Submission to Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Committee
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Hamilton Harbour and Region Remedial Action Plan (HHRAP) team has released a report entitled Status Report on the Degradation of Aesthetics Beneficial Use Impairment (BUI) XI in the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan (“Hamilton RAP Report” or 1 the “Report”). The Report presents findings from aesthetic observations and makes the case that the status of this BUI be re-designated from “Impaired” to “Not Impaired.”
The Hamilton RAP Report suggests that Hamilton Harbour’s waters are now “free from persistent objectionable unnatural deposit, unnatural colour, objectionable odour, or unnatural turbidity (e.g., oil slick or surface scum).”
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper (“Waterkeeper”) does not agree with this assessment. Firstly, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, and members of the public documented significant debris and pollution in Hamilton Harbour in 2015 and 2018. Second, the method used to assess the aesthetics does not adequately represent the condition of Hamilton Harbour water aesthetics. Third, the method used to evaluate water aesthetics in the Hamilton Harbour is flawed. In this comment, we provide evidence that shows Hamilton Harbour’s waters are still impacted by unnatural pollution, and particularly plastic and sewage debris.
Based on this evidence Waterkeeper concludes that the best course of action for the RAP Steering Committee, provincial, and federal authorities is to leave the “Impaired” designation in place for the Degradation of Aesthetics BUI until the Hamilton Harbour’s waters are free of sewage and plastic debris.
Any other course of action threatens to undermine the credibility of the Remedial Action Plan, jeopardizes programs that address plastics and litter debris in the future, undermines efforts to garner public support for investments in wastewater infrastructure, and signals disinterest in growing public interest in Hamilton Harbour’s waterfront.
BACKGROUND
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is an initiative of Swim Drink Fish that has been working for a swimmable, drinkable, fishable future since its launch in 2001. By blending science, law, education, and storytelling with technology, we empower millions of people to know and safeguard their waters. Swim Drink Fish also operates Swim Guide, Great Lakes Guide, and other water protection initiatives like our Citizen Science Water Monitoring Hubs. Lake Ontario Waterkeeper’s mission is to ensure our watershed is swimmable, drinkable, fishable for everyone. We do this by giving meaning and force to water protection laws and policy.
The Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan Steering Committee is seeking federal and provincial endorsement to officially re-designate the Degradation of Aesthetics Beneficial Use to “Not Impaired”.
We offer this submission to the Hamilton Harbour RAP Steering Committee to ensure that ongoing aesthetic problems in Hamilton Harbour’s waters are recognized and resolved and to ensure that the integrity of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is protected.
About the Hamilton Harbour and Region Remedial Action Plan
In 1986, the International Joint Commission recognized Hamilton Harbour as one of the original Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOC). Hamilton Harbour aesthetics was deemed impaired in 1992 with the causes listed as occasional oil sheens, algal blooms, objectionable turbidity, floating scum, debris, and putrid material.
In response, a Remedial Action Plan was put in place for Hamilton Harbour. Like other Areas of Concern, Hamilton Harbour must eliminate fourteen Beneficial Use Impairments (BUIs). One of which is the Degradation of Aesthetics.
Degradation of Aesthetics BUI
The Hamilton Harbour RAP’s BUI Status Re-Designation Report: Degradation of Aesthetics Report outlines the original IJC delisting criteria for the Degradation of Aesthetics BUI:
When the waters are devoid of any substance which produces a persistent objectionable deposit, unnatural color or turbidity, or unnatural odor (e.g., oil slick, surface scum).
In order for the aesthetic quality of the water to no longer be considered impaired, it must meet the following criteria as of 2012:
The waters are free of any substance due to human activity which produces a persistent objectionable deposit, unnatural colour or turbidity, unnatural odour (e.g. oil slick, surface scum, algae) for a period of three consecutive years.
In order to prove whether this criteria has been met, Hamilton Harbour RAP made 952 unique sampling events at 17 locations in 2012, 2015-2016, and 2018. At these 952 unique sampling events 3376 observations were made on the clarity, colour, odour and debris of the water. The results of these observations are calculated from the data present in Table 3 of the Report:
● 66% of observations were assessed as having excellent or good aesthetic condition.
● 21% of observations were assessed as having Fair aesthetic conditions. This is the minimum acceptable rating.
● 12% of observations were assessed as having poor (i.e., unacceptable) aesthetic condition.
Based on this data, the Hamilton RAP Report concludes that the waters in Hamilton Harbour and Region meet the criteria necessary to be considered “Not Impaired”.
If this recommendation for status re-designation is accepted, then Hamilton Harbour’s aesthetic water problems will be seen to be solved. The most extreme result of this could be that no further plans are developed to address aesthetic problems with Hamilton Harbour waters (including sewage debris, plastics pollution, and chronic beach debris). It could also mean that there is no more compelling case for provincial and federal support to help address ongoing aesthetic water quality problems.
The decision to re-designate is important and irreversible. If we declare “problem solved” now, we may reduce the number of people, programs, and dollars available to make further progress. Are we ready? Is this the right time? Is the Hamilton Harbour waterfront’s aesthetics problem really solved? Lake Ontario Waterkeeper’s field work, and evaluation of the Hamilton RAP Report suggests that the answer to these questions is an emphatic “no.”
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper’s 2015 Sewage Spill Investigation
On October 28th, 2015 a storm overwhelmed two of the underground tanks designed to hold wastewater overflow from Hamilton’s combined sewer system. The two holdings tanks called James St. N and Eastwood Park overflowed for 7 hours and forced 4.7 million litres of sewage into Hamilton Harbour. Partially treated sewage was also released from the Woodward treatment plant which bypassed for 10 hours into Red Hill Creek.
The Waterkeeper Investigation team was dispatched to Hamilton to record observations of the impact of this sewage spill on the on aesthetics to the Hamilton harbour. Observations made by the team on October 28th & 29th, 2015 found large plastic debris- namely plastic tampon applicators and needles-along the length of the rocky shoreline as well as floating in the water by the Waterfront Trail, which was one of the sampling sites for the Hamilton RAP Report. The photographic evidence gathered during site visits show a multitude of examples of visual sewage pollution, sewage debris, and plastic litter & debris.
Photographic Evidence from the 2015 Sewage Spill Investigation
Above: Sewage pollution causes large amounts of sewage debris to enter Hamilton Harbour documented in 2015, and published in several media stories.
During the 2015 investigation, photographic evidence of sewage debris was gathered. This includes the following items: condoms, syringes, and tampon applicators. The Degradation of Aesthetics BUI cannot be changed to “Not Impaired” status as long as sewage pollution causes a persistent accumulation of debris in the Hamilton Harbour.
Photographic Evidence of Litter
There is litter and plastic debris in the waters of the Hamilton Harbour. Debris and litter remain an aesthetic concern in Hamilton Harbour because you can find it throughout the entire Harbour shoreline. During the 2015 site visit by Lake Ontario Waterkeeper significant plastic debris was photographed along the Waterfront trail. The photos are provided below.
November 16, 2015.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/headlines/hamilton-s-waterfront-trail-closed-after-protest-reveals -disgusting-sewage-1.3321129.
Public Reports on Odour and Poor Water Aesthetics in the Harbour
During the 2018 season reports from members of the public were made about a bad smell, floating debris and scum at Leander Boat Club, Royal Hamilton Yacht Club, and along the waterfront trail. A post on Instagram provides photographic evidence of the state of Hamilton Harbour water aesthetics in 2018. Comments on this post indicate that the same water conditions were witnessed at LaSalle Park Marina and the port area. The following are photos that were gathered from the post made on September 17th, 2018.
Link to the instagram post documenting the smell and state of the water at Leander Boat club in Hamilton Harbour: https://www.instagram.com/p/Bn04QbjHQel/?igshid=rizp8f1uy48i&fbclid=IwAR3QUrP2xvNIRVVWnFwuHhP uDo8r3eUCjCWTUmd38of-90eRy_VsJ4N324A
The comment on the post states: “Hamilton Harbour smells like an outhouse. These pics don’t look like normal algae. Islands of white in brown masses floating at RHYC, Leander boat club and along the waterfront trail yesterday.”
Cootes Paradise Sewage Spill of 2019 - Water Aesthetics
The incidents reported above cannot be dismissed as rare or unusual aesthetic incidents. A multi-year, ongoing sewage spill into the Harbour was well-documented in media reports in 2019. Lake Ontario Waterkeeper followed reports of the spill closely. It began at an open combined sewer outfall in Chedoke Creek where 24 billion litres of sewage and rainwater leaked into the creek for over 4.5 years, from 2014 - 2018. The leak was found by a local resident who noticed the odour of sewage and filed a complaint. The following photos taken during the clean up of Chedoke Creek illustrate the state of the water aesthetics caused by the sewage spill.
Above: Sewage pollution causes large amounts of sewage debris to enter Hamilton Harbour documented in 2015, and published in several media stories .
The data that the Hamilton RAP Report relies on is not reliable
Based on the data shared in the Report, water aesthetics data was gathered from a multitude of organizations monitoring the following locations during a specific year:
● 2012 - Open water, 1001, Open water, 9030, Open water, 9031, Open water, 9033
● 2015-2016 - Cootes fishway, and;
● 2018 - 12 shoreline sites (listed below).
The report mentions they made environmental observations at every site they visited during these years, for a grand total of 3376 observations. That number may sound comprehensive, but the study itself is deeply flawed. While the sampling methodology has undoubtedly allowed this assessment study to collect data at comparatively low cost, it raises many questions.
Limited data in relation to time, location, and representation of the Hamilton Harbour
Lake Ontario experienced higher than normal water levels during the summers of 2017, and 2019. Yet, in the Report no data on water aesthetics was reported for 2017 or 2019. This is despite the fact that high water levels and wet weather are associated with worse water aesthetics, more litter and debris, and more sewage spills.
The data for the evaluation of water aesthetics was collected on an opportunistic basis at locations where existing programs for water sampling and watershed work were already underway. The shoreline sample locations in 2018 include:
1. Waterfront Trail 2. Bayfront boat launch 3. Macassa Bay 4. Pier 4 5. Pier 5 6. Pier 7 7. Pier 8
8. LaSalle boat launch 9. LaSalle marina 10. LaSalle Pier 11. LaSalle spit 12. northeast shoreline adjacent
CCIW
For example, the 12 shoreline locations (2 - 13 listed above) assessed in 2018 were not sampled evenly, or frequently enough. The average number of visits for the shoreline sites was 12, but the Massaca Bay was only sampled 5 times. Massaca Bay had the lowest AQI results for water colour, and the lowest overall AQI result when compared to the other 11 shoreline sites. Pier 5 and 7 were only sampled twice during the 2018 season.
Although mistakenly characterized as “random,” this data collection method is based on convenience sampling—which heavily restricts the sample pool. A representative sample should be an accurate and unbiased indication of the whole. When samples are not representative—when they are collected in such a way that some sites are less likely to be included than others, the result is sampling bias.
This can be seen, for example, at the 12 shoreline sites sampled in 2018. Sites like the Waterfront Trail, LaSalle Park Marina, or the Bayfront Boat Launch are maintained by the City of Hamilton, the City of Burlington, or the marina itself. By sampling these sites this would disproportionately favour sites already receiving clean up efforts, and exclude other, more problematic sites where no such routine maintenance takes place, but beneficial (recreational water) use is still impaired.
Given the nature of environmental problems which contribute to degradation of aesthetics restricting use of the water (e.g. combined sewer overflows which contribute sewage debris), it is highly likely these problem areas can be missed if sampling is sporadic, infrequent, and only done in augmentation of existing programs intended for other types and purposes of water monitoring.
Finally, the data does not provide evidence that the waters are free of any substance due to human activity which produces a persistent objectionable deposit, unnatural colour or turbidity, unnatural odour (e.g. oil slick, surface scum, algae) for a period of three consecutive years.
● Water aesthetic observations at the 12 public and accessible shoreline sites were only taken in 2018.
● Cootes fishway was only observed in 2015-2016, and;
● The Open Water locations were only observed in 2012.
To delist Degradation of Aesthetics criteria the HHRAP must present water aesthetics data for 3 consecutive years at consistent and random (unbiased by accessibility of the site) sampling locations. In order to delist the Degradation of Aesthetic Criteria the data for the three consecutive years should illustrate that Hamilton Harbour’s waters are no longer impaired for the required length of time outlined in the delisting criteria.
The Aesthetic Quality Index formula is flawed
To assess the Degradation of Aesthetics BUI the Hamilton RAP Report uses the Aesthetic Quality Index (AQI) developed for the Toronto RAP. The Toronto RAP methodology is based on a 1996 report by Thomas Heidtke and and Eric Tauriainen called “An Aesthetic Quality Index for Rouge River” (the Heidtke’s Report).
The Aesthetic Quality Index (AQI) is a method to translate environmental observations into a number. Observations are broken into four main categories: clarity, colour, odour, and debris. For each observation, a rating between 0–10 is given (e.g., green-coloured water is given an 8, while grey-coloured water would be a 2). The higher the number, the better the aesthetic conditions. The lower the number, the worse the aesthetic conditions.
The scores for each category are added together, then divided by four for an overall score (“the AQI”). Once the AQI value is determined, an aesthetic condition of Poor, Fair, Good, or Excellent is given.
AQI Range Aesthetic Condition
The vast majority of observations reported in the Report had either Good or Excellent scores.
The problem, however, is that the formula used by Hamilton Harbour RAP (based on the Toronto RAP methodology) does not match the formula in Heidtke’s Report. In Heidtke’s report, if any of the scores in any of the four categories match a control threshold (a predetermined low number), that “Poor” score overrides the total.
The chart below is from Heidtke’s report; it identifies the control threshold for each category, with examples.
Parameter Control Threshold Interpretation
If the score for any one category is at or below the control threshold, that “Poor” becomes the total score.
In Heidtke’s report, the control threshold is a crucial tool when using their methodology. From the report itself:
The failure of any environmental quality Index to consistently flag the presence of a limiting condition for a system under scrutiny is referred to as an "eclipsing problem". In such cases, critical information is hidden or lost within a simple index value.
If a sample was assigned a low score for one of the four endpoints it could not attain an AQI value above 8. An AQI value of 9 or greater was considered representative of excellent aesthetic condition, while samples with an AQI score below 6 were assessed as poor and considered to have unacceptable aesthetic condition.
In Hamilton, the total scores could be “Good” or “Fair”, even when the Heidtke method should result in a “Poor” score. This is a significant difference from Heidtke’s method and suggests that the Hamilton RAP Report scores are higher (more positive) than they should be. Waterkeeper recommends that the HHRAP re-analyze the data presented in the Report using the correct Aesthetic Quality Index (AQI) method presented by Thomas Heidtke and Eric Tauriainen.
REQUEST
Based on our photographic evidence and the flaws outlined above in the sampling method, we can conclusively state that following: Hamilton Harbour’s waterfront is not free of substances that produce a persistent objectionable deposit. Hamilton Harbour waters are not free of debris specifically trash and/or sewage debris. Thus, Hamilton Harbour’s Degradation of Aesthetics indicator must remain “Impaired”. Furthermore, serious efforts must be made to solve the chronic debris and pollution problems that continue to plague the Hamilton Harbour and shoreline areas.
In light of the above commentary, Waterkeeper recommends the following:
1. The HHRAP Steering Committee, provincial, and federal authorities leave the “Impaired” designation in place for the Degradation of Aesthetics BUI until Hamilton Harbour’s sewage, debris, and plastics problems have truly been solved.
2. Programs are put in place to clean up sewage debris until infrastructure programs
have been completed and the sources of the debris are eliminated.
3. When the designation is considered again in the future, a new study should be conducted over three consecutive years and using the correct scoring methodology, at a more representative selection of sites.
Waterkeeper has no objection to narrowing the BUI “Impaired” designation to specific locations in the Hamilton Harbour with chronic problems, provided that the public should be given an opportunity to comment on a revised proposal. Similarly, Waterkeeper has no objection to focusing restoration and protection programs in areas where aesthetic issues are most acute.
RESEARCH ARTICLES:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/hamilton-s-waterfront-trail-closed-after-pr otest-reveals-disgusting-sewage-1.3321129
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6128974-battle-to-end-spills-800-olympic-sized-swi mming-pools-of-sewage-dumped-into-hamilton-harbour/
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6119931-sewage-in-hamilton-harbour-came-from-late -october-storm/
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6119362-protest-over-disgusting-pollution-prompts-ci ty-to-close-waterfront-trail/
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6121647-waterfront-trail-reopens-after-pollution-scar e-city-is-flush-with-prevention-advice/
