sodium was found
to be the only parameter that is in exceedence of the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards; the average 390 mg/L
in comparison to the aesthetic standard of 200 mg/L. Exceedence was atypical of historic sampling and reflects the
hydrogeologic and geochemical nature of the overburden/bedrock aquifer 23.
22 Lambton County Groundwater Study, Dillon and Golder, 2004
23 SCRCA Board Report – PGWMN, November 2008, H. MacKenzie & M. Andreae
33
34
3
Chapter 3
Subwatershed Characterization
3.1 Point Edward/Sarnia Subwatershed
The Point Edward/Sarnia subwatershed encompasses a land area of 34.81 km². Open
watercourses are not prevalent within the subwatershed as the area is highly urbanized and
a significant portion of the watershed is drained via storm sewers. The stormwater outlets to
the St. Clair River and Lake Huron. The entire municipality of Point Edward with an area of 2.34
km² is situated in this watershed while approximately 20% of the City of Sarnia is contained
within this area. The majority of Sarnia’s Chemical Valley is situated along the St. Clair River in
this subwatershed.
The only Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) which is currently recognized in this
subwatershed is a small portion of Aamjiwnaang First Nation24. The Conservation Authority
does not have any information on fish species, benthic indices or surface water quality within
this subwatershed.
The Point Edward area is situated on a spit of land where Lake Huron outlets into the St. Clair
River. This depositional area is a flat sand plain with soils consisting of a sand loam as well as
silt and clay loams. The majority of Sarnia soils are silt and clay which are common throughout
the Lambton clay plain. Soils are coarser closer to Lake Huron and beach sands are prevalent
along the lake and around the point. See Map 3: Soils.
24��
ESA 59 in “University of Waterloo. 1980. Lambton County preliminary environmentally significant areas study. Prepared for the County of Lambton Planning Department, Sarnia, Ontario. 243 pp.”
35
36
Map 10: Pt. Edward and Sarnia Subwatershed
3.2 Talford Creek Subwatershed
Almost 77% of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation is situated within the Talford Creek subwatershed. The subwatershed
encompasses a land area of 57.12 km². A portion of Sarnia’s Chemical valley is situated here. Aamjiwnaang First Nation
was recognized as an ESA in 1980 (University of Waterloo, op. cit.) and consists of a large continuous woodland area of
approximately 10.88 km² in size, described as oak-hickory savannah and swamp forest by the University of Waterloo
study. Although a large part of the Aamjiwnaang First Nation subwatershed is forested, water quality in the creek has
been negatively impacted as a result of historic industrial actions.
A second woodlot from this subwatershed is also listed in the 1980 ESA study Special Appendix Areas: Indian Pipe
Woodlot (SA15) in geographic Moore Township was a large maple-beech forest with diverse non-vascular plants such as
Indian Pipe on the wooden deadfall.
The Conservation Authority completed a Drain Classification process in 1999-2000, using a protocol which had been
developed with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. In the Talford Creek subwatershed 36% of the watercourses were not
readily accessible and were not classified. 27% of the 67.8 km of watercourses were considered natural and the remaining
portions were Type C (2.6 km of warm water fisheries with baitfish species) or were Type F (21.9 km of intermittent
watercourses). Map 11: Subwatershed DFO provides an overview of the drain classifications for 10 subwatersheds;
excluding First Nations lands. Electro-fishing of Talford Creek in 2000, above the First Nation land, found eight species
of warm water fish which are listed in Table 10: Fish Species Electro-fished by SCRCA in St. Clair River Tributaries
representing the perch, sucker, stickleback, mudminnow and minnow and carp families.
Table 10: Fish Species Electro-fished by SCRCA in St. Clair River Tributaries
Common name
Latin name
Easting
Northing
Date
Talford Creek
Mudminnows
Umbridae
Central Mudminnow
Umbra limi
Minnows and Carp
Cyprinidae
Creek Chub
Semotilus atromaculatus
388455
4752150
27/07/2000
Fathead Minnow
Pimephales promelas
388455
4752150
27/07/2000
Northern Redbelly Dace
Phoxinus oreas
388455
4752150
27/07/2000
Common Shiner
Luxilus cornutus
388455
4752150
27/07/2000
Suckers
Catostomididae
White Sucker
Catostomus commersoni
Sticklebacks
Gasterosteidae
Brook Stickleback
Culaea inconstans
Perch
Percidae
Johnny Darter
Etheostoma nigrum
388455
4752150
27/07/2000
388455
4752150
27/07/2000
388455
4752150
27/07/2000
388455
4752150
27/07/2000
BABY CREEK
Mudminnows
Umbridae
Central Mudminnow
Umbra limi
385964
4740898
12/07/2000
Central Mudminnow
Umbra limi
380918
4743800
12/07/2000
Minnows and Carp
Cyprinidae
Bluntnose Minnow
Pimephales notatus
380918
4743800
12/07/2000
Spotfin Shiner
Cyprinella spiloptera
380918
4743800
12/07/2000
Common Shiner
Luxilus cornutus
380918
4743800
12/07/2000
37
Common name
Latin name
Easting
Northing
Date
Creek Chub
Semotilus atromaculatus
380918
4743800
12/07/2000
Suckers
Catostomididae
White Sucker
Catfishes
Ictaluridae
Black Bullhead Catfish
Ameiurus melas
Sunfishes
Centrarchidae
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
380918
4743800
12/07/2000
Rock Bass
Ambloplites rupestris
380918
4743800
12/07/2000
Perch
Percidae
Johnny Darter
Etheostoma nigrum
380918
4743800
12/07/2000
Yellow Perch
Perca flavescens
380918
4743800
12/07/2000
380918
4743800
12/07/2000
380918
4743800
12/07/2000
CLAY CREEK
Mudminnows
Umbridae
Central Mudminnow
Umbra limi
Pikes
Esocidae
Northern Pike
Esox lucius
Minnows and Carp
Cyprinidae
Golden Shiner
381563
4732922
27/09/2000
381563
4732922
27/09/2000
Notemigonus crysoleucas
381563
4732922
27/09/2000
Spotfin Shiner
Cyprinella spiloptera
381563
4732922
27/09/2000
Suckers
Catostomididae
White Sucker
Sunfishes
Centrarchidae
Green Sunfish
Lepomis cyanellus
381563
4732922
27/09/2000
Pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
381563
4732922
27/09/2000
381563
4732922
27/09/2000
MARSHY CREEK
Minnows and Carp
Cyprinidae
Common Carp
Cyprinus carpio
Sunfishes
Centrarchidae
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
377636
4722158
27/09/2000
Largemouth Bass
Micropterus salmoids
377636
4722158
27/09/2000
377636
27/09/2000
38
4722158
Map 11: Subwatershed DFO
39
Benthic sampling has been carried out in Talford Creek at the LaSalle Line crossings nine times since 1999. Each time
the samples have been collected using three-minute kick-and-sweep technique with the disturbed sample collected in
a 500 micron D-shaped net. The samples are preserved and a random subsample of 100 to 200 invertebrate organisms
identified to the family level. The Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (FBI) which is associated with each of these families is a
reflection of the water quality, whereby the presence of organisms like mayfly nymphs indicates well-oxygenated water
and therefore good quality water. Mayfly nymphs have a low FBI value. In poorly-oxygenated water or suspended silt
the mayflies cannot survive and organisms like nematodes are abundant. Nematodes have a high FBI value, indicating
poor water quality which has been impacted by land management practices. The average FBI value of the nine samples
collected in Talford between 1999 and 2008 ranged from 5.37 to 7.21 with an average of 6.22. This is considered Fairly
Poor25 and graded a C in the Conservation Ontario Report Card protocol26.
The SCRCA has sampled surface water in Talford Creek in partnership with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment
(OMOE) since 2004. Samples are collected by the SCRCA up to eight times a year during the frost-free season and
analyzed at the OMOE laboratory in Etobicoke. Samples are analyzed for 37 parameters listed in Table 11: Surface Water
Quality Parameters Analyzed 2004 – 2008. Samples collected from 2004 to 2008 have been reviewed using four key
parameters including: total phosphorus, nitrates, suspended solids, and chloride.
Table 11: Surface Water Quality Parameters Analyzed 2004-2008
Alkalinity
Dissolved Solids
Phosphate
Aluminum
Dissolved Oxygen
Phosphorus
Ammonia
Hardness
Potassium
Barium
Iron
Suspended Solids
Beryllium
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Sodium
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Lead
Strontium
Cadmium
Magnesium
Temperature
Calcium
Manganese
Titanium
Chloride
Molybdenum
Turbidity
Chromium
Nickel
Vanadium
Cobalt
Nitrate
Zinc
Conductivity
Nitrite
Copper
pH
25 Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid Field Assessment of Organic Pollution with a Family Level Biotic Index, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 7:65-68
26 Conservation Ontario. 2003. The Guide to Watershed Report. Prepared by Conservation Ontario in partnership with the Government of Ontario, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and
the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.
40
Total phosphorus conditions in this watershed routinely exceeded the Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective of
0.03 mg/L. Four samples were within the objective although 90% of the 40 samples were at least twice the objective.
The samples from Talford Creek had chloride readings in 2004 to 2008 ranging from 33.7 to 200 mg/L. All samples were
below the Environment Canada guideline of 210 mg/L for toxicity to sensitive species. The Canadian Council of Ministries
of the Environment (CCME) has published Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines in 1996 (updated in 2006) which
provide guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. These guidelines can be modified to units of mg/L NO3- - N in order to
be comparable with the nitrate data from the OMOE data networks.
Nitrate concentrations were compared with the modified Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines published by
the CCME and it was found that 18% of the 40 samples exceeded the modified CCME guideline of 2.93 mg/L for the
protection of aquatic life. It is recognized that these surface waters are not a source of drinking water, but two samples
did exceed the Provincial Drinking Water Standard of 10 mg/L (maximum acceptable concentration of nitrate). Values
ranged from .005 to 20.6. Seven readings were above 2.93 including two readings above 10.
There are no established water quality standards for suspended solids. Turbid water is undesirable for healthy aquatic
life, recreation, aesthetics and water supplies. Suspended solids can also transport significant quantities of phosphorus,
metals and other hazardous contaminants. The samples from Talford Creek had readings between 3.1 and 356 mg/L, with
13% of the samples having levels above 50 mg/L. Values ranged from 3.1 to 356 with five over 50.
The Soils map indicates a coarser soils deposition of silt and clay loam interspersed with sands in the Aamjiwnaang First
Nation area.
41
42
Map 12: Talford Creek Subwatershed
3.3 St. Clair River Direct Drainage Subwatershed
This subwatershed consists of those lands which directly drain into the St. Clair River south of Talford Creek. The area is
47.79 km² and is within the municipality of St. Clair Township. It includes Stag Island and Fawn Island. Stag Island has an
area of 1.1 km² and Fawn Island is 0.21 km². Both Fawn Island and Stag Island accommodate seasonal private recreational
areas. These uses started prior to the turn of the century and access is by watercraft only. The smaller communities of
Corunna, Courtright, Sombra and Port Lambton are situated along the river within this subwatershed, with Corunna
being the largest. A small portion of Chemical Valley is situated north of Corunna. The subwatershed contains 26.22 km of
watercourses and drains which directly outlet to the St. Clair River.
One ESA was identified in this subwatershed. Stag Island in the St. Clair River off of Corunna includes a provincially-owned
“wildlife reserve” which has meadow and a Provincially Significant Wetland. The “Special Appendix Areas” of Lambton’s
ESA report included two woodlots within this subwatershed: Fertilizer Plant Woodlot (SA16) and Hydro Plant Woodlot
(SA19). A portion of the provincially significant wetland complex, evaluated in 2007 and identified generally as Bickford
Oak Woods, extends into this subwatershed.
The Drain Classification described previously indicates that in this subwatershed 41% of the watercourses were not
readily accessible and were not classified. 45% of the 28.7 km of watercourses were Type F (intermittent watercourses)
and the remaining classified reaches were Type C (warm water fisheries with baitfish species).
The Conservation Authority does not have any information on fish species, benthic indices or surface water quality within
this subwatershed.
The soils of the mainland are of the common Lambton silt and clay.
43
44
Map 13: St. Clair Direct Drainage Tributaries
3.4 Baby and Bowens Creek Subwatersheds
Baby and Bowens Creek subwatersheds are two of the smaller subwatersheds within the AOC 1-A area. The Baby Creek
subwatershed encompasses a land area of 21 km² and the main channel is 7.7 km with a total tributary watercourse
length of 20.4 km. The watercourse is considered natural for 9.3 km, a Type C municipal drain for 6.1 km and is unclassified
for 12.7 km.
No ESAs have been recognized by Lambton County in this subwatershed but there is one Special Appendix Area briefly
described in the literature27: Payne Woodlot (SA 12). Electro-fishing of Baby Creek in 2000 found 11 species of warm water
fish which are listed in Table 10: Fish Species Electro-fished by SCRCA in St. Clair River Tributaries representing the
sunfish, catfish, perch, sucker, mudminnow, and minnow and carp families.
Benthic samples have been collected from Baby Creek on Moore Line. The average FBI value of the six samples collected
in Baby Creek between 2000 and 2006 ranged from 4.96 to 7.19 with an average of 6.18. This is considered Fairly Poor28
and graded a C in the Conservation Ontario Report Card protocol.
The SCRCA has sampled surface water in Baby Creek in partnership with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE)
since 2005. Samples are collected by the SCRCA up to eight times a year during the frost-free season and analyzed at
the OMOE laboratory in Etobicoke. Samples are analyzed for 37 parameters listed in Table 11: Surface Water Quality
Parameters Analyzed 2004 – 2008. Samples collected from Baby Creek have been reviewed using four key parameters
including: total phosphorus, nitrates, suspended solids, and chloride.
Total phosphorus conditions in this watershed consistently exceeded the Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective of
0.03 mg/L. All of the samples were in excess of this objective and the majority of the readings (20/32) were more than
three times the objective.
The samples from Baby Creek had chloride readings in 2005 to 2008 ranging from 20.4 to 150 mg/L. All samples were
below the Environment Canada guideline of 210 mg/L for toxicity to sensitive species.
The Canadian Council of Ministries of the Environment (CCME) has published Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines
in 1996 (updated in 2006) which provide guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. These guidelines can be modified to
units of mg/L NO3- - N in order to be comparable with the nitrate data from the OMOE data networks.
the CCME and it was found that 13% (4/32) of the samples exceeded the modified CCME guideline of 2.93 mg/L for the
protection of aquatic life. It is recognized that these surface waters are not a source of drinking water, but one sample did
exceed the Provincial Drinking Water Standard of 10 mg/L (maximum acceptable concentration of nitrate).
metals and other hazardous contaminants. The samples from Baby Creek had readings between 4.9 and 319 mg/L, with
16% of the samples having levels above 50 mg/L. Values range from 4.9 to 319 with five over 50.
The Bowens Creek subwatershed encompasses a land area of 6.61 km² and the main channel is 3.4 km with a total
tributary watercourse length of 8.3 km. The watercourse is considered natural for 3.4 km and is unclassified for 8.3 km.
A portion of the Bickford Oak Woods and provincially significant wetland complex extends into this subwatershed. The
Conservation Authority has no benthic, fish or surface water quality information for this subwatershed.
The soils are clay and silt.
27 University of Waterloo op.cit.
28 Hilsenhoff, op.cit.
45
46
Map 14: Baby Creek Subwatershed
Map 15: Bowens Creek Subwatershed
47
3.5 Clay Creek Subwatershed
The subwatershed encompasses a land area of 56.65 km² and the main channel is a meandering natural stream for a
distance of 12.8 km at the lower portion of the watershed. In total there are 82.7 km of open watercourse with 4.4 km
of natural stream, and 32.6 km of unclassified and 45.7 km of classified drains. The majority of the environmentally
significant Bickford Oak Woods and provincially significant wetland is situated within the upper middle portion of the
subwatershed.
Electro-fishing of Clay Creek in 2000 found seven species of warm water fish which are listed in Table 10: Fish Species
Electro-fished by SCRCA in St. Clair River Tributaries representing the sunfish, pike, sucker, mudminnow, and minnow
and carp families.
Benthic samples have been collected from Clay Creek on Bickford and White Line. The average FBI value of the nine
samples collected in Clay Creek between 2002 and 2008 ranged from 5.50 to 7.49 with an average of 6.87. This is
considered Poor29 and graded a D in the Conservation Ontario Report Card protocol.
Samples collected from Clay Creek between 2005 and 2008 have been reviewed using four key parameters: total
phosphorus, nitrates, suspended solids, and chloride.
Total phosphorus conditions in this watershed routinely exceeded the Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective of
0.03 mg/L. All of the samples were in excess of this objective and most of the samples (24/32) were more than triple the
objective.
The samples from Clay Creek had chloride readings in 2004 to 2008 ranging from 15.9 to 133 mg/L. All samples were
the CCME and it was found that 13% (5/40) of the samples exceeded the modified CCME guideline of 2.93 mg/L for the
protection of aquatic life. It is recognized that these surface waters are not a source of drinking water, but two samples
did exceed the Provincial Drinking Water Standard of 10 mg/L (maximum acceptable concentration of nitrate).
There are no established water quality standards for
suspended solids. Turbid water is undesirable for
healthy aquatic life, recreation, aesthetics and water
supplies. Suspended solids can also transport significant
quantities of phosphorus, metals and other hazardous
contaminants. The samples from Clay Creek had
readings between 5.1 and 190 mg/L, with 34% of the
samples having levels above 50 mg/L.
48
Map 16: Clay Creek Subwatershed
49
3.6 McKeough Subwatershed
The McKeough Floodway subwatershed was created artificially in the early 1980s when a floodway diversion channel was
dug from the North Sydenham River to the St. Clair River. When flood stage occurs, flows from the North Branch of the
Sydenham River will split and enter the floodway by way of a weir. Under normal flow conditions, overland surface runoff
from several drains enter the channel and flow to the St. Clair River. The subwatershed is small with an area of 21.72 km²
and 28.3 km of open drains. The McKeough channel is 11 metres deep and 7 km in length.
No ESAs have been recognized by Lambton County in this subwatershed but there are three Special Appendix Areas from
this subwatershed briefly described in the literature30: Spicebush Woods (SA22), Combine Woodlot (SA23) and Upland
Plover Woods (SA24).
The Conservation Authority does not have any information on fish species, benthic indices or surface water quality within
this subwatershed.
50
Map 17: McKeough Subwatershed
51
3.7 Marshy Creek Whitebread Tap Drain Subwatershed
The Whitebread Tap Drain subwatershed consists of several large artificial drainage systems. Marshy Creek is a larger,
more natural watershed and consists of a 5.4 km long main channel, while Whitebread Tap Drain’s main channel is 3.5 km
long. The outlet of drainage within this subwatershed is the Chenal Ecarte. A very small proportion of the lower drainage
basin (6%) is contained within the municipality of Chatham-Kent. The entire subwatershed area is 43.84 km².
One ESA was identified in this subwatershed: Sassafras Woods. There is also one Special Appendix Area identified31:
Sycamore Woods (SA20).
Electro-fishing information provided by Fisheries and Oceans Canada32 indicated five federally-designated Species at
Risk had been found in the Whitebread Drain: Spotted Sucker, Pugnose Shiner, Pugnose Minnow, Grass Pickerel and
Blackstripe Topminnow.
One benthic sample was collected from Marshy Creek on Ward Line in 2000, and had an FBI value of 7.96. This is
considered Very Poor33 and graded an F in the Conservation Ontario Report Card protocol. The Conservation Authority
does not have any surface water quality data for this subwatershed.
The soils depict the once marshy poorly drained lands. Loams and minor areas of sand loams are situated along the river
and Chenal Ecarte.
32 Staton pers.comm. 2003
52
Map 18: Whitebread / Marshy Creek Subwatershed
53
3.8 Running Creek and Lower Sydenham River Subwatershed
With a population of 11,114, the larger community of Wallaceburg is situated within the Running Creek and Lower
Sydenham River subwatershed. The entire watershed above Wallaceburg is not included in the AOC 1-A area, as the
AOC 1-A area concentrates on the immediate impact zones of the AOC. Running Creek flows can change dependent on
wind direction and water volumes in the Sydenham River and, due to the extremely flat gradient, Running Creek can
flow upstream or downstream. Although Running Creek is not controlled via a pumping system, many large ditches
and canals in this subwatershed are controlled with pumps and dykes. The main Sydenham River downstream from
Wallaceburg is the largest inland watercourse and flows 5 km from Wallaceburg to its outlet at the Chenal Ecarte.
The subwatershed area is 49.37 km².
No ESAs have been recognized here and the Conservation Authority does not have any benthic information in this
subwatershed.
Electro-fishing by Authority staff in a tributary of the lower Sydenham resulted in only one species; green sunfish. The
Sydenham River itself has been examined by Royal Ontario Museum staff upstream of Wallaceburg. In 2001, Erling Holm
completed a survey using seining and electro-fishing by boat in the lower Sydenham from Dresden to Tupperville34. Holm
identified 34 species of fish representing nine families including the pike, mooneye, sucker, carp and minnow, catfish,
stickleback, sunfish, perch and drum families.
Surface water quality samples collected by the SCRCA and analyzed by MOE from the Sydenham River in Wallaceburg
(McNaughton Avenue bridge) from 2004 to 2008 have been reviewed using four key parameters: total phosphorus,
nitrates, suspended solids, and chloride. Flows in Wallaceburg are affected by water from the St. Clair River flowing, at
times, east along Running Creek into the North Sydenham since the river bottom throughout Wallaceburg is at lake level.
Consequently, the water quality in Wallaceburg may be readily affected by the quality of the St. Clair River water.
Total phosphorus values from Wallaceburg samples routinely exceeded the Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective of
0.03 mg/L. Two of the samples from 2004 to 2008 were within this objective and most (24/37) were between twice and
triple the provincial objective.
The samples from Wallaceburg had chloride readings in 2004 to 2008 ranging from 10.2 to 36 mg/L. All samples were
Nitrate concentrations were compared with the modified Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines published by the
CCME and it was found that 24% of the samples exceeded the modified CCME guideline of 2.93 mg/L for the protection
of aquatic life. It is recognized that these surface waters are not a source of drinking water, but none of the samples
exceeded the Provincial Drinking Water Standard of 10 mg/L (maximum acceptable concentration of nitrate).
metals and other hazardous contaminants. The samples from Wallaceburg where suspended solids were analyzed had
readings between 7.2 and 40.3 mg/L, with none of the samples having levels above 50 mg/L.
South of Running Creek, more loamy type soils are found, whereas north of Running Creek, clay soils predominate.
34 Holm, Erling. 2001. Report to the Ministry of Natural Resources, Chatham Area Office on Biological Inventory and Assessment Activities in the Sydenham River between Tupperville and Dresden,June
2001 l15 pp.
54
Map 19: Running Creek / Lower Sydenham River Subwatershed
55
3.9 Lower Maxwell, Lower Bear and Lower Rankin Creek Subwatershed
Similar to the Running Creek/Lower Sydenham River subwatershed, this subwatershed situated east of Lake St. Clair and
the Chenal Ecarte is low lying and many of the large ditches and canals are controlled with pumps and dykes. In order to
crop this highly productive land, extensive drainage and pumping schemes are required. This subwatershed area is 56.21
km². Drainage length consists of 134.9 km of watercourse.
Two ESAs have been recognized in this subwatershed: the Chenal Ecarte Prairie was described in 198435. In addition, the
northern portion of the Lake St. Clair Marshes extends along Lake St. Clair and marshes have been readily re-established
on several inland properties.
The Conservation Authority does not have any electro-fishing or benthic information from this subwatershed. In the
upper reaches of these watercourses electro-fishing and benthic information have been collected but there are no sites
within the area outlined within Area 1-A.
Surface water quality samples were collected from 2004 to 2008 from Little Bear Creek on Bear Line Road. The MOE
analyses of these samples have been reviewed using four key parameters: total phosphorus, nitrates, suspended solids,
and chloride.
Total phosphorus conditions in this subwatershed routinely exceeded the Interim Provincial Water Quality Objective of
0.03 mg/L. All 40 samples were in excess of this objective and 18% (7/40) were more than triple the objective.
The samples from Little Bear Creek had chloride readings ranging from 22.9 to 61.1 mg/L. All samples were below the
Environment Canada guideline of 210 mg/L for toxicity to sensitive species.
Nitrate concentrations were compared with the modified Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines published by the
CCME and it was found that 40% of the samples exceeded the modified CCME guideline of 2.93 mg/L for the protection
of aquatic life. It is recognized that these surface waters are not a source of drinking water, but two samples did exceed
the Provincial Drinking Water Standard of 10 mg/L (maximum acceptable concentration of nitrate).
metals and other hazardous contaminants. The samples from Little Bear Creek had readings between 4.7 and 42.7 mg/L,
therefore none of the samples had levels above 50 mg/L.
The Chatham Clay Plain soils are predominantly silt and clay with coarser soils found closer to the Lake St. Clair shoreline.
The headwaters of these creeks are a mixture of a silt and clay loam material.
35��
Klinkenberg, R. 1984. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site District 7-1: A Review and Assessment of Significant Natural Areas in Site District 7-1. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, London. Vii + 22pp. + appendices
56
Map 20: Maxwell / Bear / Rankin Creek Subwatershed
57
3.10 Walpole Island First Nation
Walpole Island First Nation is referred to in the Ojibwe language as “Bkejwanong” which means – where the waters divide
– which accurately describes the large delta island complex situated in the mouth of the St. Clair River along the northern
portion of Lake St. Clair. See Map 21: Walpole Island Subwatershed. These delta islands cover 147.12 km² approximately
and are part of the traditional homeland of the Ojibwe, Odawa and Pottawatomi people who together comprise a
political compact known as the Three Fires Confederacy36. The soils are indicative of the alluvial nature of lands being
sand loam and more organic in nature where the southern wetland features are present. See Map 3: Soils and
Map 4: St. Clair River Delta.
The ecosystem of the island is rich in its diversity from a biological perspective. It was recognized as ecologically
significant more than 35 years ago37, subsequently named as an Environmentally Significant Area38 and studied in more
detail39. Rare remnant natural communities exist here including: tallgrass prairie, oak savanna, Carolinian forest and the
largest wetland system in the St. Clair River and Lake St. Clair system. 68.9 km² of wetlands exist on the island. Although
minor alterations and the creation of channels have occurred on the island, the extensive Chatham-Kent pumping and
artificial drainage schemes do not exist on the island. At least five main islands were created from the channels that
dissect the delta. The islands are referred to as Squirrel, Walpole, Pottowatamie and St. Anne. Goose Lake is situated
between Walpole and Pottowatamie Island.
36 Walpole Island Heritage Centre, 2002, Species at Risk on the Walpole Island First Nation.
37 Campbell, C.A, 1974. A preliminary assessment of ecological assets and impacts on Walpole Island Indian Reserve. Prepared for Indian and Northern Affairs, Ontario Regional Office, Planning Sect8on.
29 pp.
39 Woodliffe, P.A. and G.M. Allen, 1990. A Life Science Inventory and Ranking of 30 Natural Areas of Walpole Island Indian Reserve pp. 37-48 in “Conserving Carolinian Canada”, edited by G.M. Allen, P.F.J.
Eagles and S.D. Price.
58
Map 21: Walpole Island Subwatershed
59
60
4
Chapter 4
Summary of Impairments/Issues/Problems
4.1Prioritized Pollutants/Impairments and Watershed
Concerns
Although improvements have been made, surface water quality remains a concern in the
AOC. The effects of land use activities on water quality has a significant impact. Over the
years, water quality standards, objectives and guidelines have been developed by federal
and provincial governments to protect both aquatic life and human water uses. Human uses
include drinking water, crop irrigation, animal watering and recreation uses such as fishing,
boating, swimming and aesthetic value. The current (most recent) standards, objectives and
guidelines are summarized in Table 3.2.3.1 Water Quality Standards, Objectives and Guidelines
found in the SCRCA’s Draft Watershed Characterization Report, 200740.
4.2 Point Source Pollutants and Stressors
Point Source discharges refer to a source of pollution that is distinct and identifiable.
Manufacturing and sanitary wastewaters, as well as stormwater would be identified as a
point source. Discharges from these sources are typically treated before being released to a
watercourse, through a sewer or ditch. Generally, stormwater is not treated unless facilities
have been implemented to allow for settling which removes a portion of water contaminants.
If stormwater runoff from “heavy” industrial sites is expected to contain unacceptable
pollutants, stormwater facilities have been incorporated as required by the Ministry of the
Environment (i.e. Refineries).
Historically, point source discharges and spills have had a significant impact on water quality
in the St. Clair River and inland watercourses. Sediment contamination from past discharge
practices continue to have environmental impacts. Sediment contamination and remediation
will be dealt with more fully in Section 4.4.3.
Today, industrial discharges now contribute fewer pollutants than in the past. Increased
government regulation and voluntary efforts throughout the 1970s and 1980s led to this
decrease. The 1990 daily discharge of total organic carbon was approximately 3% of the
amount that was discharged in 1975 41. The most recent 1996 SOE report indicated that the
annual loadings of five different pollutant categories had continued to be reduced on the
St. Clair River.
40 www.scrca.on.ca/
41 State of Canada’s Environment (SOE) Report, 1991, Minister of the Environment.
61
91
89
87
85
19
83
81
79
19
77
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
75
% of 1975 loading
TOC Discharge from industries in the
Sarnia, Ontario, area
Source: The State of Canada’s Environment 1991
1975 loading 30,887 kg/day
Figure 5: Total organic carbon (TOC) loadings from industries to the St. Clair River, 1975-1990, as a percentage of
1975 loading (1975 loading 30,887 kg/day)
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
TOC
AMMONIA
PHENOL
95
19
93
91
89
87
85
19
83
81
79
19
77
0.0
75
Percent of 1975
Discharges to Water - % of 1975
Values
TSS
O&G
Source: The State of Canada’s Environment 1996
Figure 6: Annual loadings of pollutant categories – TOC, ammonia, phenol, tSS and oil and grease to the St. Clair
River, 1975-1994, as a percentage of 1975 loadings
Government regulation in the form of the Municipal-Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) program, provided
pollution control requirements based on Best Available Technology Economically Achievable. Under MISA, specific
Clean Water Regulations were developed for each industrial sector. The Sarnia Chemical Valley industries are controlled
by Clean Water Regulations under the electric power, inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals and petroleum sectors. In
terms of the local refineries, they are regulated by provincial regulations and also by the federal Petroleum Refinery Liquid
Effluent Regulations guidelines. The 1996/97 Compliance Inspection Summary indicates that the overall compliance rate
for the federal regulation was 99% for all refineries in Ontario42 . There are four designated oil handling facilities along the
St. Clair River where petroleum products are being loaded or unloaded from ships. The Response Organizations and Oil
Handling Facilities Regulations control these facilities.
42 Lake St. Clair Canadian Watershed Technical Report: an examination of current conditions, 2005, Environment Canada and Lake St. Clair Canadian Watershed Coordination Council.
62
Spills
Spills are untreated discharges of pollutants that typically include chemicals, fuels and sewage most commonly from
industrial, municipal, commercial, and agricultural sources. Within the AOC, the spill of chemicals, oils, hydrocarbons and
wastes from the industrial lands in the upper St. Clair River are the focus. Compared to other U.S./Canadian connection
channel corridors, for Canadian spills, the St. Clair River has a greater number of spills43. This is due to the presence of the
industrial sector in Sarnia. The location and inventory of industries within the AOC are illustrated on each subwatershed
map titled “Base Map and Industry Locations” (See Appendix A). Since the mid-1990s, the number of serious spills
along the St. Clair River corridor has declined. Restrictions on drinking water consumption were originally identified as
one of the beneficial use impairments in the St. Clair River. The 1997 Stage 1 RAP update stated that drinking water was
no longer considered impaired due to the reduction in spills from chemical industries affecting the downstream water
supplies of Wallaceburg and Walpole Island First Nation. See Map 22: Wallaceburg Drinking Water Intake.
Minor spills still occur and spill incidents have fallen from 140+ annually in the late 1980s to 40-60 annually44. Even small
spills cause public alarm. Although a spill may be determined to not cause a risk to human or aquatic health, there is
public concern with each occurrence of reported spills. In 2003 and 2004, however, there were several spills that caused
public alarm and did result in the temporary closures of water intake facilities. Even small spills that might have previously
gone unnoticed came under greater public scrutiny.
As a result of public concern over the spills that occurred in 2003 and 2004 (Royal Polymer and Imperial Oils respectively),
the Ministry of the Environment’s Sarnia Inspection Sweep team conducted a comprehensive inspection of 35
petrochemical and related industrial facilities in Sarnia. The purpose of the inspection was to ensure compliance with
environmental legislation in order to help reduce future threats. The report stated that there was no identification of any
non-compliance which would lead to immediate human health or environmental impacts as a result of a spill. There was
non-compliance with other requirements in almost 100% of the facilities45. The other requirements ranged from no spill
contingency or prevention plans to not having updated their approvals. It is worthy to note that the sweep also found a
wide variety of sound practices ranging from containment facilities, automatic trip gates, alarms to prevent discharges,
monitoring, closed loop systems or electric fans for cooling. The 2006 International Joint Commission Review of spills in
the Great Lakes Basin and the St. Clair – Detroit River corridor found progress in many areas but did make the following
recommendations: accessibility to spill data, shared approaches for spill data management and spill prevention. It is
recognized that the Ministry of the Environment relies on solid modelling to predict potential impacts of reported
spills on the River. Continuous improvements are being made to the model in order to provide accurate predictions.
This requires bi-national cooperation and this aspect of spill prevention and contingency planning is currently being
reviewed, and state-of-the-art predictive models are being implemented.
Municipal Wastewater Pollution Control Sources
Water Pollution Control Plants (WPCPs) within the study area are situated in the Village of Point Edward, City of Sarnia,
and the communities of Corunna and Courtright in St. Clair Township. There are also sewage lagoons in the community of
Sombra and Port Lambton in St. Clair Township. All the aforementioned facilities discharge directly to the St. Clair River.
Municipal Urban Stormwater Sources
Discharges from storm sewers can be a significant source of pollutant loadings due to runoff of contaminants. Pollution
sources include: nutrients and pesticides spread on lawns, sediment from construction sites, petroleum and chemical
runoff from industrial areas and heavy metals, salt, oil and grease from automobiles and road maintenance. In the AOC,
“combined” sewer systems were recognized as a particular problem. Originally, many of the sewer systems in the Sarnia
area were “combined” meaning that, when it rained, the sewers carried both stormwater and sanitary wastes in the same
pipe. In a combined system, when the carrying capacity of the sewer is exceeded, they are designed to overflow into the
river causing combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
The City of Sarnia is continuing to separate the sewers or install holding tanks to contain runoff from most storm events.
This was recognized as an issue in the 2003 RAP.
43 Report on Spills in the Great Lakes Basin – with a special focus on the St. Clair-Detroit River Corridor, July 2006, International Joint Commission
44 Ibid
45 Ibid
63
Map 22: Wallaceburg Drinking Water Intake
64
City of Sarnia
The November 2006 Sierra Legal report on 20 cities in the Great Lakes basin ranked Sarnia a Grade C due to 10% of their
sanitary sewage system being combined46. Sarnia’s results were similar to Toronto, Syracuse and Hamilton getting below
average grades, while Detroit, Cleveland and Windsor were graded D. In 2007, the City of Sarnia obtained wastewater
infrastructure funds in the amount of $34.9 million to assist in reducing the number of combined sewer overflows during
heavy rains by separating sewers. It is anticipated that the Sarnia Pollution Control Plan will result in a 56% reduction in
suspended solids, 55% reduction for BOD, 26% reduction for phosphorus and 99% for faecal bacteria. Combined sewage
overflows are in large part responsible for the bacterial contamination of the Sarnia waterfront and are responsible for
restrictions on recreational activities such as beach closures. Pollution from the municipal sources in Sarnia may be partly
responsible for the restrictions on fish consumption and degradation of the downstream benthic communities as well.
Significant work has been undertaken in the last several years on sewer separations as well. The extent of work needed is
formidable. Sarnia has three combined sewers totalling 22-23 kilometres in length. When separating sewers, streets need
to be rebuilt and water lines reinstalled. Dependent on funding, it is estimated that sewer separation will take 15-20 years,
however the priority is eliminating the three combined sewer overflows.
Township of St. Clair
Municipal Wastewater Pollution Control Sources
A water pollution study found that a group of residential homes along the St. Clair River between Courtright Line to the
Lambton Generating Station had failing septic systems. By way of stormwater flow, the failing systems were draining
directly to the River. In fact, the study included downstream river sampling which found that the E. coli count was 1,500
times the allowable limit of 100 cfu/100 mL and that the pollution was directly attributable to the failing septics. To
eliminate this source, a new 1,480 metre long main sanitary sewer was installed as well as a pump station and forcemain.
The extension of the main sanitary sewer to individual homes also took place. The main sewer was connected to the
existing Courtright Sewage Treatment Plant. In recent years, this sewage treatment plant has also undergone significant
upgrades.
Issues with failing septic systems were also evident in the small Village of Wilkesport. Wilkesport drains to the North
Branch of the Sydenham River which eventually flows into the lower St. Clair River delta area. Gravity sanitary sewers are
currently being installed for the 60 residential units. A new pumping station pumps the sewage to the existing lagoons
near the Village of Sombra.
4.3 Non-point Source Pollutants and Stressors
The 1995 Stage 2 RAP identifies bacteria, sediment and nutrients as the priority non-point source pollutants impacting
the water quality of the AOC. Each of these critical pollutants are further discussed in Section 4.4. Agricultural land use
and soil erosion are significant sources of upland sediment and the 2007 CRIC Work Plan recognizes the need for more
riparian buffers both along the St. Clair River but particularly along the tributaries in Area 1-A. Large sections of the
inland tributaries have been physically modified by dredging, channel straightening and other maintenance activities
to increase flows and improve conveyance. Any opportunity to restore the hydrology in headwater areas and restore
and enhance unstable stream channels would reduce the delivery of sediment and other non-point pollutants to the
watercourse. Urban stormwater runoff as a non-point source pollutant is discussed further in Section 6.1.3.
4.4 Sources of Critical Pollutants
4.4.1 Toxic Pollutants and Sediment
A source of toxic pollutants is effluent loadings from industrial sources. Since the 1995 Stage 2 Remedial Action Plan,
industries have implemented measures that address point source toxic pollutants. Actions have included: significant
upgrades to facilities, sophisticated monitoring systems, environmental management systems, installation of river
separation programs and improved control over process water. Detailed loading information and status can be obtained
from progress reports available on the Friends of St. Clair website47.
46 Sierra Legal, 2006 www.sierralegal.org
47 www.friendsofstclair.ca
65
Environment Canada (EC) has been monitoring toxic chemicals in the St. Clair River - Detroit River corridor for a wide
range of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants since 1986. This is the principal information source pertaining to
water quality in the corridor. Monitoring has indicated declining concentrations of several organochlorine pesticides in
the surface water over time. Mercury concentrations in suspended sediment appear to be relatively constant throughout
the St. Clair River but slightly higher in the South Channel. However, toxic chemicals in surficial bottom sediment are
present.
Contaminated sediments are a concern in the AOC, as toxic materials may be stored in downstream sediment at the
bottom of the river and may be released into the water column during periodic storm events, or by dredging. Historic
toxic chemical loadings in the 1960s-1970s led to bottom sediment contamination. Figure 7 provides an overview of
Mercury concentration in sediments and water and Figure 8 provides an overview of PCB concentrations in sediment and
water.
Figure 7: Mercury concentrations in sediments and water in the St. Clair River – Detroit River corridor
(Source: Environment Canada)
66
Figure 8: Total PCB concentration in sediment and whole water samples taken from the St. Clair River – Detroit
River corridor
(Source: Environment Canada)
Zones 1-3
As the above mapping indicates, a known contaminated zone offshore of the Sarnia industrial complex exists. Sediment
characterization has been focused in this area.
The recent removal of contaminated bottom sediments offshore from DOW Chemical Canada Inc. (Contaminated
Area Zone 1) was a major step in remediating a highly contaminated zone offshore of the Sarnia Industrial Complex. A
Management Plan comprising several components is currently being undertaken for the remaining Zones 2 and 3. High
levels of mercury and PCB concentrations are the toxic pollutants of concern in Zones 2 and 3.
67
Figure 9: For Contaminated Sediment Areas Zones 1-3
68
Sediment samples collected indicate approximately 30% of Zone 2 had Hg concentration ranging from 2-9.30 mg/kg. The
recommended clean-up target is 1 mg/kg. Octachlorostyrene concentrations exceeded tshe 20 ng/g target throughout
80% of Zone 2. Concentrations ranged from 3-150 ng/g. Although Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and hexachlorobutadiene
(HCBD) were present, these chemical concentrations did not exceed the target criteria. Mercury contamination in the
aquatic system between Bowens and Talford Creek is a major concern and is the focus of present investigations and
clean-up.
Restrictions on fish consumption in the St. Clair basin are related to the elevated mercury, total PCBs, octachlorostyrene
(OCS) and hexachlorobenzene (HCB). Elevated contaminant concentrations in sediment can also have negative effects
associated with fish tumours and deformities and restrictions on dredging. Recent studies have found that fish and
wildlife deformities or reproductive problems are not an issue but that restrictions on dredging persist; particularly in
Zones 1-3 and the St. Clair River delta area.
St. Clair River Delta Area
Southeast Bend Cutoff Channel
Maintenance dredging in the Southeast Bend Cutoff Channel located in the lower Walpole Island delta is required for
ship passage. In reports published by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC, 2001), dredge spoil
sample contamination levels were assessed. A wide range of metals and nutrients were assessed. They include silver,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, zinc, phosphorus, total organic carbon,
total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN – nitrogen in the form of organic proteins or their decomposition product ammonia), oil and
grease, NH3--N and CN) as well as a wide range of pesticides, total PCBs and industrial compounds hexachlorobenzene
(HCB) and octachlorostyrene (OCS). Samples were also analyzed for a wide range of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs). The results indicate there were few exceedences of either the Ontario Sediment Quality Guidelines or the St. Clair
River RAP yardsticks. The overall toxicity level of the dredged spoil was low.
More recent sediment sampling was undertaken
from the four longest channels of the Walpole
Delta. They were Chenal Ecarte, Johnson,
Chematogen and Bassette channels. Goose Lake
was also sampled. The 2005 samples indicated
only two organochlorine pesticides exceeded
OMOE’s sediment quality objectives. These
were hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and pp’-DDT.
Total mercury was the most frequent inorganic
contaminant observed to exceed OMOE sediment
quality objectives. Almost all sites exceeded OMOE
lowest effect level (LEL) values. From all investigated
sites, Goose Lake samples demonstrated the lowest
levels of contamination for organic contaminants
and metals48.
For comparison purposes, suspended and bottom
sediment concentrations in the St. Clair River and
Lake St. Clair were modest in comparison to levels
in the Trenton Channel situated in the lower Detroit
River.
48 Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research & Department Biological Sciences, University of Windsor, 2006, Revised via Environment Canada comments Aug 3, 2008.
69
4.4.2 Bacteria
Beaches
E. coli is fecal coliform bacteria found in human and animal waste. The presence of E. coli is one of the key water quality
indicators. The presence of E. coli bacteria is a strong indicator that there may be other disease-causing organisms in
the watercourse. Public health units in Ontario now use a mean level of 100 E. coli per 100 mL of water as a guideline for
determining whether recreational water is “safe” for swimming and bathing. If the guideline level is exceeded at a beach,
warnings are posted and the affected beach is considered “closed” until the water quality improves. At some beaches, such
warnings are posted permanently, for example, when it is not feasible to determine when the water quality impairments
will no longer exist. The only official beach monitored for E. coli by the Health Unit in the AOC Area 1-A is Mitchell’s Bay on
Lake St. Clair. Samples are taken at Centennial Beach in Sarnia Bay, however, this is for the purposes of historical analysis
and the beach is permanently posted as closed. See Map23: Health Unit and CA Bacterial Monitoring Stations.
Figure 10 shows the percentage of the weekly samples exceeding the recreation water quality guidelines over three years
(2005 – 2008). Figure 11 shows the summer average mean E. coli counts for each sampling site.
Figure 10: Bacterial monitoring results from weekly summer samples collected at AOC Area 1-A sites showing the
percentage of sampling that exceeded the recreational water quality guideline for full body contact
(Source: Chatham-Kent Health Unit, Lambton County Health Unit and St. Clair Region Conservation Authority)
70
Figure 11: Summer average mean Escherichia coli counts for AOC Area 1-A sampling sites
(Source: Chatham-Kent Health Unit, Lambton County Health Unit and St. Clair Region Conservation Authority)
Beach postings and closures from elevated bacteria counts indicate the need to address sources of bacteria. Good water
quality at Mitchell’s Bay has led to this beach being open virtually most of the time in comparison to Southeast Lake
Huron beaches and other Lake St. Clair beaches. Rural non-point sources of pollution such as failing septic systems,
poor manure management and urban stormwater can contribute to high bacterial counts. Mitchell’s Bay beach has the
advantage of not being directly downstream from large outfalls including tributaries where E. coli counts are generally
high. The location of the sites monitored by the Health Units and the SCRCA in the AOC are shown on Map 23.
Sampling over the years has indicated there is still a recognized concern for combined sewer overflow from Sarnia on
the Canadian side. Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are a common source of sewage and can lead to excessive bacteria
counts. This source of bacteria is being mitigated by the ongoing sewer separation project by the City of Sarnia.
71
72
Map 23: Health Unit and CA Bacterial Monitoring Stations
Non-beach Sampling
In 2008, a comprehensive E. coli sampling program was conducted in the St. Clair River by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in 2008. See Figure 12: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008 bacterial monitoring stations. It
included various event-based sampling periods. 11 transects were set up on the River and two sampling transects were
established on the delta channels. Sites were chosen based on past combined sewer outflow problems. The results
indicate that there were very few high (above guideline) E. coli readings on the Canadian side. In particular, in Sarnia,
the 2008 sampling showed an improvement over past years’ sampling programs. While the results are encouraging, it is
recommended that further sampling be continued to assess water quality in the Sarnia area.
St. Clair River E. coli Sampling Locations
Overall Layout
SC11
SC10
SC09
SC08
SC07
SC06
SC05
SC04
SC03
SC02
NC00
SC01
MC00
SC00
14
Figure 12: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008 bacterial monitoring stations
73
Few samples from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Provincial Water Quality Network are tested for E. coli.
However, a monitoring site in Wallaceburg is routinely tested for bacteria. Wallaceburg is situated on the Sydenham River.
One of the main tributaries of Lake St. Clair, the Sydenham River’s water quality is heavily influenced from agricultural
non-point sources due to its drainage basin. The test results normally exceed the acceptable recreational guideline
and the area is permanently posted. During the summers of 2000 – 2008, 91% of the sampling had counts above the
guidelines. The station in Wallaceburg tends to have a bacteria count lower than the other stations in the Sydenham River
watershed. Dilution from St. Clair River/Chenal Ecarte backwater may be influencing the counts. When sampling began in
the early 1970s, bacteria levels were extremely high (200 to over 600 counts/100 mL). During a period in the late 1980s,
bacteria levels generally decreased. However, since this time, bacteria counts have increased and some stations now have
levels as high or higher than 1970 levels.
4.4.3 Nutrients and Chlorides
The status of the nutrient levels in the St. Clair River and tributaries for this report were obtained from several sources.
They are: Shell Manufacturing Centre raw water intake data, the SLEA monitoring station in Courtright, Environment
Canada’s Head and Mouth Survey program, MOE’s Provincial Drinking Water Surveillance Program (PDWSP) and MOE’s
Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN), SCRCA’s monitoring program and the proposed Shell Refinery
surface water field program in 2007-2008. For the purposes of this plan, nutrient levels of ammonia, nitrogen, and
phosphorus are characterized for the water bodies. These parameters are selected, as they represent the nutrient
indicator parameters for inland watershed management.
The Conservation Ontario February 2003 draft report “Water Sampling and Data Analysis Manual” for PWQMN partners
recommends the use of these parameters to represent nutrient levels. The report also recommends obtaining chloride
levels to assess salt loading49. Phosphorus and nitrate are essential plant growth nutrients. However, an imbalance of
nutrients in water bodies may result in algal growth. Excessive algal growth can lead to eutrophication, choking the water
body by depleting oxygen and thereby harming aquatic life. Certain types of algae, a blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria,
produce toxic substances which can be responsible for poisoning animals and humans who come in contact with it50.
High concentrations of nitrates can affect aquatic life and can cause “blue baby syndrome” (methaemoglobinaemia) in
humans if high levels are present in drinking water. This syndrome is a condition in which enough oxygen cannot be
released to body tissues and mostly affects infants under three months of age. Chlorides are conservative chemicals,
moving with the water. Chloride can be toxic to aquatic organisms at high concentrations as well, and can affect growth
and reproduction at lower concentrations.
St. Clair River
The water quality characteristics of the St. Clair River bear little similarity to the water quality characteristics of the
tributaries of the River in the AOC. This is due to the significant difference in the factors which influence water quality in
the large St. Clair River drainage basin and the relatively small agricultural drainage basins. These factors include physical
characteristics, human uses, contaminants and institutional regimes that manage the resource. Further information on
the hydrology and physical characteristics is discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.5.
The 2005 RAP progress report notes that nutrient discharge from municipal and industrial point sources have been
controlled through ongoing corrective measures. These have included upgrades to facilities, monitoring systems,
environmental management systems, improved control over process water in order to improve effluent water quality,
reduce or eliminate spills, and improve plant efficiency. These actions occurred mainly since the 1995 RAP Stage 2
Recommended Plan.
A review of past monitoring data indicates ammonium concentrations to be low in St. Clair River waters. At the raw water
Lambton County and Walpole Island drinking water intakes, un-ionized ammonia was consistently 4.040 µg/L or lower,
which is considerably less than the PWQO guidance criteria. The organic nitrogen concentration is derived by subtracting
the TAN (Total Ammonia Nitrogen) concentration from the Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) concentration. In the past, the
mean organic nitrogen concentration was low at the Walpole Island plant. Similarly, nitrite and nitrate concentrations are
49 St. Clair Region Draft Watershed Characterization Report, August 2007, Section 3.0 Water Quality
50 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/cyanobacteria-cyanobacteries_e.html
74
low. The concentration of nitrates at Walpole Island at 0.410 mg/L is significantly less than the PWQO level of 2.93 mg/L51.
The Walpole Island water plant provides the best St. Clair River raw water site. The Lambton County raw water site is more
readily influenced by Lake Huron. The concentration of organic and inorganic nitrogen in the St. Clair River is typical of
oligotrophic conditions.
Phosphorus is generally considered to be the limiting nutrient in determining water productivity. Filterable, reactive
phosphorus is largely a measure of orthophosphate, Organophosphates comprise approximately 50% of the total
phosphorus concentration and tend to increase from the Lambton County to Walpole Island drinking water plant
locations. Total phosphorus concentrations of less than 10 µg/L are typical of oligotrophic conditions found in
unproductive lakes. Total phosphorus mean value concentrations at Walpole Island from 1998 – 2002 was 19 µg/L and
considerably higher than the upstream Lambton County mean value of 10 µg/L during the same sampling period. The
Walpole Island phosphorus concentrations are characteristic of mesotrophic conditions.
Table 12: Descriptive statistics of monitoring data of nutrients collected at Lambton DWTP, Walpole DWTP, Port
Lambton and the SMC water intake point
Port
Lambton
SMC
Intake
19931995
19872005
20062007
Lambton DWTP
Walpole DWTP
19982002
19931995
19982002
Parameter
Unit
Guidance
Criteria
Ammonium, total, unfiltered
mg/L
Minimum
0.004
<dl
0.004
<dl
0.002
--
Maximum
0.026
0.038
0.032
0.116
0.092
--
Mean
0.010
na
0.010
0.019
0.017
--
75 percentile
0.010
--
0.010
--
0.021
--
mg/L
Minimum
--
--
--
--
--
0.000
Maximum
--
--
--
--
--
0.240
Mean
--
--
--
--
--
0.056
75 percentile
--
--
--
--
--
0.070
μg/L
Minimum
0.000
--
0.082
--
0.454b
0.000c
Maximum
0.852
--
1.108
--
2.399
1.040
Mean
0.280
--
0.390
--
0.520
0.943
75th percentile
0.500
--
0.510
--
0.756
1.175
mg/L
--
Minimum
0.002
<dl
0.002
<dl
--
--
Maximum
0.006
0.006
0.010
0.012
--
--
th
Ammonium+Ammonia as N
th
Ammonia, un-ionized
(derived)
Nitrite
51 Jacques Whitford-AXYS, Proposed Shell Refinery Project, Surface Water Baseline Report, April 2008
75
Port
Lambton
SMC
Intake
19931995
19872005
20062007
Lambton DWTP
Walpole DWTP
19982002
19931995
19982002
Unit
Guidance
Criteria
Mean
0.000
0.003
0.010
0.005
--
--
75 percentile
0.000
--
0.010
--
--
--
mg/L
--
Minimum
0.090
0.300
0.268
0.300
--
--
Maximum
0.759
0.405
0.515
0.405
--
--
Mean
0.340
0.342
0.360
0.338
--
--
75th percentile
0.360
--
0.410
--
--
--
mg/L
--
Minimum
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.120
0.052
--
Maximum
0.440
0.280
0.760
0.240
0.399
--
Mean
0.170
0.175
0.210
0.171
0.148
--
75 percentile
0.160
--
0.200
--
0.161
--
mg/L
--
Parameter
th
Nitrate
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
th
Phosphorus, total filterable,
reactive
Minimum
0.001
<dl
0.001
<dl
--
--
Maximum
0.010
0.006
0.085
0.003
--
--
Mean
0.003
0.001
0.011
0.001
--
--
75 percentile
0.002
--
0.003
--
--
--
mg/L
0.03
(PWQO)
Minimum
0.003
<dl
0.002
0.004
0.000
--
Maximum
0.032
0.024
0.160
0.014
0.122
--
Mean
0.007
0.007
0.019
0.007
0.010
--
75 percentile
0.007
--
0.012
--
0.010
--
th
Total phosphorus
th
Note:
1. Data Sources:
Lambton DWTP
1993-1995 (mean, minimum and maximum), based on 14 samples.
1998-2005, quarterly monitoring data, 15 samples in total.
Walpole Island DWTP
1993-1995 (mean, minimum and maximum), based on 14 samples.
1998-2002, quarterly monitoring data, total 18 samples.
Port Lambton (ON02GG0005) 1987-2005 Head and Mouth Survey, EC.
SLEA
SLEA Courtright continuous monitoring station 1990-2005.
SMC Intake
Based on SMC intake water monitoring data from January 2006 to January 2007.
2.
Guidance Criteria:
PWQO
CCME
Yardstick
Provincial Water Quality Objectives (Appendix A, February 1999).
Canadian Water Quality Guideline for the Protection of Aquatic Life (update 6.0 July 2006).
Draft environmental water quality “yardsticks” for the RAP, November 22, 1993.
Note a:(un-ionized ammonia): this value is calculated with temperature of 15°C. The percentages of un-ionized ammonia in aqueous ammonia
solution are temperature and pH dependent. For example: un-ionized ammonia is 0.190 for 10°C and pH 7.0.
Note b:un-ionized ammonia at Port Lambton is calculated by using mean pH value of 7.98, and temperature of 15°C.
Note c:un-ionized ammonia at SMC Intake is calculated by using mean pH value of 7.79, and temperature of 15°C.
76
Tributaries
The most recent sampling and analysis on the tributaries occurred as a result of the proposed Shell Refinery project. The
project involved examining the surface water quality of Talford and Clay Creek in the summer of 2007. St. Clair Region
Conservation Authority sampling from 2004 – 2005 is also referred to. These watercourses are representative of the
majority of the small inland tributaries. The Sydenham River will be discussed separately.
As discussed previously, land uses in the Talford Creek subwatershed consist of a larger proportion of industrial in
comparison to the southerly drainage basins. Historic contamination has occurred in Talford and industries discharge
treated industrial wastewater and stormwater to Talford Creek. All tributary water sampling mean concentrations were
greater than the St. Clair River for all parameters. For turbidity, chloride and sodium, concentrations were 10 to 12 times
greater in Talford Creek than measured in the St. Clair River. The mean pH value in Talford Creek was 8.3 compared to 8.0
in the St. Clair River. Total phosphorus samples collected had concentrations above the PWQO. Concentrations of TKN
and total phosphorus ranged from four to five times the concentrations measured in the St. Clair River. Total phosphorus
concentrations in Talford Creek are indicative of eutrophic conditions, making the creek susceptible to algal blooms,
hypoxia and other toxicological effects52.
Clay Creek flows through a large agricultural area with very little industrial land use and runoff. Several large agricultural
drains outlet into Clay Creek. Again, as evident in Talford Creek, all total phosphorus sample concentrations were above
the PWQO. The mean concentration of TKN and total phosphorus was five and ten times the concentrations measured
in the St. Clair River, respectively. Concentrations of nutrients measured in Clay Creek were consistently higher in mean
concentration than those measured in Talford Creek. The reasoning behind this may be associated with the background
concentrations in watershed soils and agricultural uses. Agricultural use was more prevalent in the Clay Creek
subwatershed and it was proposed by Shell’s consultant that the use of chemical crop fertilization may account for the
higher nutrient concentrations in comparison to Talford Creek53.
Table 13: Talford and Clay Creek Monitoring Data - Nutrients
Parameter
Unit
Guidance
Criteria
Arithmetic
Mean
75th
Percentile
Min.
Value
Max.
Value
Talford Creek
Ammonium+Ammonia
mg/L
--
0.029
0.038
0.003
0.088
Un-ionized Ammonia
μg/L
20 (PWQO)
1.540
2.610
0.110
7.42
TKN
mg/L
--
0.798
0.910
0.220
1.47
Total phosphorus
mg/L
0.03 (PWQO)
0.074
0.082
0.025
0.213
1
2
Clay Creek
Ammonium+Ammonia
mg/L
--
0.037
--
0.014
0.104
Un-ionized Ammonia
μg/L
20 (PWQO)
2.020
--
0.760
5.67
TKN
mg/L
--
1.290
--
0.990
1.86
Total phosphorus
mg/L
0.032(PWQO)
0.126
--
0.054
0.245
1
Note:
1.Un-ionized ammonia is calculated with temperature of 15°C and pH 8.3. The percentages of un-ionized ammonia in aqueous ammonia
solution are temperature and pH dependent.
2.Excessive plant growth in rivers and streams should be eliminated at a total phosphorus concentration below 30 μg/L. To avoid nuisance
concentrations of algae in lakes, average total phosphorus concentrations for the ice-free period should not exceed 20 μg/L. A high level of
protection against aesthetic deterioration would be provided by a total phosphorus concentration for the ice-free period of 10 μg/L or less.
This should apply to all lakes naturally below this value.
Guidance Criteria:
PWQO
Provincial Water Quality Objectives (Appendix A, February 1999).
CWQG
CCME Canadian Water Quality Guideline for the Protection of Aquatic Life (update 6.0, July 2006).
Yardstick Draft environmental water quality “yardsticks” for the RAP, November 22, 1993.
52 ibid
53 ibid
77
Sydenham River
The Sydenham River watershed above Wallaceburg is not included in the AOC 1-A area. Remedial works are concentrating
on the immediate impact zone of the AOC and therefore a boundary was drawn at Wallaceburg. Although the boundary
is drawn at Wallaceburg, it is important to note that the largest source of non-point pollution to the AOC Area 1-A is the
Sydenham River. With a watershed area of 2,752 km², Sydenham River waters are enriched by nutrients and turbid. Total
phosphorus concentrations typically range from 30 µg/L to 200 µg/L54. The Ministry of the Environment Interim Provincial
Water Quality Objective of 30 µg/L was set as the limit in preventing the nuisance growth of algae. The highest levels of
phosphorus are on the North Branch of the Sydenham River. Levels are six to eight times the PWQO guideline, whereas
East Branch levels are less than three times the PWQO55.
Surface water quality monitoring on the Sydenham River was initiated in the early 1960s. Conditions have changed over
time, with some improvement and some degradation. Methods of analysis have also changed over time. Throughout
the last 40 years, the levels of nitrate appear to be rising56. At some stations on the North Branch of the Sydenham River,
there has been a fivefold increase as well as the steepest increase over the last 30 years. Nutrient levels on the East Branch
are generally lower than the North Branch. While chloride levels in the North Branch were once extremely high, levels
on both branches are now relatively the same as when compared to historic differences. Over the past 40 years, chloride
levels at all sites have increased but are still below the Environment Canada guideline of 210 mg/L. Highest loadings of
chloride are typically associated with the application and storage of road salt (e.g. calcium chloride). Urban areas tend to
have the highest chloride concentrations.
More detailed nutrient readings from St. Clair Region Conservation Water Quality Monitoring stations throughout the
Sydenham Watershed can be found in the 2007 St. Clair Region Draft Watershed Characterization Report: Section 3.0Water Quality, and the 2008 SCRCA Watershed Report Card background report. Fourteen (14) Report cards have been
produced, nine (9) of which are broken down on the Sydenham watershed itself. The remaining five (5) watersheds outlet
to either Lake Huron, St. Clair River or Lake St. Clair.
Tributary Sediments
Sediment quality in the St. Clair River is a significant concern in the AOC and is discussed in Section 4.4.1. Sediment
sampling on the inland tributaries is not part of a regular monitoring program, however, sporadic sampling has been
undertaken in several tributaries of the St. Clair River in conjunction with Canadian and international comprehensive
sediment sampling programs. This type of sampling extends as far back as 1957. More recent sediment sampling
in Talford Creek, Bowens and Clay Creek have found that, as in most watercourses, sediment quality presented
concentrations above guidance criteria for phosphorus, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), total organic carbon (TOC) and a
number of metals. However, surficial sediment quality at the mouths of the creeks entering the St. Clair River were most
degraded, with Talford Creek mouth samples degraded to the point of affecting organism growth and survival. Based on
a review of sediment transport, sediment exceedences noted at the mouths of the creeks are not necessarily due to local
sources from the individual watersheds. Due to the alluvial conditions at the mouths of these creeks, sediment quality is
an aggregate representation of sediment from both the watershed and the St. Clair River source57. The sediment transport
and deposition at the creek mouths are part of a dynamic alluvial system.
54 Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd 2001, Sydenham River Recovery Plan.
55 St. Clair Region Draft Watershed Characterization Report, August 2007, Section 3.0 Water Quality
56 St. Clair Region Conservation Authority Watershed Description Report, April 2007
57 Jacques Whitford-AXYS, Proposed Shell Refinery Project, Surface Water Baseline Report, April 2008
78
5
Chapter 5
Priority Areas/Sites and Alternative Actions
The Priority Sites and Alternative Actions build upon recommendations previously adopted
by various committees working on the St. Clair River RAP. Based on additional data since the
2007 CRIC Work Plan, priorities and actions have been revised and adapted. Tables under
Section 5.2 include Priority Actions tracking and Priority Actions listed by subwatershed. It is
recommended that these tables be built upon as the various Committees continue to meet.
For example, data gaps and constraints can be identified on these tables for future reference
and are important in organizing remedial works and action plans.
5.1 Works Completed to Date
The following table lists the stewardship projects completed as of 2008. It comprises the best
available inventory information from Rural Lambton Stewardship Network, St. Clair Region
Conservation Authority and Ducks Unlimited. The projects are georeferenced and mapped
accordingly on Map 24.
79
Table 14: Works Completed to Date
80
Agency
Geo Twp
Lot
Con
Project UTM
UTM
Project
Year
X Coordinate Y Coordinate Name
SCRCA
Sarnia
2
10
1980
381082
4727768
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
2 and 3
18
1983
384453
4712308
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
24
17
1983
386360
4712887
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
8
1984
380224
4725736
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
9
12
1985
384962
4730615
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
6
1985
384422
4742865
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
E 19
6
1986
387545
4743102
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
42
16
1986
386124
4711017
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
17 & 18
14 & 15
1986
386066
4707496
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
PL 208 Lo
BDF
1986
383142
4714723
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1986
380261
4728443
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1986
380261
4728443
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
26
11
1987
383572
4749733
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Chatham
9
2
1987
384606
4717707
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
5
8&9
1987
382592
4726950
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
52
Front
1987
381627
4747523
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
51 & 52
Front
1987
381619
4747297
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
13
13
1988
385131
4704068
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
52
Front
1988
381627
4747523
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
A
6
1988
379305
4722945
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
6
12
1988
383379
4731013
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1988
380261
4728443
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
B
11
1989
379101
4729553
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
6
12
1989
383379
4731013
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1989
380261
4728443
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1989
380261
4728443
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
3
12
1990
381542
4731086
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25/6
1/15
1990
383596
4736496
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
25,6
1,15
1990
382907
4734890
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25, 6
1,15
1990
383680
4735880
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sarnia
Var
Var
1990
385611
4759631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
8, 9
11
1990
384505
4700141
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
A&B
13
1991
379736
4732613
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
7,8
10
1991
383918
4728352
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
25,6
1,15
1991
382907
4734890
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Caradoc
13
8
1991
385304
4733102
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sarnia
Var
Var
1991
385611
4759631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
A,B
10
1992
379659
4728387
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sarnia
Var
Var
1992
385611
4759631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Camden
Var
Var
1992
385983
4716996
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
22, 23, 2
6
1993
385720
4743139
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
21
7
1993
386385
4744286
SCRCA Tree Planting
Project
Details
Ownership
BUIs Potentially
Impacted
Trees
Planted
Block/She
Private - Individual
700
Shelterbelt
6750
Shelterbelt
700
Shelterbelt
500
Block/She
1600
Shelterbelt
Municipal
650
Shelterbelt
550
Shelterbelt
750
Shelterbelt
750
Shelterbelt
1200
Block
Conservation Authority
1350
Block
1800
Shelterbelt
1150
Shelterbelt
600
Shelterbelt
3050
Block/She
500
Block/She
1950
Shelterbelt
900
Shelterbelt
2250
Shelterbelt
600
Shelterbelt
550
Block
3650
Shelterbelt
450
Shelterbelt
500
Block
9989
Block
3350
Shelterbelt
650
Block
2750
Shelterbelt
2500
Shelterbelt
2750
Other
233
Shelterbelt
632
Shelterbelt
1050
Block
20450
Shelterbelt
1000
Block
Municipal
500
Other
225
2500
Other
259
Other
89
Shelterbelt
1450
Shelterbelt
500
Block
81
82
Agency
Geo Twp
Lot
Con
Project UTM
UTM
Project
Year
SCRCA
Sombra
A&B
13
1993
380055
4732631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
5
15
1993
382907
4734890
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
A,B
10
1993
379659
4728387
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
7,8
10
1993
383918
4728352
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sarnia
Var
Var
1993
385611
4759631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Camden
Var
Var
1993
385983
4716996
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
7,8
10
1993
383918
4728352
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
9
14
1994
385304
4733102
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sarnia
Var
Var
1994
385611
4759631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Camden
Var
Var
1994
385983
4716996
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1994
380198
4728262
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
5
15
1995
382907
4734890
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1995
380261
4728443
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1995
380261
4728443
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1995
380198
4728262
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1995
380261
4728443
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sarnia
Var
Var
1995
385611
4759631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Camden
Var
Var
1995
385983
4716996
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
11
8
1996
380687
4725723
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
16
15
1996
384305
4707764
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1996
380261
4728443
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sarnia
Var
Var
1996
385611
4759631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Camden
Var
Var
1996
385983
4716996
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
12 ,13
Front
1997
380647
4738489
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
28
3
1997
381880
4739081
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1997
380261
4728443
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
B
10
1997
379005
4728386
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
43
Front
1997
381312
4745494
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
28
8
1997
382352
4745675
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
22
7
1997
385732
4744274
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
E 23
7
1997
385200
4744262
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
23
7
1997
384950
4744298
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
24
7
1997
384587
4744540
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
24
7
1997
384587
4744540
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
45
Front
1997
385732
4744274
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
26
8
1997
383403
4745699
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
7
1997
383959
4744515
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
24
7
1997
384587
4744540
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sarnia
Var
Var
1997
385611
4759631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Camden
Var
Var
1997
385983
4716996
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
4
1998
384104
4747281
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1998
380261
4728443
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
C
10
1998
380261
4728443
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
10
1998
380261
4728443
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
5
4
1998
384104
4747281
SCRCA Tree Planting
Project
Details
Ownership
Shelterbelt
600
Block
6300
Block
8200
Block
9500
Other
199
Other
93
Block
8200
Shelterbelt
600
Other
237
Other
97
5150
Block
BUIs Potentially
Impacted
Trees
Planted
Block
1550
Block
400
Block
1050
Block
200
Block
14000
Other
241
Other
118
750
Block
Shelterbelt
900
Shelterbelt
2500
Other
263
Other
79
Block
11700
Shelterbelt
550
Block
12450
Block
Municipal
3500
Block
900
Block
1110
Block
750
Block
550
Shelterbelt
605
Block
955
Shelterbelt
225
Block
900
Block
460
Block
325
Shelterbelt
Provincial
150
Other
240
Other
85
Shelterbelt
780
Block
9350
Block
1650
Block
1030
Shelterbelt
1400
83
84
Agency
Geo Twp
Lot
Con
Project UTM
UTM
Project
Year
SCRCA
Var
Var
Var
1998
385611
4759631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Camden
Var
Var
1998
385983
4716996
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
5
4
1998
384104
4747281
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
D
9
1999
377750
4727064
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
12
1999
385000
4751868
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
9
1999
384104
4747281
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
6
15
1999
383560
4735458
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
27
6
1999
382678
4743139
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
W1/2 22
7
1999
385732
4744274
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
E 23
7
1999
385200
4744262
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
E1/2 W1/2
7
1999
384950
4744298
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
24
7
1999
384587
4744540
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
28
8
1999
382352
4745675
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
24
7
1999
384587
4744540
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
34,35
Front
1999
380002
4743405
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
13
12
1999
391540
4750963
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
5
4
1999
382283
4720478
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Var
Var
Var
1999
385611
4759631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Camden
Var
Var
1999
385983
4716996
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
6
15
2000
383560
4735458
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
A&B
13
2000
380055
4732631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
2
7
2000
380681
4724240
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Walpole Island
2000
381919
4710169
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Var
Var
Var
2000
385611
4759631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Camden
Var
Var
2000
385983
4716996
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Camden
Var
Var
2000
385983
4716996
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
21
7
2001
386385
4744286
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
20
6
2001
386977
4743115
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
C
5
2001
378072
4721676
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
28
6
2001
382049
4743127
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
6
2001
380442
4743771
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
4
6
2001
381789
4722859
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
3
7
2001
381253
4724253
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
10&11
Front
2001
380189
4738170
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
D
7
2001
377708
4724432
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
C,D,E
8
2001
377654
4725723
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
6
7
2001
383306
4744503
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Var
Var
Var
2001
385611
4759631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Camden
Var
Var
2001
385983
4716996
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
6
15
2002
383560
4735458
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
10&11
Front
2002
380189
4738170
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
13
12
2002
385334
4703722
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
19
13
2002
387499
4706825
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
16
15
2002
385137
4707853
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
D
6
2002
377836
4723608
SCRCA Tree Planting
Project
Details
Block
Ownership
BUIs Potentially
Impacted
Trees
Planted
Other
264
Other
99
600
Block
1000
Block
1500
Shelterbelt
125
Shelterbelt
750
Shelterbelt
425
Block
100
Block
450
Shelterbelt
250
Block
275
Shelterbelt
900
Shelterbelt
200
Block
1000
Shelterbelt
300
Shelterbelt
275
Other
271
Other
126
Block/She
1850
Block/She
4200
Block/She
2000
Block
1050
Other
264
Other
126
Other
194
Block/She
450
Block/She
1150
Block
825
Block
500
Block
1600
Shelterbelt
570
Shelterbelt
478
Shelterbelt
Municipal
11500
Block/She
2000
Shelterbelt
675
Shelterbelt
150
Other
296
Other
87
Block
500
Block
Municipal
10050
Shelterbelt
750
Shelterbelt
1400
Shelterbelt
550
Block/She
1400
85
86
Agency
Geo Twp
Lot
Con
Project UTM
UTM
Project
Year
SCRCA
Moore
1
15
2002
380490
4734914
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
13
2002
380205
4733065
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
24
12
2002
384744
4751402
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
12
2002
384468
4750425
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
12
2002
384098
4751757
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
25
10
2002
384128
4748586
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Var
Var
Var
2002
385611
4759631
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Camden
Var
Var
2002
385983
4716996
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
7
11
2003
383956
4729608
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
E
6
2003
376958
4722591
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
3
15
2003
381822
4735170
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
6
15
2003
383721
4735793
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
25
10
2003
384128
4748586
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
4
9
2003
381987
4726973
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
16
15
2003
384565
4707906
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
19
13
2003
387499
4706825
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
24
12
2003
384761
4751643
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
24
12
2003
385061
4750350
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
13
12
2003
385334
4703722
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
12
2003
384468
4750425
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
12
2003
384098
4751757
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
D
6
2003
377836
4723608
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
1
13
2003
380205
4733065
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
12
2003
384501
4751930
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Camden
Var
Var
2003
385983
4716996
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sarnia
2003
385781
4761261
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
var
var
2003
380396
4744272
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
24
12
2003
384761
4751643
SCRCA Tree Planting
RLSN
Dover
19
16
2004
385067
4709972
RLSN
Dover
19
15
2004
385667
4709015
RLSN
Dover
40
BDW
2004
386557
4710127
RLSN
Chatham
A
3 Gore
2004
379068
4719062
RLSN
Sombra
D
9
2004
378004
4727599
RLSN
Sombra
9
10
2004
384922
4728659
RLSN
Sombra
7
15
2004
384208
4735074
RLSN
Sarnia
14
1
2004
390996
4752468
RLSN
Sarnia
12
4
2004
392422
4756596
SCRCA
Sombra
B
11
2004
379111
4729878
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
24
12
2004
385103
4751144
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
W1/2,1
Front
2004
380548
4736000
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
12
2004
384468
4750425
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
1
Front
2004
380189
4738170
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
15
15
2004
383883
4707325
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
15
14
2004
384386
4706654
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
12
2004
384098
4751757
SCRCA Tree Planting
Project
Details
Ownership
BUIs Potentially
Impacted
Trees
Planted
Block
2500
Block
1100
Block
22000
Block
10925
Block
4575
Shelterbelt
Municipal
108
Other
251
Other
96
Shelterbelt
265
Block
950
Block
3200
Block
Provincial
26750
Shelterbelt
Municipal
350
Shelterbelt
700
Shelterbelt
450
Shelterbelt
650
Block
6525
Block
10055
Shelterbelt
300
Block
4650
Block
1760
Block
550
Block/She
325
83
Other
6
Municipal
63
Block
Block
Municipal
6
Block
1645
Shelterbelt
1600
Shelterbelt
15000
Shelterbelt
3550
Shelterbelt
540
Shelterbelt
Municipal
8200
Shelterbelt
1800
Shelterbelt
1000
Shelterbelt
800
87
88
Agency
Geo Twp
Lot
Con
Project UTM
UTM
Project
Year
SCRCA
Dover
13
14
2004
383996
4705057
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Chatham
12,13
4
2004
386529
4720396
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
24
12
2004
384732
4751013
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
6
15
2004
383721
4735793
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
13
Front
2004
380587
4738718
SCRCA Tree Planting
RLSN
Moore
27
9
2005
382706
4747275
RLSN
Moore
22
7
2005
385971
4744845
RLSN
Moore
21
6
2005
386230
4743489
RLSN
Sombra
4
8
2005
381976
4725396
RLSN
Sombra
5
8
2005
382552
4725985
RLSN
Moore
10
12
2005
393529
4750785
RLSN
Sarnia
13
2
2005
391658
4753770
RLSN
Sombra
B
8
2005
378740
4725169
RLSN
Sombra
9
15
2005
385393
4735043
RLSN
Dover
8
11
2005
384319
4700346
RLSN
Sombra
2
9
2005
380611
4726616
RLSN
Sombra
5
6
2005
382398
4722849
RLSN
Sombra
D
9
2005
377820
4727156
RLSN
Sombra
C
9
2005
378325
4727131
RLSN
Sombra
D
8
2005
377644
4725864
RLSN
Sombra
E
8
2005
377143
4725628
RLSN
Moore
26
2
2005
383080
4737931
SCRCA
Dover
19
13
2005
387557
4707165
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
16
15
2005
384565
4707906
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
6
15
2005
383721
4735793
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
4
Front
2005
380497
4736707
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
W 1,2,3,4
Front
2005
380511
4736154
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
6
10
2005
383051
4728070
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
C
10
2005
378713
4728340
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
D
9
2005
377982
4727785
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
19
15
2005
385968
4708313
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
24
12
2005
385103
4751144
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
3
8
2005
381194
4726067
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
3
8
2005
381228
4726088
SCRCA Tree Planting
RLSN
Dover
9, 10
11
2006
384960
4700988
Winterline
Wetlands
RLSN
Sombra
1
7
2006
380048
4724318
RLSN
Sombra
B
8
2006
378866
4725732
RLSN/SCRCA Sombra
1
5
2006
379934
4721634
RLSN/SCRCA Sombra
4
5
2006
381689
4721512
RLSN/SCRCA Sombra
5
9
2006
382867
4726937
RLSN/SCRCA Moore
19
7
2006
387539
4744308
RLSN/SCRCA Moore
?
1
2006
SCRCA
Moore
21
6
2006
386433
4743630
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
22
7
2006
385809
4744823
SCRCA Tree Planting
Project
Details
Ownership
BUIs Potentially
Impacted
Trees
Planted
Shelterbelt
750
Shelterbelt
2700
Shelterbelt
1950
Shelterbelt
Provincial
5000
Shelterbelt
500
Shelterbelt
450
Shelterbelt
150
Shelterbelt
Provincial
2000
Shelterbelt
Municipal
10600
Shelterbelt
6100
Shelterbelt
156
Shelterbelt
144
Block
550
Shelterbelt
1100
Shelterbelt
2500
Shelterbelt
1200
Shelterbelt
1200
Contour and Manage
Private
Enhance Fish and Wildlife
Habitat
Prairie Planting
Seasonal Ponds
Tree Planting
Tree Planting
Tree Planting
Tree Planting
Prairie, Wetland, Tree
Shelterbelt
410
Shelterbelt
270
89
Agency
Geo Twp
Lot
Con
Project UTM
UTM
Project
Year
SCRCA
Moore
27
9
2006
382917
4747669
SCRCA Tree Planting
RLSN
Dover
18
16
2007
384809
4709228
Pigeon
Marsh
RLSN
Moore
25
1
2007
383855
4736501
Hwy 40 Wildlife
Corridor
SCRCA
Dover
37
10
2007
387511
4709183
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Chatham
AB
4
2007
379111
4720758
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Chatham
8 + AB
1+4
2007
384201
4715720
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
AB
6
2007
379196
4722864
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
4
5
2007
381763
4720890
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
5
9
2007
382554
4726830
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
27
9
2007
382601
4746752
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
21,22
7
2007
386027
4744900
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
21
6
2007
386238
4743271
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
W1/2 1,2,
Front
2007
380511
4736154
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
6,9
1
2007
384945
4736006
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
25
4
2007
383721
4735793
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Chatham
6
4
2007
383721
4735793
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
C
10
2007
378358
4728462
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sarnia
0
69
2007
384067
4761380
SCRCA Tree Planting
RLSN
Dover
11
11
2007
385709.2696 4701829.738
RLSN
Moore
3
Front
2007
380511.1325 4736477.049
RLSN
Sombra
1
7
2007
379741.9024 4724031.64
RLSN
Sombra
5
9
2007
382868.6662 4727140.307
RLSN
Sombra
3
5
2007
381385.5996 4721724.415
RLSN
Sombra
1
5
2007
380110.3294 4721686.536
RLSN
Sombra
B
6
2007
378979.0006 4723229.486
RLSN
Chatham
1
1 Gore
2007
383433.6193 4716150.834
RLSN
Chatham
A
4 Gore
2007
379244.4396 4720340.332
RLSN
Moore
22
7
2007
385782.6619 4744396.968
SCRCA
Moore
25
12
2008
384456
4751944
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
21
9
2008
386787
4747529
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Dover
37
10
2008
387511
4709183
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Moore
63
Front
2008
381867
4750069
SCRCA Tree Planting
SCRCA
Sombra
B
11
2008
379111
4729878
SCRCA Tree Planting
Personal information has been omitted from this table to be in compliance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O., 1990.
90
Project
Details
Ownership
Shelterbelt
Burn and Manage
Public
Prairie Planting and
Manage
Public
BUIs Potentially
Impacted
Trees
Planted
500
Enhance Fish and Wildlife
Habitat
Shelterbelt
2200
Shelterbelt
1150
Shelterbelt
400
Shelterbelt
975
Shelterbelt
275
Block/She
1300
Shelterbelt
250
Shelterbelt
1260
Shelterbelt
850
Block
4300
Shelterbelt
Other
1350
Shelterbelt
Provincial
850
Shelterbelt
Provincial
600
Block
92
Shelterbelt
Municipal
22
Block
8000
Block
0
Shelterbelt
730
Block
500
Shelterbelt
25
91
92
Map 24: Stewardship Projects
5.2 Prioritized Works and Actions
The prioritized works and actions are meant as templates to be built upon by the various subcommittees working on the
St. Clair River AOC.
5.2.1 List of BUIs and Delisting Guidelines – 2009
Table 15: Impairment of Beneficial Use (BUI) and Delisting Guidelines
Number
assigned
BUI description
Delisting Guidelines - Goals Objectives
Current
status
Letter
assigned
1
Restriction on fish and
wildlife consumption
When contaminant levels do not exceed current
standards, objectives or guidelines and no public
health advisories are in effect
Impaired for
fish
A
2
Bird or animal
deformities or
reproductive problems
When chironomid mouthpart anomalies occur at
rates similar to “control” populations
Requires
further
assessment
B
3
Degradation of
benthos
When invertebrate community structure can be
documented as unimpaired or intermediate as
defined by recent OMOEE benthic investigations
Impaired
C
4
Restrictions on
dredging activities
No limitations on disposal of dredging spoils
Impaired
D
5
Restrictions on
drinking water
consumption or taste
and odour problems
No treatment plan shutdowns due to exceedences
of drinking water guidelines over a two year period
Impaired
E
6
Beach closings / Water
contact sports
Zero beach closings based on fecal coliform
standards regulating beach closings over a two year
period
Impaired
F
7
Degradation of
aesthetics
When over a two year period there is/are no
objectionable deposits, unnatural colour or
turbidity, unnatural odour or unnatural scum/
floating materials
Impaired
G
8
Added costs to
agriculture or industry
No plant shutdowns attributable to water quality
over a two year period. No added costs for the
disposal of contaminated sediments
Impaired
H
9
Loss of fish and
wildlife habitat
Protection
Impaired
I_1.0
- protect existing aquatic and wetland habitat
I_1.1
- ensure sufficient enforceable mechanisms are in
place to protect habitat
I_1.2
Restore and Enhance
Impaired
I_2.0
- restore a target area (ha) of wetland habitat
I_2.1
- restore a target area (ha) of aquatic habitat
I_2.2
- restore a target area (ha) of prairie habitat
I_2.3
- restore a target area (ha) of woodland habitat
I_2.4
93
5.2.2 Tracking Sheets Organized by Work Plan Subcommittees
The Priority Sites and Alternative Actions build upon recommendations previously adopted by various committees working on
the St. Clair RAP. Based on additional data since the 2007 Work Plan, priorities and actions have been revised and adapted. It is
expected priorities and actions will continuously be revised and adapted as new information becomes available. The various
committees need to assign the tasks and funding requirements. If feasible a schedule and time line can be added.
Key:
C
Current Practice; ongoing
LF
Long-term Funding Dependent
S
Short-term
W
Wish-list Item and Priority (High, Medium, Low)
L
Long-term
Blank
Not Currently Planned
SF
Short-term Funding Dependent
Co
Completed
Table 16: Habitat & Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions
BUI
9, 3
As part of the integrated shoreline management plan for the St. Clair River a GIS inventory has been completed on
shoreline hardening structures.
9, 3
On candidate sites, assess site quality for habitat features, sediment profile and contaminants as well as project
potential and priority.
9, 3
Establish shoreline rehabilitation toward meeting targets. Engineering and construction initiated for Guthrie Park
and CN lands in Sarna Bay. Other sites include: Courtright Waterfront Park, Willow Park, Cathcart Park, Marshy Creek
Park, Stag Island and Walpole Island Delta.
9, 3
Where softening has occurred, rehabilitate littoral habitat by incorporating higher quality fish habitat. Establish
native grasses, shrubs, trees, etc. Underway at Guthrie & CN lands.
9, 3
Assess the extent of shoreline projects completed elsewhere within the AOC (i.e. Chatham-Kent).
9, 6
Identify ownership and zoning status adjacent to St. Clair River direct tributaries.
9, 6
Undertake a landowner contact program and id buffer targets for each tributary based on cooperation. Track uptake.
9, 6
Rehabilitate a minimum of 20 km/year of riparian habitat to a minimum 3-5 m.
9
Track restoration which improves the biological connectivity i.e. Hwy 40; refer to Lambton Cty NHS and Walpole
Island FN.
9
Establish signs on Hwy 40 re: restoration.
3, 6, 7, 9
3, 6, 7, 9
94
Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions
Develop site specific subwatershed plans which identify priority NPS sites.
Track urban/stormwater control via site specific subwatershed plans.
Responsible Party Abbreviations
SC
Sediment Committee
CRIC
Canadian RAP Implementation Committee
MOE
Ministry of the Environment
EC
Environment Canada
RLSN
Rural Lambton Stewardship Network
MNR
Ministry of Natural Resources
SCRCA
St. Clair Region Conservation Authority
DU
Ducks Unlimited
HNPSC
S
SCT
C-K
PE
WIFN
AFN
Habitat & Non-Point Source Committee
Sarnia
St. Clair Township
Chatham-Kent
Point Edward
Walpole Island FN
Aamjiwnaang FN
C, I_2.2
X
A FN
WIFN
PE
C-K
SCT
S
HNPSC
DU
SCRCA
MNR
RLSN
EC
Funding
Received
MOE
Funding
Expected
SC
Goals &
Objectives
Addressed
CRIC
Responsible Party
Co
C, I_2.2
X
SF
C, I_2.2
X
SF
C, I_2.2
X
SF
C, I_2.2
F, I_2.3, I_2.5
F, I_2.3, I_2.5
F, I_2.3, I_2.5
I_2.3, I_2.5
X
SF
I_2.3, I_2.5
X
SF
SF
C, F, G, I_1.1,
I_1.2,
C, F, G, I_1.1,
I_1.2,
95
Table 16: Habitat & Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions (cont’d)
BUI
3, 6, 7, 9
Identify issues related to domestic sanitary sources and support ongoing improvements.
9
Obtain a GIS tile drain layer and identify where water can be retained in fields to mitigate NPS/rural runoff.
9
Track NPS projects and provide annual reports on the status.
9, 6
9
9
3, 9
3, 9
3, 6, 9
3, 9
3, 9
96
Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions
Complete a GIS analysis of existing data to determine tributary lengths, riparian habitat, land use and land
ownership to establish targets for streamside buffers.
Evaluate existing natural features toward meeting targets. Wetlands a priority.
Establish a Natural Woodland Wetland (NWWW) Strategy for AOC 1-A; strategy to include performing high quality
natural features inventories.
Incorporate recreation opportunities (i.e. trails) into NWWW plan (i.e. trails) = greenway corridor plan.
Based on greenway corridor plan, install and maintain streambank stabilization and buffers; no mow zones; track
success.
Promote an institutional framework for watershed wide actions where gaps exist (i.e. drainage act).
Identify the flood vulnerable areas for the St. Clair River tributaries - (develop the methodology to refine estimated
floodlines and delineate the flood limits for the purpose of targetting potential fish and wildlife habitat along
watercourses providing core greenway corridors and streamside buffering - purpose being lower lying areas
potential high quality wetland habitat).
Update drain classification and fisheries.
A FN
WIFN
PE
C-K
SCT
S
HNPSC
DU
SCRCA
MNR
RLSN
EC
Funding
Received
MOE
Funding
Expected
SC
Goals &
Objectives
Addressed
CRIC
Responsible Party
C, F, G, I_1.1,
I_1.2,
I_2.1
I_2.1
F, I_2.3, I_2.5
I_1.1, I_1.2,
I_2.1
I_1.1, I_1.2,
I_2.1, I_2.3,
I_2.4
C, I_1.1, I_1.2,
I_2.1, I_2.3,
I_2.4
C, I_1.1, I_1.2,
I_2.1, I_2.3,
I_2.4
C, F, I_1.1,
I_1.2, 2.1, I_2.3,
I_2.4
C, F, I_1.1,
I_1.2, 2.1, I_2.3,
I_2.4
C, I_1.1, I_1.2,
I_2.1,
97
Table 17: Point Source Priority Actions
BUI
Point Source Priority Actions
1,2,3,4,9
Maintain and review point source regulatory monitoring (Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA),
Certificate of Approval (C of A) to ensure timely reporting and information dissemination on environmental
concerns.
1,2,3,4,9
Maintain and review corridor/river monitoring programs and ensure timely delivery of results for synthesis and BUI
assessments.
2,6,7
Cities of Sarnia and Wallaceburg, villages of Point Edward, Corunna and Courtright, towns of Sombra and Port
Lambton must continue to operate their WPCPs and lagoons in order to meet discharge criteria as identified in their
C of A.
2,6,7
Develop a Master Plan for sewage treatment for the City of Sarnia which includes plan optimization, elimination of
by-passes and CSOs.
2,6,7
Assess the need for disinfection at Port Lambton and Sombra lagoons if Beach Closings for bacteria are still occurring
once all other sources are remediated.
2,6,7
Determine the wastewater treatment practices on Walpole Island and assess if there are any impacts on St. Clair River
beneficial uses and identify work plan addition to support delisting.
2,6,7
Maintain and review WPCP regulatory monitoring (C of A) to ensure that recommendation is achieved.
2,6,7
Eliminate Exmouth Street CSO in the City of Sarnia.
2,6,7
Eliminate Christina Street CSO in the City of Sarnia.
2,6,7
Completely separate cross connections within the City of Sarnia Sanitary Drainage Area 1.
2,6,7
Complete City of Sarnia Street sanitary interceptor sewer to divert sewage from Drainage Areas 2 & 4 to WPCP.
2,6,7
Determine the effectiveness of the Devine Street CSO holding tank in the City of Sarnia at full capacity.
2,6,7
Determine whether there are CSO discharges from Walpole Island First Nation impacting on the river beneficial uses
and identify work plan additions to support delisting.
2,6,7
Determine whether there are CSO discharges from Aamjiwnaang First Nation impacting on the river beneficial uses
and identify work plan additions to support delisting.
2,6,7
Determine whether there are sanitary / stormwater sewer cross connections in Point Edward and identify work plan
additions to support delisting.
5,7,8,9
Assess extent to which regulatory changes made in 2005-2007 have addressed IPAT recommendations and identify
which remaining recommendations will be implemented.
5,7,8,9
Continue to work with industry to develop closed loop cooling water systems, cooling water towers or monitor and
divert systems.
5,7,8,9
Continue MISA and C of A monitoring and improve MOE data reporting to AOC lead agencies for use in assessing BUI
status.
98
A?,B, C, D, I
X
X
B,F,G
X
X
B,F,G
X
B,F,G
X
X
A FN
X
WIFN
X
PE
HNPSC
DU
SCRCA
MNR
RLSN
C-K
X
SCT
X
S
A?,B, C, D, I
EC
Funding
Received
MOE
Funding
Expected
SC
Goals &
Objectives
Addressed
CRIC
Responsible Party
X
X
X
B,F,G
X
B,F,G
X
B,F,G
X
X
B,F,G
X
X
B,F,G
X
X
B,F,G
X
X
B,F,G
X
X
B,F,G
X
B,F,G
X
B,F,G
E,G,H,I
X
E,G,H,I
X
E,G,H,I
X
99
Table 18: Sediment Priority Actions
BUI
1,9,2,3,4
100
Sediment Priority Actions
Establish a Technical Steering Committee.
“
Hire a Project Manager to facilitate the decision making process for contaminated sediments in zones 2 and 3 (if
required).
“
Identify and address sediment chemistry, biological and other data gaps for zones 2 & 3.
“
Use the COA “Assessment Framework” on St. Clair River sediment to determine the need for contaminant sediment
management strategies.
“
Develop sediment management options and select preferred option for zones 2 & 3.
“
a. Conduct “Public, First Nation and Stakeholder Consultation” to seek consensus.
“
If sediment removal is necessary, the following steps are required for implementation:
“
- Develop engineering design
“
- Secure funding
“
- Undertake an Environmental Assessment
“
- Implement sediment remediation strategy
“
- Environmental Monitoring
“
- Public and agency communications
“
Evaluate the effectiveness of remediation on beneficial uses.
X
X
X
X
“
X
X
X
X
“
X
X
X
X
“
X
X
X
X
“
X
X
X
X
“
X
X
X
“
X
X
X
X
“
X
X
X
X
“
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A FN
“
WIFN
X
PE
X
C-K
X
SCT
X
S
A,I,B,C,D
HNPSC
X
DU
X
SCRCA
X
CRIC
X
SC
A,I,B,C,D
MNR
Funding
Received
EC
Funding
Expected
MOE
Goals &
Objectives
Addressed
RLSN
Responsible Party
“
“
“
101
Table 19: Monitoring & Research Priority Actions
BUI
1
Determine the relative role of out of basin sources (i.e. atmospheric contaminants), local ongoing sources, and local
sources from historical sediment contamination.
1
Work with MOE and MNR to develop consistent, long-term, corridor-wide collections of sport fish species from the
upper, middle and lower St. Clair River to track spatial and temporal contaminant trends. Fish sampling in the upper,
middle and lower St. Clair River should be conducted every four years at the very least. (Timeline: ongoing)
1
Conduct additional monitoring studies to determine the extent to which contaminant exposure and uptake occurs
in mergansers, over-wintering waterfowl and other game species to address the BUIs “consumption of wildlife”.
(Timeline: CRIC to decide if additional waterfowl contaminant studies are required in 2007)
1,3,4,5,8
102
Monitoring & Research Priority Actions
Review and revise delisting criteria. (Timeline: 2007)
3
Complete a clear and concise synthesis of existing information to document existing conditions and trends on
benthic communities and body burdens.
3
Identify information gaps in order to review existing delisting criteria, develop management plans and recommend
additional remedial options for contaminated sediments (i.e. Integrate findings of the Benthic Assessment of
Sediment (Beast) National Water Research Institute, Sarnia Lambton Environmental Association, Great Lakes Institute
of Environmental Research (GLIER).
3
Determine the need to continue the comprehensive (MOE) benthic community assessment for the entire St. Clair
River and delta to determine overall benthic community health as was completed in 1957, 1968, 1977, 1985, 1990,
1994 and 1996. (Timeline: CRIC to decide in 2007 if benthic studies are required)
4
Collect and synthesize sediment contaminant data for the St. Clair River such as:
4
- PWGSC for each dredging event in the St. Clair River AOC;
4
Consult with GLIER and synthesize results from Drouillard, Hafner and Ciborowski contaminant results for the St. Clair
River, St. Clair River Delta, Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River (Huron Erie Corridor);
4
- MOE and EC sediment core results; and
4
- SLEA sediment results. (Timeline: 2007)
4
Identify the disposal outcome from dredging events based on sediment chemistry analysis and compare with
delisting criteria. (Timeline: 2007)
5
Continue to monitor spills to the St. Clair River. (Timeline: ongoing)
5
Review and, if necessary, revise the delisting criteria for “restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and
odour problems”. (Timeline: 2007)
5
Identify the need for imporvement to current monitoring programs. (Timeline: 2007)
6
Obtain water quality monitoring data from the Public Health Unit (bacteria levels in beaches and day-use parks) and
MOE - Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network data for stations within the AOC and St. Clair watershed.
6
Obtain routine beach surveillance data from Lambton County and Chatham-Kent Community Health Services
Departments. (Timeline: ongoing)
6
Evaluate the source(s) of bacterial contamination of beaches. (Timeline: unknown, research needed)
6
Evaluate the performance of municipality infrastructure upgrades on sewage treatment plants, stormwater
treatment, and combined sewer overflows and facility optimization. (Timeline: ongoing)
6
Conduct river wide screening in 2008 and compare with results from 2004.
6
Work closely with Walpole Island First Nation to determine if there are beach closings at local beaches. (Timeline:
onoging)
6
Support the Lambton County Public Health Unit to conduct a St. Clair River wide sampling “to determine if the AOC
creeks that enter into the river have a significant impact upon the presence and concentrations of E. coli. (Timeline:
ongoing)
A FN
WIFN
PE
C-K
SCT
S
HNPSC
DU
SCRCA
MNR
RLSN
EC
Funding
Received
MOE
Funding
Expected
SC
Goals &
Objectives
Addressed
CRIC
Responsible Party
A
A
A
A,C,D,F, H
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
103
Table 19: Monitoring & Research Priority Actions (cont’d)
104
BUI
Monitoring & Research Priority Actions
7
Develop an appropriate methodology (e.g. questionnaire, contact MOE district office, Health Units, municipalities
and the MNR to determine if there have been recent complaints) to evaluate degradation of aesthetics in the St. Clair
River AOC. (Cost to produce questionnaires is estimated at $2,000 and a survey of river users is expected in 2007.)
7
Include all partners (U.S., Canadian and First Nations) in the development of study and the decision BUI status.
8
Collect spills data from MOE and review for mandated shutdowns. (Timeline: ongoing)
9
A St. Clair River shoreline survey for rehabilitation and design of restorative works report.
9
Pre- and post-monitoring of fish abundance and diversity in areas designated for shoreline softening projects to
assess the success of aquatic habitat rehabilitation.
9
Complete GIS analysis of existing 2006 data to determine tributary lengths, amount of existing riparian habitat, land
use and land ownership in order to establish targets.
9
Benthic monitoring and fish habitat assessments in the tributaries flowing directly into the St. Clair River following
major rehabilitation pilot projects in order to measure ecological benefits.
9
As identified in Recommendation 3.4, work with the Walpole Island Heritage Centre to develop a list identifying
priority coastal wetland sites on WIFN for CWS wetland habitat quality assessments (i.e. water quality,
macroinvertebrate, submerged aquatic vegetation and marsh birds).
9
Complete wetland assessments and obtain results from WIFN / CWL and WIFN / Bird Studies Canada wetland
assessments in order to determine their biological integrity and functionality.
9
Walpole Island Heritage Centre to identify and develop habitat and community project proposals that will contribute
to restoring BUIs for habitat / shoreline remediation (i.e. wetland rehabilitation plan).
9
Include all partners (U.S., Canadian and First Nations) and use information gathered to assess the status of the BUI
based on study results.
9
Conduct additional monitoring studies to determine the extent to which contaminant exposure and uptake occurs
in mergansers, over-wintering waterfowl and other game species to address the BUIs “consumption of wildlife”.
(Same action as identified for BUI Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption.)
9
Evaluate aquatic wildlife population dynamics in the AOC including Walpole Island First Nation through wetland
evaluations. (Timeline: 2007-2009, Cost: $10,000/year)
9
Work with existing Species at Risk programs (i.e. Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Fisheries and Oceans,
and Walpole Island Heritage Centre) and synthesize information to comprehensively assess wildlife related BUIs.
(Timeline: ongoing)
2
Await a report on the 2006 fish collection and liver evaluation from EC-NWRI and undertake a comprehensive
review on the current status. Integrate previous studies with the 2006 results to determine if this BUI is impaired or
not impaired. (A complete liver tumour assessment completed by Environment Canada’s National Water Research
Institute is anticipated by the end of 2007.
2
Integrate previous studies on birds, reptiles and mammals with the 2006/2007 amphibian results.
2
Complete a comprehensive assessment of vertebrate classes to determine the status of this BUI (i.e. Impaired, Not
Impaired, Requires Further Study on a Site-Specific Basis).
A FN
WIFN
PE
C-K
SCT
S
HNPSC
DU
SCRCA
MNR
RLSN
EC
Funding
Received
MOE
Funding
Expected
SC
Goals &
Objectives
Addressed
CRIC
Responsible Party
G
G
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
B
B
105
Table 20: Outreach & Education Priority Actions
BUI
106
Outreach & Education Priority Actions
All
Support the BPAC in their efforts to enhance local coordination of present and future public outreach projects (e.g.
Photo Contest & Promotions; Advertising Campaign; News Releases; PowerPoint Presentation; Portable Display;
Report Card; Fact Sheet).
All
Develop outreach/ education materials to promote the rehabilitation of nearshore aquatic habitat and shoreline
softening, such as shoreline tabloid, website, presentation, demonstration day.
All
Recognize the need for and provide funding support for RAP coordination.
All
Continue to provide support to the Friends of the St. Clair River (Canada) for information development and BPAC
outreach projects.
All
Develop education materials to inform the public on correct direct discharges of untreated grey water from boats.
All
Celebrate successes and milestones via site visits for public and agency trips to implementation sites.
A FN
WIFN
PE
C-K
SCT
S
HNPSC
DU
SCRCA
MNR
RLSN
EC
Funding
Received
MOE
Funding
Expected
SC
Goals &
Objectives
Addressed
CRIC
Responsible Party
All
All
All
All
All
All
107
5.2.3 Works and Actions Organized by Subwatersheds
At the Ministry of the Environment and Environment Canada’s request, works and actions were reviewed by Conservation
Authority staff and listed by subwatershed based on the knowledge and expertise at the Conservation Authority.
Terrestrial and aquatic biologists, hydrologists, foresters, extension services specialists, planners and geographic
information experts reviewed site specific mapping and, through a consensus exercise, formulated habitat and non-point
source pollution priority actions. As background, staff utilized the existing work plan information and built upon these
actions. In order to recognize the past work of the habitat committee led by Greg Mayne at Environment Canada, it was
requested that actions identified in the “Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat, 2006” report be clearly marked on the charts. It
is recommended the Habitat and Non-point Source Subcommittee further identify information gaps and constraints on
the charts as they arise.
Table 21: Clay Creek Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions
Priority Actions
Data gaps Constraints
Identified in “Loss of Habitat:
BUI Assessment” report*
GIS and field analysis of trib riparian status at the mouth
of Clay Creek. Establish priorities and targets for riparian/
wetland restoration and where feasible implement.
Evaluate natural features for wetland potential.
Identify wetlands utilizing MNR standard.
Perform natural heritage inventories of high priority
natural areas.
Establish a Natural Area Corridor Strategy - 1) id key
areas for protection and restoration; 2) incl. GIS analysis
to determine trib lengths, riparian habitat, land use and
ownership; 3) priorities (ie buffers) for restoration.
Implement the Strategy.
√
√
√
*”Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat in the Canadian Portion of the St. Clair River Area of Concern”, Beneficial Use Impairment
Assessment, August 2006, Greg Mayne
108
Table 22: Baby Creek Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions
Priority Actions
GIS and field analysis of trib riparian status at the mouth
of Baby Creek. Establish priorities and targets for riparian/
wetland restoration and where feasible implement.
Evaluate natural features for wetland potential. High
potential for wetland id.
Identify wetlands utilizing MNR standard.
natural areas.
areas for protection and restoration; 2) incl. GIS analysis
to determine trib lengths, riparian habitat, land use and
ownership; 3) priorities (ie buffers) for restoration; 4) set
target for %impervious in Industrial designated areas.
√
√
√
Table 23: Direct Drainage Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions
Priority Actions
Establish shoreline rehabilitation toward meeting targets.
On candidate shoreline sites, assess site quality for habitat
features, sediment profile and contaminants as well as
project potential and priority.
√
√
GIS and field analysis of trib riparian status on tribs.
Establish priorities and targets for riparian/wetland
restoration and where feasible implement.
√
Evaluate and establish a Natural Area Corridor Strategy
with emphasis on connection of existing core features to
St. Clair River.
109
Table 24: Whitebread/Marshy Creek Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions
Priority Actions
Establish a Natural Area restoration potential with
emphasis on increasing connection along watercourse
corridors.
√
GIS and field analysis of trib riparian status. Establish
priorities and targets for riparian/wetland restoration and
where feasible implement.
√
Promote & support best mgt municipal drain practices.
Target landowners re: BMP outreach & education with
incentives.
*”Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat in the Canadian Portion of the St. Clair River Area of Concern”, Beneficial Use
Impairment Assessment, August 2006, Greg Mayne
Table 25: Bowens Creek Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions
Priority Actions
GIS and field analysis of riparian status on Bowens Creek
and tribs. Establish priorities and targets for riparian
High priority to establsh connection of wetland/woodland
patches to Bowens Creek/St. Clair River corridor.
Identify buffers required for wetlands based on Industrial
designation.
√
110
Table 26: Talford Creek Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions
Priority Actions
GIS and field analysis of trib riparian status from
Aamjiwnaaang F.N. to the mouth of Talford Creek. Establish
priorities and targets for riparian restoration and where
feasible implement – incl. carrying out additional benthic
work to set priorities.
areas for protection and restoration with emphasis on
connection to core F.N. lands and St. Clair River.
√
Table 27: Running/Lower Sydenham Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions
Priority Actions
GIS and field analysis of trib riparian status of non-road
tribs. Establish priorities and targets for riparian/ wetland
Establish Natural Area restoration potential with emphasis
on increasing natural connection between Sydenham River
to St. Clair River via Running Creek as well as increasing
coastal wetland area along Chenal Ecarte.
Evaluate natural features for wetland potential.
√
√
Table 28: Maxwell/Bear/Rankin Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions
Priority Actions
GIS and field analysis of trib riparian status of non-road
tribs. Establish priorities and targets for riparian/ wetland
√
Establish Natural Area restoration potential with emphasis
on increasing coastal wetland connection along the
Chenal Ecarte and Lake St. Clair.
√
Evaluate natural features/properties for wetland potential.
111
Table 29: Pt. Edward/Sarnia Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions
Priority Actions
Establish shoreline rehabilitation toward meeting targets
with emphasis on public lands.
On candidate shoreline sites, with emphasis on natural
shorelines, assess site quality for habitat features, sediment
profile and contaminants as well as project potential and
priority.
natural areas in urban core and provide recommendations
on enhancement with emphasis on connection to St. Clair
River.
√
√
Table 30: Walpole Island Subwatershed Habitat and Non-point Source Pollution Priority Actions
Priority Actions
Consult with Walpole Island Heritage Centre to develop a
list of priority coastal wetland sites.
Complete wetland assessments in WIFN/CWS lands for
biological integrity.
√
√
112
5.3 St. Clair River Report Card Indicators and Recommended Strategies
In 2008, the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority completed its first Watershed Report Card. The St. Clair River and Lake
St. Clair Tributaries Watershed Report Cards are two in a set of 14 report cards that are based on forest and surface water
quality conditions from 2001 to 2005. The provincial indicators and scoring system were recommended by Conservation
Ontario to provide a standard reporting system across the Conservation Authorities of Ontario. The scoring system uses
grades on a five-point scale from A down to F.
St. Clair River Tributaries Watershed Report Card
The area evaluated includes the AOC 1-A to the southerly limit of the Whitebread Marshy subwatershed. See Appendix C
for Report Card.
St. Clair River Tributaries Watershed Report Card results: Forest Conditions rated a “C” and Surface Water Quality rated a
“D”. Due to the presence of Aamjiwnaang First Nation lands and the Bickford Oak Woods, which have a large amount of
interior forest habitat, the St. Clair River Watershed as a whole receives a better grade in comparison to the Grade “D” the
other watershed received in the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority. The poorest water quality conditions are found
here. Other than the forest cover concentrated at Aamjiwnaang and Bickford Oak Woods, forest cover is limited. The area
has been heavily impacted by humans. The conditions reflect both natural features such as predominantly clay soils,
intensive agricultural activities and some urbanization.
The report card recommended strategies for improving forest cover: follow Forest Management Plans, naturalize urban
areas, encourage industry to protect and enhance natural features.
Report card recommended strategies for improving water quality: separate the combined sewer outfalls in the urban
areas, work with industry to implement agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) on their properties and maintain,
repair or replace septic systems.
Lake St. Clair Tributaries Watershed Report Card
The area represents a downstream portion of the Lake St. Clair Tributaries subwatershed area. See Appendix C for
Report Card.
Lake St. Clair Tributaries Watershed Report Card: Forest Conditions rated a “D” and Surface Water Quality rated a “C”.
Certainly forest conditions would have rated an “F” without the presence of the large % forest cover on Walpole Island
First Nation. Without the First Nation lands, this watershed rates extremely low in forest cover and interior. The report
card finds water quality conditions marginally better than the St. Clair River tributaries report. One of the lowest Total
Phosphorus readings was in this subwatershed. The Lake St. Clair sampling location is influenced by dilution from Lake St.
Clair and would impact the quality.
Report card recommended strategies for improving forest cover: plant trees, educate watershed residents about natural
area protection, conserve the few remaining natural areas including wetlands, woodlands and prairie remnants, through
designations in Official Plans, tree conservation bylaws, landowner incentives and education.
Report card recommended strategies for improving water quality: enhance cover along watercourses by planting,
protecting or enhancing buffers along open watercourses to filter runoff and shade the water, encourage Environmental
Farm Plans, implement BMPs for spreading and storage of fertilizer, pesticide and manure.
113
5.4 Monitoring and Analysis
Through the Canadian Remedial Action Plan Implementation Committee Work Plan, 200758, a Research and Monitoring
Subcommittee reviewed each Beneficial Use Impairment to determine status, and based on existing information,
proposed research and monitoring actions. Scientific studies have been ongoing and recent information has been
included in the 2009 ENVIRON international project report for applying the Canada-Ontario Decision-Making Framework
for Assessment of Great Lakes Contaminated Sediment (COA Framework) to the St. Clair River AOC. Smaller data gap
identification and analysis is ongoing as the St. Clair River Sediment Remediation project progresses. These information
needs will concentrate on sediment remediation decision requirements. Section 4 of the Work Plan identifies other
Research and Monitoring Actions as:
• Determine relative role of out of basin sources, local ongoing sources and local sources from historical sediment
contamination
• Continue working with MOE and MNR to obtain long-term sport fish species contaminant trends
• Review and revise delisting criteria. Identify information gaps in order to review existing delisting criteria
• Review and compare results from sediment contaminant studies for the St. Clair River, St. Clair River delta, Lake St. Clair
and the Detroit River
E. coli monitoring on the Canadian side of the St. Clair River AOC is being conducted in the summer of 2009, to determine
the extent of beach closings as a result of bacterial levels above the provincial water quality objectives for recreational
use. E. coli monitoring on the inland tributaries may be recommended dependent on the results of the 2009 sampling.
Also, the report card has recommended the inland water chemistry monitoring site in the Lake St. Clair watershed be
relocated to provide a better reflection of the regional watershed influences. It currently appears to be influenced by
Great Lakes waters.
58 St. Clair River Remedial Action Committee, St. Clair River Area of Concern Canadian Remedial Action Plan Implementation Committee Work Plan, 2007.
114
6
Chapter 6
Municipal Planning and Policy Analysis
6.1 Introduction
Official Plans
To assist municipalities in directing where development and growth should occur, Municipal
Official Plans are key planning documents required for each municipality under the Ontario
Municipal Planning Act. Official Plans incorporate provincial policies and recognize federal,
provincial and local land use, and environmental, social and economic issues related to
anticipated development. To accomplish orderly sound development, Section 3 of the
Municipal Planning Act requires that, in exercising any authority that affects planning matters,
planning authorities “shall have regard to” policy statements issued by the Province under the
Act. The Provincial Policy Statement, and its regular updates, is intended to promote a policyled system that recognizes the complex inter-relationships among environmental, economic
and social factors in land use planning. It is the intent and requirement that locally generated
Official Plans will incorporate the provincial interests reflected in Provincial policies and local
interests are protected by locally generated policies which should complement provincial
interests.
Municipal Zoning Bylaws
While Official Plans contain planning policies to establish the context for growth and
development, bylaws are necessary to regulate the use of lands and the character, location
and use of buildings and structures. They are the legal tool for managing the use of land and
future development. Section 34 of the Planning Act provides municipalities with the ability to
pass such bylaws. Zoning bylaws must conform to the policies set out in the Official Plans.
Upper Tier Approval Authorities in the AOC
Lambton County has a two-tier planning system in which planning responsibilities are divided
between the County and the local level. The lower-tier municipalities – City of Sarnia, Village of
Point Edward and Township of St. Clair – have separate, more detailed, local Official Plans. The
City of Sarnia has been delegated plan of subdivision approval with planning policies to guide
such approvals.
The Municipality of Chatham-Kent has a one-tier planning system. The municipality was
formed on January 1998, amalgamating 23 separate communities. Therefore, ChathamKent’s Official Plan applies to all lands within the Municipality. Local official plans for the
communities do not exist.
Projected population growth in the AOC, as discussed in Section 2.3, will be small and urban
growth will be limited. The status of urban residential versus rural land use cover in the AOC
is expected to remain unchanged. The conversion of rural land use cover to industrial may
change dependent on several factors. These factors will be explored in the section on St. Clair
Township. A generalized land use cover map for the AOC is provided on Map 25: Generalized
Land Cover.
115
116
Map 25: Generalized Land Cover
6.1.1 Considerations Based on AOC Goals, Objectives and Actions
As discussed previously, the bi-national work plan prepared for the 1995 St. Clair River Stage 2 Plan identified 45 actions/
issues to address Beneficial Use Impairments delisting criteria. A particular BUI may be re-designated to a status of
“Not Impaired” when the delisting criteria are achieved. When all BUIs have been re-designated as “Not Impaired”, a
recommendation and submission to the IJC can be made to delist the St. Clair River as an AOC. Recently, MOE and
Environment Canada have issued a report card on the status of the BUIs. See Table 1: AOC BUI Report Card.
The following section analyzes the planning documents of the communities within Area 1-A in the context of the AOC
Beneficial Use Impairments. Policies or the lack thereof which would impact the BUIs will be examined in respect to their
effectiveness.
In a review of the BUIs, it is the planning policies and guidance which protect water quality that require analysis. Chemical
spills via municipal and industrial point sources are dealt with by Ministry of the Environment legislation.
Policies under the Provincial Planning Act and Drainage Act can impact water quality in the AOC and particularly
on inland watercourses. Policies and guidelines which preserve and protect natural features play an important role
in the protection of water quality and fish and wildlife habitat. Natural Heritage Protection is also a key component
in ensuring a healthy ecosystem and community. Municipal planning documents were reviewed to assess how well
natural heritage policies protected the natural heritage system. Other items under municipal jurisdiction which can
influence water quality were also reviewed. They include: stormwater management, impervious surface reduction,
erosion and sedimentation control, sanitary sewer planning and infrastructure, groundwater, wetland preservation,
woodland preservation, stream corridors and flood plains, and the site plan approval process. Official Plans and Zoning
Bylaws derived under the Planning Act were first assessed followed by an assessment of other planning tools and its
effectiveness in the AOC.
Note that the assessment and recommendations are based on the review of documents and that input should be
obtained from the communities.
6.1.2 Municipal Documents
Lambton County Official Plan
Extensive urban growth is not forecasted for the County and therefore a significant conversion to residential urban cover
is not expected in the AOC. However, the 1997 Official Plan does recognize the significance of the petrochemical industry
in the County and land has been designated to accommodate existing and future large-scale industrial uses. Map 9:
Generalized Land Cover and Designated Growth Areas identifies where future industrial lands will be situated. A
large supply of industrial land is needed in close proximity to the St. Clair River for docking and source water purposes.
Currently much of the future industrial lands are in agriculture which represents a pervious land use in comparison to
heavy industrial, an impervious land use. In terms of future development in the AOC, this land use cover conversion has
the greatest potential to negatively impact upon the natural heritage system and local hydrology. Municipal documents
have identified that petrochemical industries may be situated within the designated industrial lands as outlined in each
subwatershed map titled “Base Map and Industry Locations” (See Appendix A). The Lambton County Official Plan
states that “development in the petrochemical industrial lands should be integrated with the County natural heritage
corridors or the local municipal natural heritage system, where feasible”59.
City of Sarnia Official Plan
Population growth is directed in the eastern portion of the City of Sarnia outside of the AOC proper. Major heavy
industrial development already exists within the City boundaries. The physical legacy associated with Sarnia’s industrial
heritage also includes a number of abandoned, idled or underused industrial and commercial properties in the builtup urban area. These are referred to as “brownfields”. In the last decade, as global restructuring has taken place, some
industries have closed or downsized, leaving parcels abandoned or for sale. On some of the older sites, the soil is
contaminated. To address redevelopment or expansion in real or perceived environmentally contaminated sites, the City
59 Lambton County Planning and Development Department, Lambton County Official Plan, 1997, Section 3.8
117
has adopted a “Brownfield Community Improvement Plan”60. The Community Improvement Plan provides guidance and
policy in cleaning up sites instead of industries seeking to situate new facilities in non-industrial lands creating land use
inefficiencies and promoting urban sprawl. Among other things, the plan includes incentives for remediation of sites
which promotes environmental quality. The project area consists of existing and former older industrial areas occupying
a total area of approximately 2,295 hectares. Approximately 95% of the land is presently designated for industrial use and
is zoned as either Light Industrial or Heavy Industrial. The lands are basically situated between Confederation Street and
Highway 40 in the City of Sarnia, however there are historic areas north of London Road which are contaminated with
coal tar. The brownfield plan is a positive incentive program which assists in improving the environmental health of the
AOC by soil remediation as well as slowing urban expansion into rural areas.
City of Sarnia Natural Heritage Policies
In November 2007, the City of Sarnia Community Round Table held an Environmental Summit that was focused
on individual actions to improve the environment. The Steering Committee arising from the summit developed an
Environmental Action Plan that is focused on the city becoming a green community and reducing its carbon footprint.
One of the recommendations was increasing native tree cover. It was further recommended that the City develop a
strategy to protect existing natural heritage features and enhance and restore natural areas using core areas and creating
linkages between them.
The City has established a number of environmental committees and appointed City representatives to other committees
to advise Council on the protection of the environment and preservation of habitats within the City. The Urban Wildlife
Committee is responsible for identifying lands for natural areas and assisting with the management of the areas. The
Sarnia Urban Wildlife Committee has identified that a natural heritage study is needed for Sarnia. Currently, Terms of
Reference and financing for the study are being investigated. The Committee chair has contacted the Authority for
support and a written request is expected.
Township of St. Clair Official Plan
Fawn and Stag Island
Two islands in the St. Clair River fall within the Township of St. Clair jurisdiction. They are Fawn Island and Stag Island.
Fawn Island is 0.21 km² and Stag Island is 1.1 km² in area. Both islands are unique seasonal private residential areas with a
large portion of Stag Island presently in a natural state (approximately 80%). Fawn Island is basically built out in terms of
seasonal residential development. Both islands are serviced by municipal piped water and private sewage.
According to the Municipal Official Plan, any multi-lot development on Fawn Island will require investigation into
improved servicing such as communal sewage. The investigations must be completed in accordance with Ministry of the
Environment guidelines, demonstrating that the impacts on ground and surface water will be within acceptable limits.
On Stag Island, the creation of additional lots is not permitted. Any new redevelopment requires receipt of necessary
Ministry of the Environment certificates of approval for private sanitary disposal systems and must be compatible with
and protective of natural features and functions.
General
The Municipal Official Plan encourages an interconnected open space system. In fact, a progressive system of Bonusing
dedicated lands for such purposes exists in municipal policy.
Natural Heritage
As is the case with Sarnia, the protection of Natural Heritage features and corridors along the St. Clair River is reactive
to proposed development. With the exception of the Bickford Oaks Woods natural area and its surroundings, detailed
assessments of the areas and recommended development buffers have not been established. The lack of assessment
has precluded any potential restoration and connections between the natural features. However, prior to development
in natural areas (as identified in the OP), an environmental evaluation may be required, unless a report under the
Environmental Assessment Act is prepared for the development. This is completed on a site by site basis.
60 http://city.sarnia.on.ca/pdf/Planning_Brownfields_Community_Improve_Plan.pdf
118
Progressive policies exist for proposed development (non-agricultural) along watercourses. The Official Plan provides
principles for encouraging natural stream bank vegetation and natural stream buffers which enhance the “biological
corridor” role of watercourses. While no clearing of woodlands is permitted, Lambton County council may require, as a
condition of approval, reforestation at a rate of twice the area of forest cover removed. This does not account for the time
required to establish mature woodlands which provide the form and function that the existing woodland provides. A
detailed assessment should be done prior to allowing re-plantings.
Although a system of open space parks exists sporadically along the St. Clair River, the parks are manicured and not
considered natural. The municipality is promoting the use of more indigenous vegetation species and opportunities to
improve water quality along the St. Clair River shoreline parks.
A natural heritage strategy does not exist for the municipality.
Stormwater Management and Industrial Lands
The amount of land designated for future industrial growth in St. Clair Township is the driving factor in terms of potential
land use change. As shown in the subwatersheds of Talford, St. Clair River Direct Drainage, Baby, Clay and Bowens Creek,
the future Industrial designation is presently used as agriculture. It could mean a large conversion of pervious lands to
impervious cover and increased stormwater runoff to receiving water bodies. Clearly subwatershed plans which provide
targets for impervious cover in these watersheds would be beneficial. The Official Plan does recognize this need in their
acknowledgement that “the principles of natural stormwater management fit into the larger concept of watershed and
subwatershed planning”61.
Chatham-Kent Official Plan
Natural Heritage
Natural cover in Chatham-Kent is extremely low at 4% of the total land area which is well below Environment Canada’s
Draft Framework Guideline of 30%. As expected, those AOC Area 1-A subwatersheds within Chatham-Kent jurisdiction
have the lowest forest cover.
Table 31: % Woodland Cover Within Each Subwatershed
Total Woodland
area (km2)
Subwatershed
area (km2)
% woodland cover
% Cover of SCRCA
Total Woodlands
Baby Creek
2.515950134
21.0097
11.97518353
0.512413469
Bowens Creek
2.432339711
6.6198
36.74340178
0.49538487
Clay Creek
11.46666219
56.6698
20.23416739
2.335369082
2.403702394
43.849
5.481772433
0.489552422
Agriculture is the primary pressure on the Natural Heritage features. The new Official Plan has established a natural
heritage system which considers natural corridors and linkages in any future development or site alteration. The plan
recognizes that these may be identified in future and added by amendment to the Plan. The Natural Heritage features
are designated by way of an overlay which is less protective than Lambton County. Chatham-Kent does not have a Tree
Cutting Bylaw. Due to the low cover, a Forest Management Strategy has been recommended in the Official Plan. The
Forest Management Strategy is to protect existing forested areas, reforest target natural corridor areas, increase forest
cover to at least 10% of total land area and allow for complementary uses.
Stormwater Management and Subwatershed Planning
The Chatham-Kent Official Plan contains the most detail and direction with regard to Subwatershed Planning. It
recognizes the importance of watershed planning and states where it should be targeted. Minimal growth is expected in
Chatham-Kent in the Area of Concern. Any new development will require stormwater management.
61 Township of St. Clair, Township of St. Clair Official Plan, 2001, Section 3.3 Stormwater Management
119
Land Use Planning Recommendations – Summary
General
See Map 25: St. Clair River AOC 1-A Generalized Land Cover.
Lambton County Official Plan
An update is necessary. The Planning Act (Provincial legislation) requires that an Official Plan Review (OP Review) must be
undertaken, not less frequently than every five years, to ensure that it: conforms to, or does not conflict with provincial
plans; has regard for matters of provincial interest; and, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. The County
Official Plan was approved in 1997.
The existing language in the current Official Plan is weak when referring to the protection of natural heritage features. For
example, the plan only states natural heritage features are to be protected “when feasible.” An update of the plan to be
consistent with provincial policy should strengthen the language in the updating process.
6.1.3 Urban Areas
• Upon completing a Natural Heritage strategy for Talford, St. Clair River Direct Drainage, Bowens, Baby, and Clay Creek
watersheds, seek the removal of the “Future Industrial” designation from these lands. A significant amount of site
specific assessment has already been completed for the Bickford Oaks Natural Environment area surround.
• Implement a Stormwater Best Management Practices report that will place limits on impervious cover for
subwatershed plots based on watershed ecological needs and conditions: hydrology, hydrogeology, fish habitat,
natural area sustainability, watercourse base flow requirements, procedures for water quality and quantity monitoring,
etc.
• Prepare a report on the success of the City of Sarnia ‘Brownfield Plan’ which goal should be to discourage new industrial
uses on non-serviced pervious lands south of Corunna.
• Concurrently with the ongoing separation of sanitary and storm sewers in the City of Sarnia, undertake a Stormwater
Management study to provide recommendations for improved stormwater quality control in an as-built city core
environment.
• Support and fund the Urban Wildlife Committee’s proposed Natural Heritage study for the City of Sarnia.
6.1.4 Rural Areas
• Carry out Natural Heritage strategies for the high priority subwatersheds and ensure planning document updates
incorporate recommendations under the Provincial Policy framework.
• Strengthen the stream bank buffer requirements for development in planning documents. Ensure planning documents
support tributary riparian studies that may be undertaken.
• Ensure drainage act works support tributary riparian studies and recommendations where feasible. Although drainage
act works do not fall under the Planning Act, general information could be included in Planning documents.
120
7
Chapter 7
Evaluation Process
7.1 Watershed Plan Implementation
The St. Clair Area of Concern Watershed Plan has identified where remedial works for habitat
and non-point source pollution should be targeted as well as identifyied recommendations
under Land Use Planning. All actions are identified and prioritized in charts outlined in
Chapter 5.2. For those subwatersheds where a substantial conversion from agricultural
(impervious surface) to industrial is proposed, more detailed watershed ecological
information is required to implement a Stormwater Best Management Practices report which
will set targets. The subwatersheds are Talford, St. Clair River Direct Drainage, Bowens, Baby
and Clay Creek watersheds. This is a significant data gap for progressing with Watershed Plan
Implementation.
Upon filling the data gaps as outlined above and in Section 6.1.3 Urban Areas and Section
6.1.4 Rural Areas, the lead agency should involve stakeholders who are involved in directing
actions geared toward their specific land use issues. In this manner, buy-in to the issues and
an understanding of the solutions are achieved. This may involve several subcommittees.
With the updated information, stakeholders and watershed partners can work together on
achieving consensus on a coordinated implementation strategy.
Other AOC Watershed Plans have identified key elements to successful implementation.
They are as follows:
1. Appoint a single lead agency to act as an advocate and facilitate working with the
community and political representatives.
2. Need to establish a strong linkage to existing programs, including local and regional
land use planning, water quality and flow monitoring programs, etc. to optimize use of
available information and minimize duplication of effort.
3. Clearly identify project actions, responsibilities, timetables and anticipated costs.
4. Ensure effective laws, regulations and policies are in place to provide a framework for the
tasks.
5. Ongoing monitoring, tracking and reporting of progress, both to assess the effectiveness
of individual actions and sustain interest and enthusiasm for the plan.
6. Ongoing public education and communication program.
7. Periodic review and revision of the plan.
8. Adequate funding for activities.
There are numerous methods on how to approach the implementation and evaluation
process. Several are provided below and these can be adapted as needed.
121
7.2 Methods of Evaluating Actions and Progress
Suggested methods for meeting targets and evaluating progress:
• A draft tracking chart has been set up for the actions associated with the Remedial Action Work Plan. This should be
adapted and revised accordingly. Ongoing actions should be monitored and progress reported on the chart.
• Photographic surveys.
• Reporting via a grading system for the priority subwatersheds. Need to assess this applicability. Improving or declining.
Refer to Chapter 5.3 above.
• Identify the indicators which can be utilized for measuring progress and meeting goals and objectives. Group and
summarize the indicators. For example, indicators could include number of projects implemented, water quality
indicators (benthic and surface water), photographic surveys, biological indicators (natural features assessment). Water
treatment models are a valuable tool for estimating effectiveness of various BMPs on water quality.
122
8
Chapter 8
Revising and Updating the Plan
As progress on the actions taken to meet the goals and objectives of the Plan are met, Chapter
5 will need to be updated on a continuous basis. In addition, water quality and biological
indicators will be evaluated and reported on every 5 years and this will require an addendum
to the Plan. Several other reasons for revising and updating the Plan could include but are not
limited to the following:
• If additional watershed concerns are identified.
• The beneficial use impairments/delisting criteria are revised and therefore different
objectives to achieve the watershed goals are identified.
• New science and technology result in additional methods or practices to achieve goals and
objectives and targets.
• Through the evaluation process, Best Management Practices and Actions will be monitored
for their success and recommendations provided. Any significant changes may warrant
revisions and updates to sections of the Plan.
123
124
Appendix A
Base Map and Industry Locations
Map 26: Baby Creek Subwatershed
125
126
Map 27: Bowens Creek Subwatershed
Map 28: Clay Creek Subwatershed
127
128
Map 29: Maxwell, Bear, Rankin Creek Subwatershed
Map 30: McKeough Subwatershed
129
130
Map 31: Running Creek Subwatershed
Map 32: Point Edward and Sarnia Subwatershed
131
132
Map 33: St. Clair Direct Drainage Tributaries
Map 34: Talford Creek Subwatershed
133
134
Map 35: Walpole Island Subwatershed
Map 36: Whitebread, Marshy Creek Subwatershed
135
Appendix B
2007 CRIC Work Plan
136
St. Clair River Area of Concern
Canadian Remedial Action Plan
Implementation Committee Work Plan
2007
Foreword
In October of 2005 the St. Clair River Canadian RAP Implementation Committee (CRIC) was formed. The mandate of the
CRIC is to restore beneficial use impairments (BUIs) identified in the Stage 1 Remedial Action Plan for the Canadian portion
of the St. Clair River AOC through the achievement of delisting criteria. This committee recognizes the effort undertaken to
date within the AOC towards improving and restoring these BUIs. To achieve this mandate, the CRIC is responsible for the
overall coordination of implementation actions that address the outstanding beneficial use impairments applicable to the
Canadian portion of the Area of Concern.
One of the first actions undertaken by this committee was to update the 1995 Stage 2 Recommended Plan. In order to
undertake this task the committee formed four sub committees including, i) Point Source, ii) Sediments, iii) Habitat/Nonpoint Source and iv) Monitoring and Research. The entire committee completed a section on Public Outreach and Education.
Each sub committee was responsible for reviewing priority actions from the 1995 Stage 2 Recommended Plan to identify
achievements and identify outstanding priority actions. .
The following individuals are or have been members of the Canadian RAP Implementation Committee and have been
instrumental in the creation of this document.
Ted Briggs (MOE)
Rich Drouin (MNR)
John Jackson (BPAC)
Ron Ludolph (RLSN)
Scott Munro (SLEA)
Cale Selby (RLSN)
Norm Smith (DFO)
Phil Vallance (BPAC)
Theresa Warren (SLHS)
Elizabeth Wright (MNR)
Donald Craig (SCRCA)
Dean Edwardson (SLEA)
Tom Kissner (Municipality of Chatham Kent)
Greg Mayne (EC)
Darrell Randell (St. Clair Township)
Holly Simpson (MNR)
Stew Thornley (MOE)
Jennifer Vincent (EC)
Naomi Williams (WIFN)
Introduction
The St. Clair River was identified in 1985 by the International Joint Commission (IJC) as one of 42 Areas of Concern (AOC)
in the Great Lakes Basin because it failed to meet the general or specific objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (GLWQA) and changes in the chemical, physical or biological integrity of the system resulting in the impairment
of beneficial uses. These impairments occurred because of elevated contaminant concentrations in the water, biota and
sediment of the St. Clair River and the physical loss and degradation of aquatic shoreline and coastal wetland habitat. A letter
of intent was signed in December, 1985 by the Premier of Ontario and the Governor of Michigan, establishing a joint
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process and providing for Ontario to take the lead role for the St. Clair River AOC. This
agreement facilitated the development of a Binational Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Committee/Team in 1987, comprised of
federal, state and provincial representatives.
The following Canadian work plan is a continuation of, and revision to, the binational work plan of the 1995 St. Clair River
Stage 2 – Recommended Plan. These work plans propose actions that will lead to the rehabilitation of Beneficial Use
Impairments (BUIs) of the St. Clair River that presently have a status of “Impaired”, or “Require Further Assessment.” The
Binational work plan prepared for the 1995 St. Clair River Stage 2 – Recommended Plan listed 45 Actions/Issues to address
BUI delisting criteria. A particular BUI may be re-designated to a status of “Not Impaired” when the delisting criteria are
achieved. When all BUIs have been re-designated as “Not Impaired”, a recommendation and submission to the IJC can be
made to de-list the St. Clair River as an AOC. The Actions/Issues of the 1995 binational work plan were grouped under the
following headings: Point Source; Non-Point Source (NPS); Sediment; Habitat; Public Education and Outreach; Monitoring
and Research; and RAP Implementation. For each Action a responsible agency and anticipated completion date were
specified. Completion dates in the work plan ranged from 1995 to 2005. In recognition that the RAP process was in the Stage
September, 2007- St. Clair River Canadian RAP Work Plan 2007
1
137
2 implementation stage, the original RAP Team and Binational Public Advisory Committee (BPAC) established four “Task
Teams” to undertake the assessment and evaluation of remedial options. The Task Teams formed were: Point Source; NPS;
Sediment and Habitat; and, Common Issues e.g. education.
It was anticipated that certain actions of the 1995 binational work plan would require more time to complete than the 1995 to
2005 time frame. Consequently, continuation of certain actions was necessary and representatives of the Canadian RAP
Implementation Committee (CRIC) established in 2005 have prepared the following Canadian work plan. Representatives
include federal and provincial governments, industry, municipalities and First Nations. Two representatives from the BPAC
also sit on the CRIC. The CRIC chose to establish four sub-committees to complete the work plan: Point Source, Habitat and
NPS, Monitoring and Research, and Sediment. The mandate of these sub-committees was to assess the status and progress of
the priority actions in the 1995 binational work plan and to review original delisting criteria (targets). A variety of sources were
used to establish the progress and status of these actions and targets. Through the collection of additional data, some actions
were deemed to be completed, while other actions were found to be on-going or in need of additional monitoring, research
and implementation actions. The present work plan recommendations and actions were developed by the four sub-committees
and combined to create a single CRIC work plan.
While numerous agencies and organizations are listed as being responsible in providing information through monitoring and
research activities, it is important to understand that these activities are dependent upon available funding, sufficient field staff,
available time for field studies and coordination among respective agencies and branches within agencies.
138
2
SECTION 1 – POINT SOURCE WORK PLAN
Introduction
The 1995 Binational work plan listed some 16 Issues related to Point Sources of pollution that included direct discharges
from: industry; municipal Water Pollution Control Plants (WPCPs); municipal Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), and
discharge from the Cole Drain. The 1995 Binational work plan grouped these Point Sources by Issue. As a first step, it was
decided by the Point Source Sub-committee to re-list Point Sources separately, rather than grouping them by Issue. A variety
of sources were used to establish the progress and status of these Actions. Through the collection and discussion of this
information, the Point Source Subcommittee identified many Actions as completed. However, other Actions were found to be
on-going and/or requiring additional focus and steps in order to conclude all actions.
#1.1 Recommendation
Track monitoring of decommissioned and decommissioning of industrial facilities and landfills in
the St. Clair River (e.g. Dow Canada, Chinook) and continue to examine and mitigate any existing
or potential future environmental impacts due to residual contaminant sources on St Clair River
beneficial uses.
BUIs Potentially Impacted
x Restrictions on fish and wildlife
consumption
x Fish tumours and other
deformities
x Degradation of benthos
x Restrictions on dredging activities
x Loss of fish and wildlife habitat
Rationale
Dow Chemical Canada is closing the
Sarnia plant in 2008. Remedial actions
related to Dow may be required. There
are ongoing groundwater capture and
treatment systems in place. Monitoring
and maintenance of these systems will
be necessary. There will be a need to
continue to monitor and ensure
compliance of sewer discharge quality
and quantity.
Actions
x Maintain and review point source regulatory monitoring (Municipal Industrial
Strategy for Abatement (MISA), Certificate of Approval (C of A) to ensure
timely reporting and information dissemination on environmental concerns.
x
Maintain and review corridor/river monitoring programs and ensure timely
delivery of results for synthesis and BUI assessments.
Current Status
A Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA)
Contaminated Sediment Assessment Decision
Making Framework for the Great Lakes Basin
AOCs (Environment Canada\Ontario Ministry of
Environment (EC/MOE)) has been developed
and will soon be available for use at all
contaminated sediment sites. For additional
information on Dow remediation actions, see
Appendix 1- Stage 2 Point Source Work Plan
Assessment and Status.
Responsible Organizations
x Ministry of the Environment
x Environment Canada
x Dow Chemical
Anticipated Costs and Timelines
Work is ongoing. Costs unknown, but depend on
future work associated with risk management
required and regulatory monitoring to meet
Certificate of Approval.
3
139
#1.2 Recommendation
Ensure that Water Pollution Control Plants (WPCPs) continue to meet current regulations and do
not negatively affect beneficial uses.
x Bird or animal deformities or
x Beach closings
x Degradation of aesthetics
Rationale
Water Pollution Control Plants are an
ongoing source of loadings to AOCs as
a result of their basic function. Water
Pollution Control Plants in the St. Clair
River currently meet discharge limits
and are not currently targeted for action
related to the identified BUIs. Should
WPCPs be determined to be
contributing to BUIs, then future
improved treatment may be considered
(i.e., improved disinfection, plant
optimization).
Actions
x Cities of Sarnia and Wallaceburg, villages of Point Edward, Corunna and
Courtright, towns of Sombra and Port Lambton must continue to operate
their WPCPs and lagoons in order to meet discharge criteria as identified in
their C of A.
x Develop a Master Plan for sewage treatment for the City of Sarnia which
includes, plan optimization, elimination of by-passes and CSOs.
x Assess the need for disinfection at Port Lambton and Sombra lagoons if
Beach Closings for bacteria are still occurring once all other sources are
remediated.
x Determine the wastewater treatment practices on Walpole Island and assess if
there are any impacts St. Clair River beneficial uses and identify work plan
x Maintain and review WPCP regulatory monitoring (C of A) to ensure that
recommendation is achieved.
x Maintain and review corridor/river monitoring programs and ensure timely
delivery of results for use in BUI assessments.
x
140
Current Status
WPCPs are currently meeting C of A
requirements which include consideration of
BUIs.
See Appendix 1 for details.
x Municipalities
x Walpole Island First Nation (WIFN)
x Environment Canada
x Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC)
Work is ongoing for regulatory monitoring.
Master Plan is estimated to cost $300,000 with a
completion over the next three years. The
Courtright and Corunna WPCP cost is expected
to be $30 M with an unknown timeline.
4
#1.3 Recommendation
Complete programs to eliminate combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
x Bird or animal deformities or
x Beach closings
Rationale
CSOs have been a problem in the
AOC for many years and are thought
to be directly related to Beach
Closings. Although it will take time to
address the issue completely, ongoing
projects will help to reduce or
eliminate these discharges to the St.
Clair River.
Actions
x Eliminate Exmouth Street CSO in the City of Sarnia.
x Eliminate Christina Street CSO in the City of Sarnia.
x Completely separate cross connections within the City of Sarnia
Sanitary Drainage Area 1.
x Complete City of Sarnia East Street sanitary interceptor sewer to divert
sewage from Drainage Areas 2 & 4 to WPCP.
x Determine the effectiveness of the Devine Street CSO holding tank in
the City of Sarnia at full capacity.
x Determine whether there are CSO discharges from Walpole Island
First Nation impacting on the river beneficial uses and identify work
plan additions to support delisting.
x Determine whether there are CSO discharges from Aamjiwnaang First
Nation impacting on the river beneficial uses and identify work plan
x Determine whether there are sanitary/stormwater sewer cross
connections in Point Edward and identify work plan additions to
support delisting.
x Maintain and review corridor/river monitoring programs and ensure
timely delivery of results for synthesis and BUI assessments.
Current Status
The City of Sarnia is currently working to eliminate
CSOs within the city (i.e. Exmouth Street Sanitary
Disconnection and Devine St. holding tanks). The St.
Clair River CRIC is working closely with the City and
supports this ongoing work.
No CSOs exist in Corunna, Courtright, Mooretown,
Sombra and Port Lambton. It is unknown if Point
Edward is experiencing mixing of sanitary sewage with
stormwater discharging to the river. Wallaceburg has
completed 95 percent of projects dealing with CSOs
and programs are in place for remaining actions.
x Municipalities
x Walpole Island First Nation (WIFN)
x Aamjiwnaang First Nation (AFN)
x Environment Canada (EC)
x Indian and Northern Affairs (INAC)
With respect to the City of Sarnia municipal
wastewater control, current estimates for infrastructure
upgrades are estimated to be in the order of $100 M
for combined CSOs. The anticipated timeline for
completion is 2027.
5
141
#1.4 Recommendation
Continue to work closely with industries to improve spill prevention to the St. Clair River.
x Restriction on drinking water
consumption or taste and odour
problems
x Added cost to agriculture and
industry
x Degradation of fish and wildlife
populations
Rationale
Current delisting criteria for drinking
water require “no spills over a two year
period resulting in a mandated
shutdown of a drinking water intake.”
Actions
x Assess extent to which regulatory changes made in 2005 – 2007 have
addressed IPAT recommendations and identify which remaining
recommendations will be implemented.
x Continue to work with industry to develop closed loop cooling water systems,
cooling water towers or monitor and divert systems.
x Continue MISA and C of A monitoring and improve MOE data reporting to
AOC lead agencies for use in assessing BUI status.
142
Current Status
The Industrial Pollution Action Team (IPAT)
examined causes of industrial spills to the St.
Clair River and made recommendations on
spill prevention measures for industries and
others.
Implementations of IPAT recommendations
are ongoing.
Ont. Regulation 224/07 "Spill Prevention and
Contingency Plans" was put in place and
defines the mandates for spill prevention and
contingency plans and must be in place by
September 2008.
x MOE
x Industries
x Sarnia Lambton Environmental
Association (SLEA)
Costs are unknown, but would be incurred
through the implementation of IPAT
recommendation, implementation (industry)
and ongoing regulatory monitoring programs
(C of A and MISA). Timelines are unknown
and depend on IPAT recommendations.
6
Recommendation
Track decommissioned
and decommissioning of
industrial facilities and
landfills in the St. Clair
River (e.g. Dow Canada,
Chinook) and continue
to examine and mitigate
any existing or potential
future environmental
impacts due to residual
contaminant sources on
St Clair River beneficial
uses.
Ensure that Water
Pollution Control Plants
continue to meet current
regulations and do not
negatively affect
beneficial uses.
Complete programs to
eliminate combined
sewer overflows (CSOs).
ST. CLAIR RIVER AOC - POINT SOURCE WORK PLAN
Actions
07
08
09
10
Beyond
Maintain and review point
source regulatory monitoring
(Municipal Industrial Strategy
for Abatement (MISA),
Certificate of Approval (C of A)
to ensure timely reporting and
information dissemination on
environmental concerns.
Maintain and review
corridor/river monitoring
programs and ensure timely
delivery of results for synthesis
and BUI assessments.
Cities of Sarnia and Wallaceburg,
villages of Point Edward,
Corunna and Courtright, towns
of Sombra and Port Lambton
must continue to operate their
WPCPs and lagoons in order to
meet discharge criteria as
identified in their C of A.
Assess the need for disinfection
at Port Lambton and Sombra
lagoons if Beach Closings for
bacteria are still occurring once
all other sources are remediated.
Develop a Master Plan for
sewage treatment for the City of
Sarnia which includes plant
optimization, elimination of
bypasses and CSOs.
Determine wastewater treatment
practices on Walpole Island to
determine if there are any
impacts St. Clair River beneficial
uses and identify work plan
Maintain and review WPCP
regulatory monitoring (C of A)
to ensure that recommendation
is achieved.
Maintain and review
delivery of results for use in BUI
assessments.
Eliminate Exmouth Street CSOs
in the City of Sarnia.
Eliminate Christina Street CSOs
in the City of Sarnia.
Completely separate cross
connections within the City of
Sarnia Sanitary Drainage Area 1.
*
*
*
*
*
Lead
MOE
Dow will be
undertaking the
ongoing monitoring.
Chinook has also
already shut down.
Identify ongoing
agency monitoring to
determine if programs
are adequate for BUI
assessment.
*
*
*
*
*
MOE/
EC
*
*
*
*
*
MOE
*
MOE
City of
Sarnia
*
*
Comments
EC
CRIC to identify key
milestones not already
identified in work plan
once the master plan
is completed.
If impacts are
identified, develop
and implement
remedial strategy and
identify within work
plan.
*
*
*
*
*
MOE
Monitoring used to
assess BUIs to
determine benefits of
work.
*
*
*
*
*
MOE/
EC
Monitoring used to
assess BUIs to
determine benefits of
work.
*
*
City of
Sarnia
This work is currently
underway as part of a
three year project.
City of
Sarnia
*
*
City of
Sarnia
7
143
Recommendation
ST. CLAIR RIVER AOC - POINT SOURCE WORK PLAN
Actions
07
08
09
10
Beyond
Complete City of Sarnia East
Street sanitary interceptor sewer
to divert sewage from Drainage
Areas 2 & 4 to WPCP.
*
EC/
MOE
*
EC/
MOE
Continue to work closely
with industries to
improve spill prevention
to the St. Clair River.
*
*
*
*
MOE/
EC
*
MOE
*
MOE
If impacts are
identified then
develop and
implement remedial
strategy and identify
within work plan.
If impacts are
identified, develop
and implement
remedial strategy and
identify within work
plan.
If impacts are
identified then
develop and
implement remedial
strategy and identify
within work plan.
Assess extent to which
regulatory changes made in 2005
– 2007 have addressed IPAT
recommendations and identify
which remaining
recommendations will be
implemented e.g.,
Track the progress of
industries meeting the
requirements as stated
under MOE Bill 133;
Continue to work with
industry to develop closed
loop cooling water systems,
cooling water towers or
monitor and divert systems.
Continue Municipal Industrial
Strategy for Abatement (MISA)
and Certificate of Approval (C
of A) monitoring and improve
MOE data reporting to AOC
lead agencies for use in assessing
BUI status.
144
MOE/
EC
*
*
Comments
The City has already
received $3,000,000
towards this project
and has applications
in for further federal
funding.
City of
Sarnia
*
Determine whether there are
sanitary/stormwater sewer cross
connections in Point Edward
and assess work plan additions
to support delisting.
Maintain and review
delivery of results for synthesis
and BUI assessments.
City of
Sarnia
*
Determine the effectiveness of
the Devine Street CSO holding
tank in the City of Sarnia at full
capacity.
CSO discharges from Walpole
Island First Nation impacting on
the river beneficial uses and
identify work plan additions to
support delisting.
CSO discharges from
Aamjiwnaang First Nation
impacting on the river beneficial
uses and identify work plan
Lead
*
*
*
*
8
SECTION 2 – SEDIMENT WORK PLAN
Introduction
Since the 1997 Update Report, much of the bottom sediment and benthic quality work has focused on sediment
characterization of three known contaminated zones offshore from the Sarnia Industrial Complex adjacent to the St. Clair
River (Zones 1, 2 and 3). The area for highest priority remediation “Zone 1” was directly adjacent to Dow Chemical Canada.
Dow undertook a three-phase sediment cleanup project in the portion of “Zone 1” adjacent to their river-front property
during the period from June 2001 through to 2004. Phase 1 was completed in 2002, Phase 2 in 2003, and Phase 3 was
completed in 2004, resulting in the removal of 13,370 m3 of contaminated bottom sediment.
#2.1 Recommendation
Undertake an assessment of contaminated sediments in the St. Clair River and determine actions.
x Restrictions on fish and wildlife
consumption
populations
x Fish tumours and other
deformities
x Bird or animal deformities and
x Restrictions on dredging
activities
Rationale
While data has been collected for
zones 2 and 3, sediment management
decisions are required to determine
remedial measures for these
remaining priority zones.
Current Status
The proposed COA Contaminated Sediment
Assessment Decision-Making Framework was
developed by the OMOE and EC and provides a
consistent and harmonized approach for assessing
contaminated sediments. The Decision-Making
Framework is a science-based approach for assessing
contaminated sediment on a site-by-site basis by
incorporating information from four lines of
evidence: sediment chemistry, laboratory sediment
toxicity, benthic community structure, and
biomagnification potential.
Sediment samples and benthic community data have
been collected from the entire St. Clair River
beginning in 1958 and most recently in 2006 to
further delineate the contaminated sediment area for
management. For additional background
information, refer to Appendix 2.
Actions
1.
Establish a Technical Steering Committee.
2.
Hire a Project Manager to facilitate the decision making process for
contaminated sediments in zones 2 and 3. (if required)
3.
Identify and address sediment chemistry, biological and other data
gaps for zones 2 & 3.
4.
Use the COA “Assessment Framework” on St. Clair River sediment
to determine the need for contaminant sediment management
strategies.
5.
Develop sediment management options and select preferred option
for zones 2 & 3.
a. Conduct "Public, First Nation and Stakeholder Consultation" to
seek consensus.
x MOE
x EC,
x Industries
x SLEA
Sediment management options will be approved by
2010.
If sediment removal is necessary, the following steps are required for
implementation:
6.
7)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Develop engineering design
Secure funding
Undertake an Environmental Assessment
Implement sediment remediation strategy
Environmental Monitoring
Public and agency communications
Evaluate the effectiveness of remediation on beneficial uses.
9
145
Recommendation
Undertake an
assessment of
contaminated
sediments in the St.
Clair River and
determine actions.
Actions
ST. CLAIR RIVER AOC - SEDIMENT WORK PLAN
07
08
09
10
Establish a Technical Steering
Committee.
$50
K
$100K
Identify and address sediment chemistry,
biological and other data gaps for zones 2
& 3.
*
*
Develop sediment management options
and select preferred option for zones 2 &
3. a) Conduct "Public, First Nation and
Stakeholder Consultation" to seek
consensus.
If sediment removal is necessary, the
following steps are required (Following
points are dependent upon above results
and expected to commence after 2010):
*
$100K
EC,
OMOE
$100K
EC,
OMOE
EC,
OMOE
*
*
EC,
OMOE
*
*
EC, OMOE
a) Develop engineering designs
*
EC, OMOE
b) Secure funding
*
EC, OMOE
c) Undertake an Environmental
Assessment (EA)
*
EC, OMOE
d) Implement the sediment remediation
strategy
*
EC, OMOE
e) Environmental Monitoring (i.e., as per
C of A)
*
EC, OMOE
Evaluate the effectiveness of remediation
on beneficial uses.
*
EC, OMOE
146
Lead
EC,
OMOE
*
Hire a Project Manager to facilitate the
decision making process for
contaminated sediments in zones 2 & 3.
Position depending on 2007 funding and
may include non-sediment related tasks.
Use the COA “Assessment Framework”
on St. Clair River sediment to determine
the need for contaminant sediment
management strategies.
Beyond
10
SECTION 3 - HABITAT & NON-POINT SOURCE (NPS) WORK PLAN
Introduction
Physical loss of fish and wildlife habitat was listed as a BUI for the St. Clair River AOC in the 1991 Stage 1 RAP Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition. The impairment status was based on coastal wetland loss and
fragmentation, loss of wetland function, and extensive bulkheading and infilling of the St. Clair River shoreline. The 1995
Stage 2 RAP - Recommended Plan also recognized environmental problems associated with NPS pollution in the watershed
due mainly to urban and rural storm runoff, waste sites without leachate and runoff collection, malfunctioning septic systems
and generation and disposal of household hazardous waste.
In order to guide rehabilitation efforts, the 1995 St. Clair River RAP Stage 2 – Recommended Plan provided a summary of
significant habitat and NPS actions and delisting criteria for the “loss of fish and wildlife habitat.” Delisting criteria consist of
wetland protection, a long-term habitat management plan and rehabilitation and enhancement projects focused on wetland
creation in the Chenal Ecarte (155 ha), aquatic habitat creation around Stag Island (80 ha) and in the W. Darcy McKeough
Floodway (445 ha).
In 2005, the CRIC established a Habitat and NPS Subcommittee (the Committee) to assess the status and progress on the
1995 Stage 2 delisting criteria and priority habitat and NPS actions. Proceedings from a 2006 Habitat and NPS Workshop and
subsequent Committee meetings revealed that, while many milestones have been achieved, the 1995 delisting criteria for “loss
of fish and wildlife habitat” were not achieved due to unforeseen constraints and certain priority habitat and NPS actions have
not been addressed. The present Work Plan was developed by the Habitat and NPS Subcommittee to guide remedial actions
to rehabilitate fish and wildlife habitat with an emphasis on “aquatic habitat and water quality” within the AOC boundary.
The Committee identified a need to refocus efforts on the original causes of habitat impairment and non-point source
pollution using a systematic approach. In order to guide habitat and NPS project site selection, the following the hierarchical
“Updated Habitat and NPS Rehabilitation Priority Sites” were developed by the Committee:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Coastal wetlands with direct hydrological connection to the St. Clair River & delta;
Shoreline softening of the St. Clair River and riverine habitat rehabilitation;
Other wetlands in Area 1A providing aquatic habitat;
Riparian buffers along the St. Clair River;
Riparian buffers in the tributaries of Area 1A; and,
Other habitat rehabilitation work which address improved water quality conditions and fish and aquatic wildlife
habitat in Areas 1A and 1B.
An explanation and maps of the St. Clair River AOC boundaries are provided in Appendix 1.
11
147
#3.1 Recommendation
In addition to the delisting criterion pertaining to Chenal Ecarte wetland creation, broaden the
scope of wetland habitat projects to include creation, rehabilitation, acquisition and maintenance
within the Walpole Island First Nation delta and headwaters of AOC creeks (as per the Updated
Habitat and NPS Rehabilitation Priority Sites).
x Loss of fish and wildlife
habitat;
x Degradation of fish and
wildlife population
Rationale
One of the 1995 Stage 2 rehabilitation and
enhancement delisting criteria for habitat
included wetland creation (155ha) at 10 sites
adjacent to the Chenal Ecarte. This criterion
was not achieved, and by including
rehabilitation, acquisition and maintenance, and
targeting the entire coastal wetland complex and
headwaters of tributaries within the AOC, there
will be greater opportunity to increase wetland
quantity as well as improve wetland quality.
Currently, a review of the existing delisting
criterion may result in a change to the original
target. This would require wetland evaluations
to be conducted to identify priority sites.
Current Status
Approximately 106 ha of wetlands have been
created, acquired and rehabilitated adjacent to
the Chenal Ecarte. The invasiveness of
Phragmites within these wetlands is degrading the
quality of habitat and out-competing native
vegetation, leading to dense monotypic stands.
Participants at the 2006 St. Clair River AOC
Habitat Workshop and members of the Habitat
and NPS Subcommittee also expressed concern
over the expansion of non-native Phragmites into
existing and previously rehabilitated wetlands.
Thus, efforts to maintain and rehabilitate the
quality of existing wetlands should be pursued.
Actions
x Make use of the 2006 GIS database created by Aylmer District OMNR to locate
potential wetland habitat project sites.
x Create an inventory of prioritized wetland project sites by following the “2007
Updated Habitat and NPS Rehabilitation Priority Sites” presented in the Introduction.
x Establish wetland goals and objectives for the AOC and develop numerical (or
qualitative) wetland delisting criteria (targets). Track progress toward wetland
targets.
x Identify and engage landowners, seek funding and implement coastal wetland
habitat projects within the AOC to maintain and improve the integrity and
hydrologic connectivity of coastal wetlands for fish spawning, nursery and
feeding areas and aquatic wildlife needs.
x
See table at end of section.
Assess the quality of coastal wetland habitat in the Chenal Ecarte and WIFN
delta by collecting data on water quality, aquatic macroinvertebrates, amphibians
(if possible), marsh birds, and submerged aquatic vegetation (for more detail see
Section 4- Research and Monitoring).
o
o
o
o
Examine options, risks and benefits of improving fish access to impounded
wetlands (i.e., possible impacts on species at risk (SAR, waterfowl
production etc.).
Work with Walpole Island Heritage Centre regarding aquatic habitat needs
to meet fish and wildlife goals and develop a list of project sites in the First
Nation delta.
Examine ways to control and prevent Phragmites invasion; monitor highquality and susceptible wetlands, select demonstration areas for control, and
plan steps for controlling established Phragmites. Share experiences and
transfer knowledge.
Prepare wetland quality report with management recommendations once
assessments have been completed.
St. Clair River Canadian RAP Work Plan 2007
148
WIFN, SCRCA, Lambton County, Municipality
of Chatham-Kent, OMNR, EC, DFO
12
#3.2 Recommendation
Integrate shoreline erosion control approaches and shoreline development (or redevelopment)
projects with environmentally friendly habitat approaches (e.g. shoreline softening, buffer strips
and spawning channels) that take nearshore aquatic habitats and hydraulic impacts into account.
x
Degradation of fish and wildlife
populations
x
Degradation of benthos
Rationale
Shoreline hardening was listed as one
of the original causes of impairment of
the beneficial use “Fish and Wildlife
Habitat” (RAP Stage 1, 1991).
Participants of the 2006 Habitat
Workshop identified the St. Clair River
nearshore/shoreline as a major priority
for the AOC.
Current status
Much of the St. Clair River shoreline has been
replaced with steel sheet piling and other structures
which have resulted in the loss of shoreline and
littoral habitat. Projects have been initiated to
address shoreline hardening such as the Lanxess
shoreline cleanup, erosion control and fish and
wildlife habitat enhancement project in 2006, and the
MacDonald Park shoreline softening and
rehabilitation project.
A St. Clair River Shoreline Rehabilitation
Assessment and Design of Restorative Work was
recently completed by the St. Clair Region
Conservation Authority (SCRCA). A more detailed
survey and report is expected to be completed in
2007. Class Environmental Assessments are ongoing
at Guthrie Park and the CN Lands on Sarnia Bay
and shoreline rehabilitation is expected in 2007.
Actions
x Develop an Integrated Shoreline Management Plan for the St. Clair River
x
x
Use GIS to inventory/map existing shoreline hardening structures on
public and private lands and assess condition, habitat features, sediment
profile and contaminants, plant, fish and wildlife communities at each
site.
Establish quantitative and/or qualitative shoreline rehabilitation targets
including cost benefits and environmental analysis. Candidate sites
include but are not limited to: CN Lands on Sarnia Bay, Guthrie Park;
Courtright Waterfront Park; Willow Park; Cathcart Park, and Marshy
Creek Park , Stag Island and Walpole Island Delta. Develop engineering
plans for candidate sites on public lands which incorporate shoreline
softening techniques that replace degraded structures.
x
At sites where softening has occurred, rehabilitate littoral habitat by
installing reef structures, submerged rock clusters/shoals, cobble or fish
mix and coves to improve the quality of littoral fish habitat. Establish
native grasses, shrub and tree plantings at candidate sites behind the
shoreline structure.
x
Assess the extent of shoreline projects completed elsewhere within the
AOC (e.g., SCRCA projects, Chatham-Kent work at MacDonald Park)
for reporting purposes.
x
Identifying potential opportunities for increasing river flow capacity as
credits for in fill projects.
EC, DFO, SCRCA, MNR, Lambton County and
Municipalities, Municipality of Chatham-Kent,
industries
A St. Clair River Shoreline Rehabilitation
Assessment and Design was initiated in 2005/2006.
In 2007, data assembly will be completed and web
access to Geoportal for controlled external access to
the information collected will be provided for
testing. Initial cost is $70,000.
Class Environmental Assessments are under way at
Guthrie Park and in the City of Sarnia – CN lands.
The implementation of shoreline softening and
aquatic habitat rehabilitation is at these locations is
expected to occur in 2007 with completion in winter
of 2009.
The proposed shoreline softening and rehabilitation
project is expected to cost approximately
$3,000/metre.
13
149
#3.3 Recommendation
Establish and implement a riparian habitat and buffering program for the St. Clair River AOC (as
per the Updated Habitat and NPS Rehabilitation Priority Sites).
populations;
x Beach closings (bacteria from
urban and rural runoff, domestic
sanitary sources)
Rationale
Riparian habitat or vegetation refers to
the plant communities established
immediately adjacent to stream, river,
lake and/or wetland systems. Riparian
buffering addresses GLWQA and
COA goals for both NPS pollution
control and habitat rehabilitation.
Headwaters of creeks, drains, and the
confluence of creeks and the St. Clair
River provide important aquatic
habitat. These habitats should be
maintained and where possible
rehabilitated. As the majority of
opportunities for habitat rehabilitation
and riparian buffering are on private
lands, a comprehensive and systematic
stewardship program with financial
incentives is an essential component
for the implementation of riparian
buffering and aquatic habitat needs
.
Actions
x Systematically identify public, private and industrial land use and ownership
adjacent to tributaries flowing directly into the St. Clair River and prepare a
land-use inventory including zoning status (as per the Updated Habitat and
NPS Rehabilitation Priority Sites).
x Undertake a proactive landowner contact program starting in Area 1A to
increase the number of landowners involved in tributary buffering within
the AOC boundaries.
x Identify riparian buffer priorities and targets for each tributary based on
land-owner cooperation and habitat value.
x Rehabilitate a minimum of 20 km/year of riparian habitat by establishing
vegetative buffer strips, planting appropriate native vegetation, undertaking
stream bank stabilization activities, and/or restricting livestock access to
riparian areas adjacent to tributaries in Area 1A to a minimum of 3-5
metres.
x Track habitat and riparian buffer projects and provide annual reports on the
status towards meeting targets. Include information such as: uptake on
Environmental Farm Plans; uptake on landowner funding programs;
SCRCA and RLSN annual reports.
150
Current Status
The 2006 St. Clair River Area of Concern
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis
shows that the percentage of tributaries buffered by
greater than five (5) meters of natural vegetation in
Area 1A of the AOC is approximately 12 percent.
This represents approximately half of the tributary
buffering in the surrounding watersheds (Area 1B =
28.7%; Area 2 = 22.1%). Riparian buffering is most
needed in Area 1A.
EC, MNR, DFO, OMAFRA, WIHC
Total costs are unknown; however, the RLSN has
identified four creek/drain systems in Area 1A
flowing into the St. Clair River and will be targeting
these systems for appropriate vegetative buffering in
2007. The St. Clair River Stewardship Initiative will
provide funding to private landowners in these
watersheds to cover the costs of planting and
establishing the riparian buffers. The approximate
cost for habitat rehabilitation: 1200/ha ($3000/acre).
The approximate cost for incentive payment to
farmers: based on the average rental rate in St. Clair
Township $320-400/ha/year ($130.00$160.00/acre/year.)
14
#3.4 Recommendation
Improve the biological connectivity within the AOC with a focus on Area 1A.
x Loss of fish and wildlife habitat;
populations
Rationale
Habitat creation on lands adjacent to
Highway 40 provides one of few
opportunities to establish a biological
corridor in the St. Clair River AOC.
The area available is of sufficient size
to provide a minimum corridor width
of 50 metres which would provide a
link between Walpole Island, one of
Canada’s most biological diverse
habitats, the Bickford Oak Woods
Conservation Reserve and the
Aamjiwnaang First Nation forest tract.
As an additional benefit, this project
will mitigate the negative
environmental effects associated with
surface water runoff from Highway 40
into adjacent ditches and drains.
Actions
x Link the Walpole Island First Nation habitats with the McKeough Floodway,
headwaters of the St. Clair River tributaries, Bickford Oak Woods and Aamjiwnaang
First Nation forest tract through:
Planting riparian buffers consisting of rows of native grasses, tallgrass prairie,
savannah and native shrubs adjacent to agricultural drains and roadsides along
Highway 40;
Incorporating wetland creation wherever conditions are favourable.
x
x
Examine other linkages proposed in the Lambton County NHS (e.g. Clay Creek to
the North Sydenham River) and investigate and develop actions for additional
opportunities on Walpole Island First Nation
Establish signs on Hwy 40 to educate the public on the benefit of biological
corridors through riparian buffering.
Current status
This project was started in 1997 and receives
financial support from Environment Canada-Great
Lakes Sustainability Fund. Approximately 30 km of
Highway 40 has been planted with 2 rows of shrubs
and trees and 48 ha of native prairie grasses along
the roadside ditches and agricultural drains.
Recently, the Rural Lambton Stewardship Network
(RLSN), the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR)
and the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) have
created a partnership to complete vegetative
buffering adjacent to Hwy 40 right-of-way and
naturalize adjacent lands.
SCRCA, MTO, MNR, EC, DFO
See table below for details.
Potential Funding Sources:
Environment Canada-Great Lakes Sustainability Fund,
Great Lakes Renewal Foundation, DU Canada, Imperial
Oil, Eco-Action, Industry.
HIGHWAY 40 – FIVE YEAR WORK PLAN
LANDS OUTSIDE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
Lot/Con
Lot 5, Con 3
Lot 5, Con 3
Lot 5, Con 4
Lot 5, Con 2
Lot 5, Con 2
Lot 5, Con 1
Lot 5, Con 1
Lot 5, Con 3
Lot 5, Con 4
Lot 5, Con 5
Lot 5, Con 9
Lot 5, Con 11
Lot 5, Con 12
Lot 5, Con 12
Lot 5, Con 15
Township
Chatham
Chatham
Chatham
Chatham
Chatham
Moore
Moore
Moore
Moore
Moore
Moore
Sombra
Sombra
Sombra
Sombra
TOTAL
East side
Approx. 30 km at 4.6
ac/km
TOTAL
Target Acres
5
15
8
22
12.8
73
4.9
20.7
7.9
15.3
4.9
21.2
38.2
7.5
13.9
270.3
Year
2009-2010
2009-2010
2009-2010
2009-2010
20010-2011
2007
2008-2009
2008-2009
2008-2009
2008-2009
2008-2009
2008-2009
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
TOTAL
LANDS INSIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY
138
408.3
2008-2011
Cost (x 1000)
15
45
24
66
38
219
7.9
62.1
27.3
45.9
14.7
63.6
114.6
22.5
41.7
807.3
414
1221.3
15
151
#3.5 Recommendation
Address and complete all Rural Non-Point Source Pollution and Urban Non-Point Source Pollution
“Priority Actions” and track progress impacting on beneficial uses (as per the Updated Habitat
and NPS Rehabilitation Priority Sites).
x Restriction on fish and wildlife
consumption
x Loss of fish and wildlife
habitat
x Degradation of fish and
wildlife populations;
x Beach closings
Rationale
Chemical fertilizers and pesticides are
frequently applied to agricultural, rural and
residential lands. These fertilizers and
chemicals can cause water quality problems
that impact fish and wildlife health. As
well, livestock operations run the risk of
their animal waste contaminating surface
and ground water. Land management
practices such as the nature and timing of
tillage and nutrient applications can
positively or negatively influence NPS
runoff. A confounding issue is the impact
of tile drainage because field tile drains
discharge directly to tributaries and bypass
biofiltration actions of buffer strips.
Current status
While substantial effort has been put into addressing
non-point source pollution in the St. Clair River
AOC (e.g. road salt and pesticide reduction plans,
agricultural BMPs etc.) many of the 1995 Stage 2
priority actions have yet to be addressed and/or
completed.
Actions
x Continue to provide funding support, technical advice and outreach materials
and assist land owners to access funding as part of ongoing NPS and
stewardship programs within the AOC (“Updated Habitat and NPS
Rehabilitation Priority Sites”).
x Develop appropriate Watershed/Subwatershed Management Plans to
identify priority NPS sites in the AOC (“Updated Habitat and NPS
Rehabilitation Priority Sites”). Consult with St. Clair Region CA, examine
MDEQ Plan and use existing reports (e.g. Wetlands, riparian buffer, land
use, land ownership) and as a foundation for a SCR-AOC subwatershed
Management plan.
x Link (integrate) urban/rural storm water control through subwatershed
plans.
x Support implementation of rural stormwater projects e.g. oxbow
management
x Identify problems relating to domestic sanitary sources and ensure proper
maintenance and repair.
Investigate private septic systems within smaller communities and other
homes along the St. Clair River including the delta within the AOC to ensure
that they are not causing negative effects on water quality of the St. Clair
River.
Support the implementation to mitigate septic system related problems
within smaller communities and other homes along the river within the AOC
e.g.Froomfield and Wilkesport.
Mandate ongoing maintenance of private sewage disposal systems.
x Obtain a GIS tile drain layer and identify tile-drain outlet locations.
Investigate options to improve water quality at selected pilot sites.
x Track NPS projects and provide annual reports on the status to key stakeholders.
MOE, OMAFRA, EC, DFO, Municipalities,
Developers, Canadian Coast Guard (CCG), SCRCA,
MNR, Agriculture Canada
152
Past and present programs have been implemented
to target contamination from runoff, such as;
Ontario Rural Runoff; Clean Up Rural Beaches
(CURB) program; Permanent Cover II Program;
Environmental Farm Plans, and development of
BMP manuals. Numerous programs commenced in
the 1980s and provided grants to farmers and rural
landowners for projects including:
• fragile land retirement;
• conservation tillage;
• manure spreading equipment modification;
• manure storage;
• milk house wash water treatment;
• clean water diversions;
• fencing livestock from watercourses;
• nutrient management plans;
• correction of faulty septic systems; and,
• vegetated buffer strips
Unknown
16
#3.6 Recommendation
Promote the protection, preservation and rehabilitation of the natural heritage features of the
St. Clair River AOC by encouraging Lambton County and municipalities, and the Municipality of
Chatham-Kent to incorporate wording in their Official Plans such that the St. Clair River Area of
Concern is recognized as a priority area in need of water quality protection and fish/wildlife
habitat conservation and protection.
populations
Rationale
Local governments have a very
important role to play in wetland and
aquatic habitat protection because they
are responsible for land use decisions
that can negatively affect
environmental conditions and natural
features in the AOC, and can take a
proactive approach that extends
beyond individual sites to include the
entire AOC.
Actions
x Encourage Lambton County and municipalities and the Municipality of
Chatham-Kent to strengthen “Natural Heritage Policies” for the AOC
when amending their Official Plans (OPs) to provide greater protection to
water quality and fish and wildlife habitat.
x As information becomes available, provide Planners with the necessary
science and documentation on significant habitats in the AOC to facilitate
their efforts to protect natural heritage features.
x Ensure that GIS-spatial analysis is shared with county, municipalities,
conservation authority, government agencies, First Nations and other
groups.
x Encourage RAP partners utilize completed reports (e.g., St. Clair River
NHS, Binational Habitat Management Plan, MNR Candidate Sites, Wetland
Mapping) to guide habitat rehabilitation and protection.
x Encourage efforts to protect and/or acquire significant natural spaces.
Current Status on Regulations and Protection
The only truly protected lands are federal, provincial
and conservation authority owned lands,
Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) and Areas
of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) are areas
on public or private lands that have been designated
as significant areas; however, in most cases they are
not necessarily protected from detrimental land use.
Some milestones include: Bickford Oak Woods
Conservation Reserve (308 ha); Bear Creek Wetland
Complex at 43.3 ha; Pigeon Marsh at 57 ha; Walpole
Island Heritage Centre secured 68 ha of the 2,611 ha
of prairie, oak savannahs, and Carolinian forest
habitats on through acquisitions and leasing
arrangements; Wallaceburg Sycamore Woods (4.5
ha) was acquired and protected by the Sydenham
Field Naturalists.
EC, OMNR, OMOE, DFO, Municipalities, WIFN,
Aamjiwnaang FN, industries
Communication with municipalities to garner
support would be an in-kind activity expected from
all participating members.
17
153
ST. CLAIR RIVER AOC- HABITAT AND NON POINT SOURCE POLLUTION WORKPLAN
Recommendation
Promote the protection,
preservation and
rehabilitation of the natural
heritage features of the St.
Clair River AOC by
encouraging Lambton
County and municipalities,
and the Municipality of
Chatham-Kent to
incorporate wording in
their Official Plans such
that the St. Clair River Area
of Concern is recognized as
a priority area in need of
water quality protection
and fish/wildlife habitat
conservation and
protection.
In addition to the delisting
criterion pertaining to
Chenal Ecarte wetland
creation, broaden the scope
of wetland habitat projects
to include creation,
rehabilitation, acquisition
and maintenance within
the Walpole Island First
Nation delta and
headwaters of AOC creeks
(as per the Updated
Habitat and NPS
Rehabilitation Priority
Sites).
Actions
Encourage Lambton County and municipalities and
the Municipality of Chatham-Kent to strengthen
“Natural Heritage Policies” for the AOC when
amending their Official Plans (OPs) to provide
greater protection to water quality and fish and
wildlife habitat.
As information becomes available, provide Planners
with the necessary science and documentation on
significant habitats in the AOC to facilitate their
efforts to protect natural heritage features.
Ensure that GIS-spatial analysis is shared with
County, Municipalities, Conservation Authority,
government agencies, First Nations and other
groups.
Encourage RAP partners utilize completed reports
(e.g., St. Clair River NHS, Binational Habitat
Management Plan, MNR Candidate Sites, Wetland
Mapping) to guide habitat rehabilitation and
protection.
Encourage efforts to protect and/or acquire
significant natural spaces.
Make use of the 2006 MNR-GIS database to locate
potential wetland habitat project sites.
Create an inventory of prioritized wetland project
sites by following the “2007 Updated Habitat and
NPS Rehabilitation Priority Guidelines"
Establish wetland goals and objectives for the AOC
and develop numerical and/or qualitative delisting
criteria (targets). Track progress on goal
achievement.
Identify and engage landowners, seek funding and
implement wetland habitat projects to maintain and
improve the integrity and hydrologic connectivity of
coastal wetlands for fish spawning, nursery and
feeding areas and aquatic wildlife needs.
Assess the quality of coastal wetland habitat in the
Chenal Ecarte and WIFN delta by collecting data on
water quality, aquatic macroinvertebrates, amphibians
(if possible), marsh birds, and submerged aquatic
vegetation.
154
09
10
*
*
*
*
*
*
Beyond
Lead
*
*
BPAC
with CRIC
support.
*
*
MNR, CAs,
MOE
CRIC agencies
*
MNR
*
*
*
*
*
*
CRIC Agencies
and members
*
*
*
*
*
CRIC Agencies
and members
*
MNR, RLSN,
WIFN
*
MNR, RLSN,
WIFN
*
Habitat & NPS
Committee
*
*
*
*
*
RLSN, SCRCA,
WIFN
*
* WIFN Chenal Ecarte
08
* Chenal Ecarte
Examine options, risks and benefits of improving
fish access to impounded wetlands (i.e., possible
impacts on species at risk (SAR, waterfowl
production etc.).
Work with Walpole Island Heritage Centre regarding
aquatic habitat needs to meet fish and wildlife goals
and develop a list of project sites in the First Nation
delta.
Examine ways to control and prevent Phragmites
invasion; monitor high-quality and susceptible
wetlands, select demonstration areas for control, and
plan steps for controlling established Phragmites.
Share experiences and transfer knowledge.
Prepare wetland quality report with management
recommendations once assessments have been
completed.
07
EC-CWS, WIFN
MNR, DFO
18
Recommendation
Integrate shoreline erosion
control approaches and
shoreline development (or
redevelopment) projects
with environmentally
friendly habitat approaches
(i.e., shoreline softening,
buffer strips and spawning
channels) that take
nearshore aquatic habitats
and hydraulic impacts into
account.
Establish and implement a
riparian habitat and
buffering program for the
St. Clair River AOC (as per
the Updated Habitat and
Develop an Integrated Shoreline Management Plan
for the St. Clair River :
Use GIS to inventory/map existing shoreline
hardening structures on public and private lands and
assess condition, habitat features, sediment profile
and contaminants, plant, fish and wildlife
communities at each site.
Establish quantitative and/or qualitative shoreline
rehabilitation targets. Candidate sites include but are
not limited to: CN Lands on Sarnia Bay; Guthrie
Park; Courtright Waterfront Park; Willow Park;
Cathcart Park; Marshy Creek Park; Stag Island, and
Walpole Island Delta. Develop engineering plans for
candidate sites on public lands which incorporate
shoreline softening techniques that replace degraded
structures.
At sites where softening has occurred, rehabilitate
littoral habitat by installing reef structures, submerged
rock clusters/shoals, cobble or fish mix and coves to
improve the quality of littoral fish habitat. Establish
native grasses, shrub and tree plantings at candidate
sites behind the shoreline structure.
Assess the extent of shoreline projects completed
elsewhere within the AOC (e.g., SCRCA projects,
Chatham-Kent work at MacDonald Park) for
reporting purposes.
Link the WIFN habitats with the McKeough
Floodway, headwaters of the St. Clair River
tributaries, Bickford Oak Woods and Aamjiwnaang
First Nation forest tract through:
Planting riparian buffers consisting of rows of
native grasses, tallgrass prairie, savannah and
native shrubs adjacent to roadside and agricultural
drains along Highway 40;
10
Beyond
Lead
70K
SCRCA
*
H & NPS
Committee
1.8
M
1.8
M
*
*
SCRCA
*
SCRCA
*
RLSN
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
RLSN,
20
km
20
20
20
RLSN, SCRCA
*
*
*
*
*
RLSN
St. Clair
Township
38K, 13 ha
Improve the biological
connectivity within the
AOC focusing on Area 1A.
09
192K, 64 ha
Rehabilitate a minimum of 20 km/year of riparian
habitat by establishing vegetative buffer strips,
planting appropriate native vegetation, undertaking
stream bank stabilization activities, and/or restricting
livestock access to riparian areas adjacent to
tributaries in Area 1A to a minimum of 3-5 m.
Track habitat and riparian buffer projects and
provide annual reports on the status towards meeting
targets. Include information such as: uptake on
Environmental Farm Plans; uptake on landowner
funding programs; SCRCA and RLSN annual project
reports.
08
244K, 82 ha
Systematically identify public, private and industrial
land use and ownership adjacent to tributaries
flowing directly into the St. Clair River and prepare a
land-use inventory including zoning status (as per the
Updated Habitat and NPS Rehabilitation Priority Sites).
Undertake a proactive landowner contact program
starting in Area 1A to increase the number of
landowners involved in tributary buffering within the
AOC boundaries.
Identify riparian buffer targets for each tributary
based on land owner cooperation.
07
333K, 45 ha
NPS Rehabilitation Priority
Sites).
Actions
*
RLSN,
*
RLSN, SCRCA
Incorporate wetland creation wherever conditions
are favourable.
19
155
Recommendation
Actions
Establish signs on Hwy 40 to educate the public on
the benefit of biological corridors through riparian
buffering.
Examine other linkages proposed in the Lambton
County NHS (e.g. Clay Creek to the North
Sydenham River) and investigate and develop actions
for additional opportunities on Walpole Island First
Nation
Address and complete all
Rural Non-Point Source
Pollution and Urban NonPoint Source Pollution
“Priority Actions” and
track progress impacting
on beneficial uses (“as per
Updated Habitat and NPS
Rehabilitation Priority
Sites”.
Continue to provide funding support, technical
advice and outreach materials and assist land owners
to access funding as part of ongoing NPS and
stewardship programs within the AOC (as per
“Updated Habitat and NPS Rehabilitation Priority Sites”).
Develop appropriate Watershed/Subwatershed
Management Plans to identify priority NPS sites in
the AOC (as per “Updated Habitat and NPS
Rehabilitation Priority Sites”). Consult with St. Clair
Region CA, examine MDEQ Plan and use existing
reports (e.g. Wetlands, riparian buffer, land use, land
ownership) and as a foundation for a SCR-AOC
subwatershed Management plan.
Link urban/rural stormwater control via
subwatershed plans
Identify problems relating to domestic sanitary
sources impacting on St. Clair River BUIs and ensure
proper maintenance and repair.
x Investigate private septic systems within smaller
communities and other homes along the St. Clair
River within the AOC to ensure that they are not
causing negative effects on water quality of the St.
Clair River.
x Support the implementation to mitigate septic
system related problems within smaller
communities and other homes along the river
within the AOC e.g. Froomfield.
x Mandate ongoing maintenance of private sewage
disposal systems.
x Obtain a GIS tile drain layer and identify tiledrain outlet locations. Investigate options to
improve water quality at selected pilot sites.
x Seek expertise and support seasonal restrictive
water control devices in fields to mitigate
NPS/rural runoff and improve crop yield.
Track NPS projects and provide annual reports on
the status to key stakeholders. Use Environmental
Farm Plan, SCRCA and RLSN uptake.
156
07
08
09
10
Beyond
*
Lead
RLSN
*
*
*
*
*
Habitat
& NPS
Committee
*
*
*
*
*
SCRCA, RLSN,
WIFN,
Aamjiwnaang
SCRCA, Habitat
and NPS
committee
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SCRCA, Habitat
and NPS
committee
*
County, Citiy
building
inspection
*
RLSN
*
OMAFRA,
SCRCA, RLSN
H & NPS
Committee
*
*
20
SECTION 4- MONITORING AND RESEARCH WORK PLAN
Introduction
The rehabilitation of beneficial uses is the cornerstone of Annex 2 of the GLWQA. Although the 2005 St. Clair River AOC
Update identified significant remedial actions and milestones in the AOC which resulted in reduced loadings of many
parameters to air and water, exceedences of yardstick values occur, information gaps exist and significant actions are required.
The Research and Monitoring Subcommittee reviewed each BUI to determine its current status based on existing information
and proposed research and monitoring actions. Outstanding actions include obtaining recent results from scientific studies and
complete a comprehensive BUI review, and if needed, revision of the delisting criteria.
While numerous government agencies are listed as responsible leads to conduct monitoring and research activities, it is
important to understand that these activities are dependent upon available funding, sufficient staff, available time for field
studies and coordination among respective agencies and branches within agencies. It is therefore important to maintain and
encourage open lines of communication with other potential programs and sources of information (e.g. academic institutions
and SLEA). Also important to consider is the use and importance of complementary/ standardized protocols to facilitate data
interpretation for various BUIs and general environmental quality.
BENEFICIAL USES DESIGNATED AS “IMPAIRED”
BUI #1 - Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption
1995 Delisting Criteria
When contaminant levels in fish or wildlife
populations do not exceed current standards,
objectives or guidelines, and no public health
advisories are in effect for human consumption of fish
or wildlife.
Restrictions on Wildlife Consumption - Requires
further assessment on a Great Lakes Basin basis
Health Canada advises that consumption of commonly
hunted Ontario waterfowl poses no health hazards.
Additional study of the common merganser in the St.
Clair River and the hooded merganser in Lake St. Clair
is recommended (CWS 1997).
MOE, MNR an EC fish contaminants monitoring
program.
Current BUI Status
Restrictions on Fish Consumption - Impaired
Fish consumption guidelines are exceeded for smallmouth bass, rock bass,
yellow perch, carp, walleye, freshwater drum, bluegill, white and red horse
sucker, gizzard shad (MOE 2005; MUCH 2001).
Contaminant levels in sport fish collected from the AOC in 2003 (and before
this year) exceeded consumption guidelines for both the sensitive and general
populations. Most of the consumption restrictions for the general population
in the Huron-Erie Corridor are caused by mercury (32%), polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) (51%) and dioxins (including furans, and dioxin-like PCBs)
(17%). Based on these fish consumption advisories, the impairment status is
“impaired”. Mercury concentrations in walleye exceeded the 0.5 ug/g RAP
biota yardstick.
A sport fish collection from the Upper, Middle and Lower sections of the St.
Clair River was completed in 2006 to determine tissue contaminant
concentrations to update the Ontario Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish.
Existing Monitoring Programs
MOE/MNR sport fish contaminants monitoring
program. Environment Canada fish contaminants
monitoring program.
Research and Monitoring Actions
x Determine the relative role of out of basin sources (i.e., atmospheric contaminants), local on-going sources, and local sources from
historical sediment contamination.
x Work with MOE and MNR to develop consistent, long-term, corridor-wide collections of sport fish species from the upper, middle
and lower St. Clair River to track spatial and temporal contaminant trends. Fish sampling in the upper, middle and lower St. Clair
River should be conducted every four years at the very least. (Timeline: ongoing)
x Conduct additional monitoring studies to determine the extent to which contaminant exposure and uptake occurs in mergansers,
over-wintering waterfowl and other game species to address the BUIs “consumption of wildlife”. (Timeline: CRIC to decide if
additional waterfowl contaminant studies are required in 2007).
x Review and revised delisting criteria (Timeline: 2007).
21
157
BUI #2 - Degradation of Benthos
Current BUI Status
When invertebrate community structure can be documented as
Dynamics of Benthic Populations/Communities (Impaired)
unimpaired or intermediate as defined by recent OMOEE benthic The 1991 Stage 1 reported that data up to 1985 revealed that
investigations.
community structure was impacted beginning at 7km downstream
Body Burdens of Benthic Organisms (Requires further study from the Sarnia industrial complex and extending about 12km.
The most severely degraded portion occurred at a 1km reach of
on a GL basis)
the river beginning offshore of Dow Chemical. As of 1990, this
Bioassay and sediment toxicity studies (1994 and 1995 sampling)
BUI was “degraded” in several short segments along the Ontario
reported Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines - lowest and
shore for about half the distance identified from the 1985 survey.
severe effect level exceedences in the “priority 1" zones
The “severely degraded” zone was not found in the 1990 survey.
downstream of the Sarnia industrial area (Pollutech Enviroquatics
The 1997 RAP Update indicated that there was an increasing
Limited 1997). Test species mortality, growth, and reproduction
downstream invertebrate diversity density observed (Harris, 1996),
were adversely impacted during sediment toxicity testing.
and benthic communities remained moderately to slightly impaired
(LIS 1997). Additional studies (Beak int. Inc. 1996) confirm that
EC (NWRI, WQMS), MOE
benthic communities in these zones remain impaired and observed
The Sarnia-Lambton Environmental Association (SLEA) currently no improvement in these areas since 1985.
operates an integrated monitoring program that examines
sediment conditions in the St. Clair River reflective of historical
sediment contamination within the priority sediment zones.
x Complete a clear and concise synthesis of existing information to document existing conditions and trends on benthic communities
and body burdens.
x Identify information gaps in order to review existing delisting criteria, develop management plans and recommend additional
remedial options for contaminated sediments (i.e., Integrate findings of the Benthic Assessment of Sediment (Beast) National Water
Research Institute, Sarnia Lambton Environmental Association, Great Lakes Institute of Environmental Research (GLIER).
x Determine the need to continue the comprehensive (MOE) benthic community assessment for the entire St. Clair River and delta
to determine overall benthic community health as was completed in 1957, 1968, 1977, 1985, 1990, 1994 and 1996. (Timeline: CRIC
to decide in 2007 if benthic studies are required).
x Establish a technical committee to examine existing data and the need for additional studies. (Timeline: 2007)
x Review and revise delisting criteria (Timeline: 2007).
BUI #3 – Restrictions on Dredging Activities
No limitations on disposal of dredging spoils.
EC, MOE, DOT
Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC)
periodically dredges the southeast bend cutoff and measures
contaminant concentrations in dredge spoils. Environment
Canada’s National Water Research Institute conducts periodic
sediment (suspended and bottom) monitoring throughout the
Huron-Erie Corridor including several stations in the St. Clair
River.
Current BUI Status
Impaired
The Stage 2 document listed a suite of metals and organic
pollutants that exceeded the provincial sediment quality guidelines
along the St. Clair River, particularly along the Sarnia industrial
waterfront and sites downstream. Exceedences of sediment quality
guidelines (severe effect levels) were found for the Southeast Bend
Cutoff Channel for manganese, mercury, HCB, total PCBs, TKN,
and total phosphorus, however, exceedences were less than 5% of
samples collected and values were only slightly above sediment
quality guidelines (PWGSC 2001). Maintenance dredging in the
Southeast Bend Cutoff was most recently completed in 2006, and
dredging of the main channel of St. Clair, at Stokes Point Shoal,
approximately 2 km north of the village of Sombra, near the
Ontario ferry dock was completed in 2005.
x Collect and synthesize sediment contaminant data for the St. Clair River such as:
PWGSC for each dredging event in the St. Clair River AOC;
Consult with GLIER and synthesize results from Drouillard, Hafner and Ciborowski contaminant results for the St. Clair
River, St. Clair River Delta, Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River (Huron Erie Corridor);
MOE and EC sediment core results, and
SLEA sediment results (Timeline: 2007).
x Review and revise delisting criteria (Timeline: 2007).
x Identify the disposal outcome from dredging events based on sediment chemistry analysis and compare with delisting criteria (Timeline: 2007).
158
22
BUI #4 – Restrictions – Drinking Water Consumption – Taste/Odour Problems
No treatment plant shuts downs due to exceedences of drinking
water guidelines over a two year period.
EC, MOE, SLEA, Municipalities
x MOE- Spills Action Centre
x Sarnia Lambton Environmental Association continuous
chemical monitoring station.
x Environment Canada has annually monitored for a wide
range of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants at the
head and mouth of the river since 1986.
Current BUI Status
Impaired
The Stage 2 document indicated that periodic closing of water
treatment plants occurred due to consumption and taste and
odour problems in at drinking water intakes at treatment plants in
Ontario as a result of chemical spills.
While there were no MOE or MDEQ issued drinking water
advisories or mandated water treatment shutdowns for several
years prior to 2000, this BUI requires additional assessment given
the incidence of spills in 2003-2004.
x Continue to monitor spills to the St. Clair River. (Timeline: ongoing)
x Review and, if necessary, revise the delisting criteria for “restrictions on drinking water consumption or taste and odour problems”.
(Timeline: 2007)
x Identify the need for improvement to current monitoring programs. (Timeline: 2007)
23
159
BUI # 5 – Beach Closings
Zero beach closings based on fecal coliform standards regulating
beach closings over a two year period.
Local Health Units, MOE, EC
County of Lambton Community Health Services Department
continues to monitor E. coli levels along the St. Clair River and the
Chatham-Kent Health Services Department monitors Mitchell’s Bay.
Current BUI Status
Impaired
Permanent signs warning of possible intermittent pollution of
water are posted at four Ontario parks (Willow, Seager,
Lambton Cundick and Brander). Postings are to remain until
surveying indicates that water quality has improved to a point
where bacterial levels are consistently below Ministry of Health
guideline (LHU-OMEE 1994, 1995). The City of Sarnia has
posted a “No Swimming” sign at Centennial Park on the St.
Clair River.
x Obtain water quality monitoring data from the Public Health Unit (bacteria levels in beaches and day-use parks) and MOE –
Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network data for stations within the AOC and St. Clair Watershed.
x Obtain routine beach surveillance data from Lambton County and Chatham-Kent Community Health Services Departments
(Timeline: ongoing)
x Evaluate the source(s) of bacterial contamination of beaches (Timeline: unknown, research needed)
x Evaluate the performance of municipality infrastructure upgrades on sewage treatment plants, stormwater treatment, and combined
sewer overflows and facility optimization (Timeline: ongoing)
x Conduct River wide screening in 2008 and compare with results from 2004.
x Work closely with Walpole Island First Nation to determine if there are beach closings at local beaches (Timeline: ongoing)
x Assess beneficial use impairment and review delisting criteria (Timeline: 2007)
x Support the Lambton County Public Health Unit to conduct a St. Clair River Wide sampling “to determine if the AOC creeks that
enter into the river have a significant impact upon the presence and concentrations of Escherichia coli (Timeline: ongoing).
BUI # 6 – Degradation of Aesthetics
When over a two year period there is/are no, objectionable deposits,
unnatural colour or turbidity, unnatural odour or unnatural
scum/floating materials.
EC, MOE, MNR, Health Unit, Municipalities, WIFN, Aamjiwnaang
First Nation
Current BUI Status
Impaired
Stage 2 document identified that floating scums, oil slicks, spills
and odours have been periodically reported.
CSO overflow events continue in both Port Huron and Sarnia.
No existing monitoring programs exist for this BUI.
x Develop an appropriate methodology (e.g. questionnaire, contact MOE district office, Health Units, municipalities and the MNR to
determine if there have been recent complaints) to evaluate degradation of aesthetics in the St. Clair River AOC. (Cost to produce
questionnaires is estimated at $2,000.00 and a survey or River users is expected in 2007).
x Include all partners (U.S., Canadian and First Nations) in the development of study and the decision BUI status.
160
24
BUI # 7 – Added Costs To Agriculture or Industry
No plant shutdowns attributable to water quality over a two year
period. No added costs for the disposal of contaminated sediment.
EC, MOE
Current BUI Status
Impaired
The Stage 2 document indicated that food processing industries
in Ontario have had to temporarily shut down their intakes due
to upstream spills.
There were no water treatment plant closures or associated
interruptions in water supplies to industrial users between 1994
and 1997 (OMOE 1997).
MOE- Spills Action Centre report on spills that require mandates
shutdowns.
x Collect spills data from MOE and review for mandated shutdowns. (Timeline: ongoing)
x Review and revise existing delisting criteria (Timeline: 2007)
BUI # 8 – Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Protection:
1. Regulations: Ensure that sufficient enforceable mechanisms are in
place to protect existing aquatic and wetland habitat from cultural
destruction or degradation, including filling, dredging, adversely
affecting the hydrology, cutting or removing vegetation required for
habitat, and allowing pollutants such as sediment, excess nutrients or
toxic substances to enter aquatic or wetland habitat.
2. Protection: Protect existing habitat in Ontario.
Rehabilitation and Enhancement:
Of the 5200 ha (12,844 acres) identified as Candidate Sites in
Ontario, complete the following habitat rehabilitation projects by
the year 2000:
a) Chenal Ecarte Wetland Creation (155 ha) (384 acres)
b) Stag Island (80 ha) (198 acres)
c) Darcy McKeough Floodway (445 ha) (1,100 acres)
Current BUI Status
Impaired
The rehabilitation and enhancement delisting criteria have not
been completed for the loss of fish and wildlife habitat.
All proponents of habitat rehabilitation projects report on
habitat projects and goals achieved to their respective funding
agencies on an annual basis.
EC, MNR, WIFN, SCRCA, RLSN
Timelines and Costs
See Section 3.
A long term habitat management plan for both Michigan and
Ontario, including an assessment of needs (GAP analysis) relating to
wildlife diversity and integrity, will be completed to ensure continued
habitat rehabilitation and protection beyond RAP delisting.
x A St. Clair River shoreline survey for rehabilitation and design of restorative works report.
x Pre- and post monitoring of fish abundance and diversity in areas designated for shoreline softening projects to assess the success
of aquatic habitat rehabilitation;
x Complete a GIS analysis of existing 2006 data to determine tributary lengths, amount of existing riparian habitat, land use and land
ownership in order to establish targets.
x Benthic monitoring and fish habitat assessments in the tributaries flowing directly into the St. Clair River following major
rehabilitation pilot projects in order to measure ecological benefits.
x As identified in Recommendation 3.4, work with Walpole Island Heritage Centre to develop a list identifying priority coastal wetland
sites on WIFN for CWS wetland habitat quality assessments (i.e., water quality, macroinvertebrate, submerged aquatic vegetation, and marsh
birds); and,
x Complete wetland assessments and obtain results from WIFN/CWS and WIFN/Bird Studies Canada wetland assessments in order
to determine their biological integrity and functionality.
x Walpole Island Heritage Centre to identify and develop habitat and community project proposals that will contribute to restoring
BUIs for habitat/shoreline remediation i.e., wetland rehabilitation plan
25
161
BENEFICIAL USES “REQUIRING FURTHER ASSESSMENT”
BUI # 1 - Tainting of Fish and Wildlife Flavour
When survey results confirm no tainting of fish or wildlife flavour.
There are no consistent monitoring programs to address this BUI.
EC, MNR, MOE
Current BUI Status
Requires further assessment on a St. Clair River basis.
x A 1995 controlled subjective olfactory sensory evaluation
of tainting in walleye revealed no identifiable tainting by a
panel of BPAC members and the public (Myllyoja and
Johnson, 1995).
x The results of an Angler Survey (1996 – 1997) revealed
that, out of 291 respondents that voiced concern over the
fish they caught, four percent (N=11) reported fish tainting
in previous years (Dawson, 1999).
x Not one of the 106 respondents that consumed wildlife
raised the issue of chemical contamination of. There was no
mention of tainting of wildlife flavour.
x Develop an appropriate methodology (e.g. questionnaire, fish tainting panel) to evaluate fish tainting in the St. Clair River AOC
(Timeline: 2007; Cost: questionnaire $2K, fish tainting panel cost unknown)
x Include all partners (U.S., Canadian, and First Nations) and use information gathered to assess the status of the BUI based on study
results.
BUI # 2 - Degraded Fish and Wildlife Populations
No specific delisting criteria for the St. Clair River are
developed for "degradation of fish and wildlife
populations”.
Current BUI Status
Dynamics of Fish Populations - Not Impaired
The fish community is considered diverse and FCGOs support the
current fish community structure.
x Bird Studies Canada marsh monitoring program
x Southern Ontario bald eagle monitoring project
x MNR angler creel surveys
x MOE and EC fish contaminants program
x EC fish and wildlife health effects study
x MNR and DFO fish community assessment
x 2006-2007 amphibian contaminant and reproductive
study.
x Canadian Wildlife Service wetland evaluations (wildlife)
commenced in 2006 with plans to include the Walpole
Island First Nation delta in 2008.
Body Burdens of Fish - Requires further study on a Great Lakes
Basin basis
The role of exposure of fish to contaminants originating from outside the
St. Clair River relative to local sources is considered essential for a
comprehensive evaluation.
Dynamics of Wildlife Populations - Requires further study on a site
basis
No current information is available on wildlife population dynamics.
Body Burdens of Wildlife - Requires further study on a Great Lakes
Basin basis
Wildlife contaminants studies on snapping turtles, Forster’s tern and
black-tern, and mink have been completed. The Canadian Wildlife
Service is currently conducting a 2006-2007 amphibian contaminant
study.
EC, MNR, MOE, WIFN, DFO
x Determine the relative role of out of basin sources (i.e., atmospheric contaminants), local on-going sources, and local sources from
historical sediment contamination (same action as identified as for BUI Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption).
x Conduct additional monitoring studies to determine the extent to which contaminant exposure and uptake occurs in mergansers,
over-wintering waterfowl and other game species to address the BUIs “consumption of wildlife” (same action as identified as for
BUI Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption).
x Evaluate aquatic wildlife population dynamics in the AOC including Walpole Island First Nation through wetland evaluations
(Timeline: 2007-2009, Cost: $10K/year).
x Work with existing Species at Risk programs (i.e., Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and Walpole
Island Heritage Centre) and synthesize information to comprehensively wildlife related BUIs (Timeline: ongoing)
162
26
BUI # 3 - Fish Tumours and Other Deformities
No specific delisting criteria have been developed for this
BUI for the St. Clair River.
There are no consistent ongoing monitoring programs to
examine fish tumours, rather individual studies have been
conducted with the most recent collection completed in
2006.
EC, MOE
Current BUI Status
Requires further assessment on a site specific basis
The St. Clair River Stage 1- Environmental Conditions and Problem
Definition reported that external tumours or skin lesions (i.e., lymphocystic
and dermal sarcoma) on fish (particularly walleye), caused concern among
anglers. Research by Johnson et al. (1990) later revealed that tumours may
not be linked to anthropogenic factors, but rather by viral skin diseases.
A caging study to investigate fish tumours revealed one incident concerning
liver tumours and early neoplastic tissue changes in a caged fish held
downstream of the Sarnia industrial complex (Pollutech, 1989). The Stage 2
Recommended Plan recognized a growing consensus and sufficient
evidence suggesting liver tumours are caused by chemical factors. For this
reason additional studies are required on a site specific basis.
In 1999, liver samples from 61 fish representing 19 species from different
trophic positions (bottom feeders to piscivorous fish) were evaluated to
determine the liver tumour by the University of Guelph Pathobiology
Laboratory using accepted histopathological criteria (Hayes, 2002). Results
revealed no confirmed liver tumours. Environment Canada’s National
Water Research Institute has been collecting River Redhorse Suckers from
the St. Clair River (2001-2006) to evaluate livers for tumours. Results are
pending further analysis.
Await a report on the 2006 fish collection and liver evaluation from EC-NWRI and undertake a comprehensive review on the current
status. Integrate previous studies with the 2006 results to determine if this BUI is impaired or not impaired. (A complete liver tumour
assessment completed by Environment Canada’s National Water Research Institute is anticipated by the end of 2007).
BUI # 4 - Bird or Animal Deformities or Other Reproductive Problems
There are no consistent ongoing monitoring programs to
examine bird and animal deformities and reproductive
problems, rather individual studies have been conducted
with the most recent examining amphibian contaminant
and deformity rates occurring in 2006-2007 (WIHC and
CWS).
EC
Current BUI Status
Requires further assessment in the SCR
The Stage 1 document provided no evidence of bird and animal
deformities. The Stage 2 document recommended further assessment for
the St. Clair River AOC based on chironomid mouth-part deformities.
Contaminant concentrations in snapping turtle eggs from Walpole Island
have been measured on three separate occasions during the 1990s. Results
from the 1992, 1995, and 1999 studies indicate that the mean total PCB
concentration has not changed markedly over time (Ashpole, 2003; CWS
database). Contaminant levels in terns and mink have been measured
(1999-2004) and are not suspected of having reproductive impacts (Martin
et al, 2004; Weseloh and Jermyn, unpublished).
Assessment of snapping turtle egg hatching success and deformity rates
indicated no difference between Walpole Island turtle eggs and eggs from
the Algonquin Park. The frequency of hatchling deformity in individuals
from Walpole Island was similar to the Algonquin Park reference site
(Ashpole, 2004).
x Integrate previous studies on birds, reptiles and mammals with the 2006/2007 amphibian results.
x Complete a comprehensive assessment of vertebrate classes to determine the status of this BUI (i.e. Impaired, Not- Impaired,
Requires Further Study on a Site-Specific Basis).
27
163
BENEFICIAL USES DESIGNATED AS “NOT IMPAIRED”
BUI # 1 – Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae
Current BUI Status - Not Impaired
The 1991 Stage 1 and the 1995 Stage 2 indicate that the waters of the St.
Clair river are mesotrophic and algae do not occur at nuisance levels.
BUI # 2 – Degradation of Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Populations
There are no delisting criteria specific to the St. Clair
River AOC.
Current BUI Status - Not Impaired
The species composition of phytoplankton and zooplankton reflect the
oligotrophic to mesotrophic conditions of lower Lake Huron (Stage 1 RAP,
1991).
There are no Existing Monitoring Programs for the above BUIs and no
long term monitoring is needed for the St. Clair River AOC.
164
28
ST. CLAIR RIVER AOC - RESEARCH AND MONITORING WORKPLAN
Recommendation
Restrictions on Fish
and Wildlife
Consumption
Actions
Determine the relative
contribution of out of basin
sources (e.g., atmospheric
contaminants, source water from
L. Huron), local on-going
sources, and local sources from
historical sediment
contamination.
Work with MOE and MNR to
develop consistent, long-term,
corridor-wide collections of
sport fish species from the
upper, middle and lower St. Clair
River to track spatial and
temporal contaminant trends.
Fish sampling in the Upper,
Middle and Lower St. Clair River
should be conducted every four
years.
Conduct additional monitoring
studies to determine the extent
to which contaminant exposure
and uptake occurs in
mergansers, over-wintering
waterfowl and other game
species to address the BUIs
“consumption of wildlife”.
10
EC/ MOE
Comment
Understand migratory habits
of both fish and wildlife and
likelihood of local exposure.
Sources within SCR-AOC
must be addressed first.
EC-Head and Mouth
monitoring current program.
EC/ WIFN
Recommend a literature
review of BSC and EC
research result. Consult with
WIFN. Possible research by
2008 depending on literature
review results (2007).
*
EC/ MOE
Report on 2006 fish sampling.
*
MOE, EC,
SLEA
SLEA conducting triad study
in 2007 to complement
previous studies.
Committee: MOE, SLEA, EC
EC, MOE
Currently underway.
*
*
*
*
Lead
MOE/MNR
*
September, 2007 - St. Clair River Canadian RAP Work Plan 2007
Final report
*
Beyond
Most recent sampling 2006.
Next field sampling and
contaminant analysis to be
conducted in 2009,
assessment/reporting 2010.
*
Technical committee to
determine the need to continue
the comprehensive (MOE)
benthic community assessment
for the entire St. Clair River and
delta to determine overall
benthic community health as
was completed in 1957, 1968,
1977, 1985, 1990, 1994.
Undertake voluntary benthic
macro-invert studies.
09
*
Establish a technical committee
to examine existing data and the
need for additional studies.
Complete a clear and concise
synthesis of existing information
to document existing conditions
and trends on benthic
communities and body burdens.
Identify information gaps in
order to review existing delisting
criteria, (i.e., Integrate findings
of the Benthic Assessment of
Sediment (Beast) National Water
Research Institute, Sarnia
Lambton Environmental
Association, Great Lakes
Institute of Environmental
Research).
08
Lit. review Field
study
Assess BUI, review and revise
delisting criteria
Degradation of
Benthos
07
*
MOE, EC,
SLEA
SLEA study initiated 2007;
completion 2008.
29
165
Recommendation
Restrictions on
Dredging Activities
Restrictions on
drinking water
consumption or
taste and odour
problems
Beach Closings
Degradation of
Aesthetics
Actions
Assess BUI, review and revised
delisting criteria
Synthesize existing sediment
contaminant data for the St.
Clair River such as:
PWGSC for each dredging event
in the St. Clair River AOC;
MOE and EC sediment core
results, and
SLEA sediment results
delisting criteria.
Review and, if necessary, revise
the delisting criteria for
“restrictions on drinking water
consumption or taste and odour
problems”.
Evaluate ongoing and potential
need for future improvements to
monitoring programs.
Continue to monitor spills to the
St. Clair River.
Obtain routine beach
surveillance data from Lambton
County and Chatham-Kent
Community Health Services
Departments
Identify and evaluate the
source(s) of bacterial
contamination of beaches
Evaluate the performance of
municipal infrastructure
upgrades on sewage treatment
plants, stormwater treatment,
and combined sewer overflows
and facility optimization
Conduct River wide bacterial
screening in 2008 and compare
with results from 2005.
Work closely with Walpole
Island First Nation to determine
if there are beach closings at
local beaches
delisting criteria.
Conduct sampling at SCR creek
mouths to determine if the AOC
creeks that enter into the river
have a significant impact upon
the presence and concentrations
of Escherichia coli.
Develop an appropriate
methodology (i.e., questionnaire,
contact MOE district office,
Health Units, municipalities and
the MNR to determine if there
have been recent complaints) to
evaluate degradation of
aesthetics in the St. Clair River
AOC.
delisting criteria.
166
07
08
09
10
Beyond
Lead
Comment
*
*
EC, MOE
*
EC, MOE
*
*
*
MOE, EC
Recommendation to establish
a team to examine BUI.
*
Four
Agencies,
WIFN
Requires input from all
stakeholders
*
*
*
MOE,
EC, MOE,
Health
Units
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Completed
EC, MOE,
Health
Units
MOE,
Municipalities
*
MOE,
Health
Units
*
EC, WIFN
Conduct shoreline sampling at
day-use areas.
EC, MOE
*
*
$5K
Consult with GLIER and
synthesize results from
Drouillard, Hafner and
Ciborowski.
*
MOE
*
EC, MOE,
BPAC
2007 River wide survey of
aesthetics.
Contact local offices in 2008.
EC, MOE
30
Recommendation
Added Costs to
Agriculture or
Industry
Loss of Fish and
Wildlife Habitat
Tainting of Fish and
Wildlife Flavour
Degraded Fish and
Wildlife Populations
Actions
07
08
09
10
Beyond
Lead
Through a survey, or other
means, examine if industry or
agricultural sectors have incurred
extra costs due to water
treatment methods or due to
disposal of contaminated
sediments.
*
EC, MOE,
Review and revise existing
delisting criteria
*
EC, MOE
Complete pre- and post
monitoring of fish use and
diversity in areas designated for
shoreline softening projects to
assess success of aquatic habitat
rehabilitation.
Complete a GIS analysis of
existing 2006 data to determine
tributary lengths, amount of
existing riparian habitat, land use
and land ownership in order to
establish targets.
Continue benthic monitoring
and fish habitat assessments in
the tributaries flowing directly
into the St. Clair River following
major rehabilitation pilot
projects to measure ecological
benefits (1A).
Consult with Walpole Island
Heritage Centre to develop a list
of priority coastal wetland sites
on WIFN for CWS wetland
habitat quality assessments (i.e.,
water quality, macroinvertebrate,
submerged aquatic vegetation
and marsh birds).
Complete wetland assessments
and obtain results from
WIFN/CWS and WIFN/Bird
Studies Canada wetland
assessments in order to
determine wetland biological
integrity.
Develop a methodology (i.e.,
questionnaire, fish tainting
panel) to evaluate fish tainting in
the St. Clair River AOC.
Include all partners (U.S.,
Canadian, First Nations) and use
information gathered to assess
the status of the BUI based on
study results.
Determine the relative role of
out of basin contaminant
sources (i.e., atmospheric
contaminants), local on-going
sources, and local sources from
historical sediment
contamination (same action as
identified as for BUI
Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife
Consumption).
*
DFO,MNR,
EC
*
*
*
Consider expanding this to all
habitat projects.
MNR,
RLSN
*
*
Comment
*
*
SCRCA
*
EC, WIFN
*
EC, WIFN
EC, MOE,
First
Nations
$5K
*
*
EC/MOE
Understand migratory habits
of both fish and wildlife and
local exposure.
Sources within SCR-AOC
must be addressed first.
EC-Head and Mouth
monitoring program.
31
167
Recommendation
168
10
Beyond
Lead
* Final report
Complete an assessment of
vertebrate classes to determine
the status of this BUI (i.e.
Impaired, Not- Impaired,
Requires Further Study on a
Site-Specific Basis).
09
EC/WIFN
*
*
EC/WIFN
*
*
*
Comment
Recommend a literature
review of BSC and EC
research result. Consult with
WIFN. Possible research by
2008 depending on literature
review results (2007).
EC/
WIFN/
MNR/SCR
CA /DFO
*
*
*
EC
*
* Final report
Integrate previous studies on
birds, reptiles and mammals with
the 2006/2007 amphibian
results.
*
08
* Field work
Bird or Animal
Deformities or
Other Reproductive
Problems
Conduct additional monitoring
studies to determine the extent
to which contaminant exposure
and uptake occurs in
mergansers, over-wintering
waterfowl and other game
species to address the BUIs
“consumption of wildlife” (same
action as identified as for BUI
Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife
Consumption).
Evaluate aquatic wildlife
population dynamics in the
AOC including Walpole Island
First Nation through wetland
evaluations
Utilize existing Species at Risk
program research data to assess
BUI status (i.e., Canadian
Wildlife Service, Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, and
Walpole Island Heritage Centre)
Obtain a report on the 2006 fish
collection and liver evaluation
from the NWRI and undertake a
comprehensive review on the
current status. Integrate previous
studies with the 2001 results to
determine if this BUI is impaired
or not impaired.
07
* Field study Lit. review
Fish Tumours and
Other Deformities
Actions
NWRI
EC
A complete liver tumour
assessment completed the
National Water Research
Institute is anticipated by the
end of 2008.
32
SECTION 5 – PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
#5.1 Recommendation
Continue to develop and implement education and communication
programs to deal with significant actions for RAP Implementation.
BUIs potentially impacted
x All BUIs
Rationale
The St. Clair River RAP should have an ongoing strategy to
educate the public and promote the objectives and mandate
to rehabilitate and delist the AOC. As such, key St. Clair
River education and outreach efforts should be ongoing to
encourage progress to completing recommended actions.
The St. Clair River AOC should use resources to increase
attention on its efforts as increased public attention will
garner increased public support.
BPAC, SCRCA, EC, MOE, MNR, DFO
Current status
Numerous public education projects have been initiated over the years,
such as: the Friends of St. Clair River website; Waterways of Wildlife
(Biodiversity Atlas for the Huron to Erie Corridor); St. Clair Region
Conservation Authority educational programs; St. Clair River Binational
Public Advisory Council (BPAC) fact sheets, and the BPAC/ Friends of
St. Clair River 2006 summer public awareness campaign and photo
contest. In addition, the BPAC/FOSCR completed an advertising
campaign targeting local media outlets (TV, radio, news) including the
development of a media kit (advertisements, news releases, etc) for use by
the BPAC and the Canadian RAP Implementation Committee. A Power
Point Presentation was completed to engage public groups to educate key
stakeholder of the need to complete priority remedial actions.
Actions
x Support the BPAC in their efforts to enhance local coordination of present and future public outreach projects (e.g. Photo
Contest & Promotions; Advertising Campaign; News Releases; Power Point Presentation, Portable Display; Report Card, Fact
Sheet).
x Develop outreach/ education materials to promote the rehabilitation of nearshore aquatic habitat and shoreline softening, such as
shoreline tabloid, website, presentation, demonstration day.
x Recognize the need for and provide funding support for RAP coordination.
x Continue to provide support to the Friends of the St. Clair River (Canada) for information development and BPAC outreach
projects.
x Develop education materials to Inform the public on correct direct discharges of untreated grey water from boats
x Celebrate successes and milestones via site visits for public and agency trips to implementation sites.
ST. CLAIR RIVER AOC - PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
Recommendation
Continue to develop
and implement
education and
communication
programs to deal with
significant actions for
RAP Implementation.
Actions
Support the BPAC in their efforts to enhance local
coordination of present and future public outreach
projects (e.g. Photo Contest & Promotions,
Advertising Campaign, News Releases, Power
Point Presentation, Portable Display, Report Card,
Fact Sheet).
Develop outreach/ education materials to promote
the rehabilitation of nearshore aquatic habitat and
shoreline softening
Recognize the need for and provide funding
support for RAP coordination.
Continue to provide support to the Friends of the
St. Clair River (Canada) for information
development and BPAC outreach projects
Develop education materials to Inform the public
on correct direct discharges of untreated grey water
from boats.
Celebrate successes and milestones via site visits
for public and agency trips to implementation sites.
07
08
09
10
Beyond
*
*
*
*
*
EC/ MOE
*
SCRCA
*
MOE/ EC
Fact
sheet
(5K)
Demonst
-ration
Day (3K)
Lead
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
DFO, MOE,
CCG
*
*
*
CRIC
*
33
169
Appendix 1.
Explanation of the St. Clair River Area of Concern Boundary
Lake
Huron
The 1991 Stage 1 “Problem Definition” defined the
AOC as the St. Clair River proper. The boundaries
extended from the Blue Water Bridge to the
southern tip of Seaway Island, west to St. John’s
Marsh and east to include the north shore of
Mitchell’s Bay on Lake St. Clair. This area
encompasses Walpole Island First Nation Territory
In 1995, the Stage 2 - Recommended Plan,
expanded the scope of the RAP to encompass the
immediate drainage basin (Area 1 in green) of the
St. Clair River and include the immediate watershed
area including the tributary creeks (Talfourd, Baby,
Bowens, Clay, Marshy) in Ontario (see Figure 2.2 o
the 1995 Stage 2 –Recommended Plan).
Lake St. Clair
Additional habitat rehabilitation opportunities were identified in the late 1990s (Area 1B). The map to the left illustrates
the approximate AOC boundaries.
170
34
171
172
Appendix C
St. Clair River Tributaries Report Card
173
174
175
176
Lake St. Clair Tributaries Report Card
177
178
179
180
Appendix D
List of Acronyms
ABCA - Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority
AO - Aesthetic Objective
AOC - Area of Concern
ARDA - Agricultural and Rural Development Act
BUI - Beneficial Use Impairment
CA - Conservation Authority
CCME - Canadian Council of Ministries of the Environment
CDW - Committee on Drinking Water
CEQG - Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines
CN - Canadian National
CNR - Canadian National Railways
CO - Conservation Ontario
CoAs - Certificates of Approvals
COA - Canada-Ontario Agreement
C & O - Chesapeake and Ohio
COSEWIC - Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
CPR - Canadian Pacific Railway
CSO - Combined Sewer Overflow
CURB - Clean Up Rural Beaches
DAR - Development Assessment Report
DFO - Department of Fisheries and Oceans
DNAPLs - Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
DOC - Dissolved Organic Carbon
DWIS - Drinking Water Information System
DWS - Drinking Water Systems
DWSP - Drinking Water Surveillance Program
EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
EMRB - Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch
END - Endangered
ERCA - Essex Region Conservation Authority
FBI - Family Biotic Index
FN - First Nation
FTU - Formazin Turbidity Unit
GLWQA - Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
HPC - Heterotrophic Plate Count
IAP - Initiative Action Plan
IAP - Infrared Aerial Photography
IAS - Invasive Alien Species
IC - Implementation Committee
IJC - International Joint Commission
IMAC - Interim MAC
IPWQO - Interim Provincial Water Quality Objectives
IPZ - Intake Protection Zones
ISI - Intrinsic Susceptibility Index
IRS - Indian Research Satellite
LaMP - Lakewide Management Plan
LAWSS - Lambton Area Water Supply System
LHPWSS - Lake Huron Primary Water Supply System
181
LTVCA - Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority
MAC - Maximum Acceptable Concentration
MCL - Maximum Concentration Level
MDL - Method Detection Limit
MISA - Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement
NAR - Not At Risk
NHIC - Natural Heritage Information Centre
NIS - Non-native Invasive Species
NPDWRs - National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
OBBN - Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network
ODWS - Ontario Drinking Water Standard
OG - Operational Guideline
OMOE - Ontario Ministry of Environment
OMNR - Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
OMAF - Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
OMAFRA - Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
OMMAH - Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
OMNDM - Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mining
OWRA - Ontario Water Resources Act
PAHs - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PCBs - Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PGMIS - Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Information System
PTTW - Permit To Take Water
PWQMN - Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network
PWQO - Provincial Water Quality Objective
PWSS - Primary Water Supply System
RAP - Remedial Action Plan
ROM - Royal Ontario Museum
SAR - Species at Risk
SC - Special Concern
SCRCA - St. Clair Region Conservation Authority
SOLRIS - Southern Ontario Land Resources Information System
SOLEC - State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Conference
SOWAQ - Southern Ontario Water Quality
SVCA - Sydenham Valley Conservation Authority
SWIG - Source Water Implementation Group
TDS - Total Dissolved Solids
TEC - Technical Experts Committee
THMs - Trihalomethanes
THR - Threatened
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
UTRCA - Upper Thames River Conservation Authority
WHI - Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc
WHPA - Wellhead Protection Area
WSS - Water Supply System
WTP - Water Treatment Plant
WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant
182
Appendix E
References
Campbell, C.A, 1974. A preliminary assessment of ecological assets and impacts on Walpole Island Indian Reserve.
Prepared for Indian and Northern Affairs, Ontario Regional Office, Planning Sect8on. 29 pp.
Cinura, K.A., L.A. Meyerson, and A. Gutierrez. 2004. The ecological and socio-economic impacts of invasive alien species
in inland water ecosystems. Report to the Conservation on Biological Diversity on behalf of the Global Invasive Species
Programme, Washington, D.C. p 34 (may be downloaded at http://www.biodiv.org/doc/ref/alien/ias-inland-waters-en.pdf)
Conservation Ontario. 2003. The Guide to Watershed Report. Prepared by Conservation Ontario in partnership with the
Government of Ontario, the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority.
Edwards, A., J. Barnucz and N.E. Mandrak, 2006. Boat electro-fishing survey of the fish assemblages in the St. Clair River,
Ontario. Can. Manuscr.Rpt.Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2742:v + 57 p.
Environment Canada, 2004. How much habitat is enough? A framework for Guiding Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes
Areas of Concern. Second Edition. Available from Canadian Wildlife Service, Downsview, Ontario or wildlife.ontario.ec.gc.ca
Environment Canada, Freshwater Website, Fluctuating Water Levels (Great Lakes), July 2006
ESA 59 in “University of Waterloo. 1980. Lambton County preliminary environmentally significant areas study. Prepared for
the County of Lambton Planning Department, Sarnia, Ontario. 243 pp.”
Eyles, N., Arnaud, E., Scheidegger, A.E., and Eyles, C.H. 1997. Bedrock jointing and geomorphology in southern Ontario,
Canada; an example of tectonic predesign: Geomorphology, 19, 17-34.
Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research & Department Biological Sciences, University of Windsor, 2006, Revised
via Environment Canada comments Aug 3, 2008.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid Field Assessment of Organic Pollution with a Family Level Biotic Index, J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc.,
7:65-68
Hilsenhoff, op.cit.
Holm, Erling. 2001. Report to the Ministry of Natural Resources, Chatham Area Office on Biological Inventory and
Assessment Activities in the Sydenham River between Tupperville and Dresden,June 2001 l15 pp.
http:lis.sarnia.com/pdf%20files/Water2Biomonitoring.pdf Retrieved November 6 2005.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/cyanobacteria-cyanobacteries_e.html
http://city.sarnia.on.ca/pdf/Planning_Brownfields_Community_Improve_Plan.pdf
INTERA Technologies Ltd., 1992 Hydrogeologic Study of the Fresh Water Aquifer and Deep Geologic Formations, Sarnia,
Ontario
Jacques Whitford-AXYS, Proposed Shell Refinery Project, Surface Water Baseline Report, April 2008
Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd 2001, Sydenham River Recovery Plan.
Klinkenberg, R. 1984. Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest in Site District 7-1: A Review and Assessment of
Significant Natural Areas in Site District 7-1. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, London. Vii + 22pp. + appendices
Lake St. Clair Canadian Watershed Technical Report: an examination of current conditions, 2005, Environment Canada and
Lake St. Clair Canadian Watershed Coordination Council.
183
Lambton County Groundwater Study, Dillon and Golder, 2004
Lambton County Planning and Development Department, Lambton County Official Plan, 1997, Section 3.8
Metcalfe-Smith, J., A. MacKenzie, I. Carmichael and D. McGoldrick. 2005. “Photo Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of
Ontario” St. Thomas Field Naturalist Club Incorporated, St. Thomas, ON. 60pp.(in press)
Metcalfe-Smith, J. L. 1999. Sydenham River Mussel Communities. Unpublished report from National Water Research
Institute. 12pp.
NHIC website www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/nhic.html
Natural Resources Canada, 2007, From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate, Chapter 6: Ontario or
Jacques Whitford, Consultant, Draft EA, Apr 14, 2008, Shell Refinery, p. 6-107-109.
Ontario Ministry of Finance, Ontario Population Projections, 2004-2031
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Resource Centre (NHIC), 2006
Report on Spills in the Great Lakes Basin – with a special focus on the St. Clair-Detroit River Corridor, July 2006,
International Joint Commission
SCRCA Board Report – PGWMN, November 2008, H. MacKenzie & M. Andreae
Shawn Staton 2004 pers. commun.
Sierra Legal, 2006 www.sierralegal.org
St. Clair AOC Stage 1RAP, 1992
St. Clair Region Conservation Authority Watershed Description Report, April 2007
St. Clair Region Draft Watershed Characterization Report, August 2007, Section 3.0 Water Quality
St. Clair River Canadian RAP Work Plan 2007, p. 14
St. Clair River Remedial Action Committee, St. Clair River Area of Concern Canadian Remedial Action Plan Implementation
Committee Work Plan, 2007.
State of Canada’s Environment (SOE) Report, 1991, Minister of the Environment.
Township of St. Clair, Township of St. Clair Official Plan, 2001, Section 3.3 Stormwater Management
Traditional Ecological Knowledge Study: Walpole Island First Nation and the St. Clair River Corridor, Final Report, 2008,
Victor P. Lytwyn, Ph.D., for Walpole Island FN.
University of Waterloo op.cit.
Walpole Island Heritage Centre, 2002, Species at Risk on the Walpole Island First Nation.
Woodliffe, P.A. and G.M. Allen, 1990. A Life Science Inventory and Ranking of 30 Natural Areas of Walpole Island Indian
Reserve pp. 37-48 in “Conserving Carolinian Canada”, edited by G.M. Allen, P.F.J. Eagles and S.D. Price.
www.scrca.on.ca
www.friendsofstclair.ca
184
6W&ODLU
Draft
October, 2009
AOC Area 1-A
/DNH6W&ODLU
with funding support from
St. Clair Region
205 Mill Pond Cr.
Strathroy, ON, N7G 3P9
E-Mail stclair@scrca.on.ca
Website: www.scrca.on.ca

St. Clair River Watershed Plan - St. Clair Region Conservation

Transcription

Similar documents

FORM. ART. FUNCTION. LOCATION.

rock walkathon along the river song writing contest rock this way

2015 Wrap Up - Funfest Events

Fort Couch Wins Fourth National Blue Ribbon Award

Newsletter - Library Home

Windsor - St. Clair College

Working in Canada - St. Clair College

2010 Winter Alma Matters