Long Point Region Source Protection Area

Approved Assessment Report

Prepared on behalf of Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee

Under the Clean Water Act, 2006 (Ontario Regulation 287/07)

October 30, 2015

400 Clyde Road, Cambridge, ON N1R 5W6 www.sourcewater.ca

This page left blank intentionally.

Approved Assessment Report for the Long Point Source Protection Area within the Lake Erie Source Protection Region

October 30, 2015

This project has been made possible through funding support from the Government of Ontario.

Additional copies of this Assessment Report may be obtained by contacting:

Grand River Conservation Authority 400 Clyde Road, P.O. Box 729 Cambridge, ON N1R 5W6 Phone: 519-621-2761

For more information on the Clean Water Act, 2006 and how you can play a role in protecting drinking warer sources in the Lake Erie Source Protection Region, please visit our website: www.sourcewater.ca

Note: In June 2014 the Ministry of the Environment changed its name to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and the Ministry of Natural Resources changed its name to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The new and former names of both Ministries are used within this document. This page left blank intentionally.

Long Point Region Source Protection Area

APPROVED ASSESSMENT REPORT

Prepared on behalf of: Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee

Under the Clean Water Act, 2006 (Ontario Regulation 287/07)

October 30, 2015

400 Clyde Road, Cambridge, ON N1R 5W6 • www.sourcewater.ca

This page left blank intentionally.

Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In July 2010 the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee released the Draft Long Point Region Source Protection Area Assessment Report for a 35-day public comment period, during which members of the public, municipalities and others had the opportunity to view the draft, attend public meetings and submit comments to the Committee. Comments received during the consultation period were taken into consideration by the Committee, and revisions to the document were made, where necessary. These revisions were reflected in the Proposed Long Point Region Source Protection Area Assessment Report. The Proposed Assessment Report was posted for a second 30-day public comment period beginning October 8, 2010. All comments received during this second comment period were forwarded to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment with the submission of the Proposed Long Point Region Source Protection Area Assessment Report on November 25, 2010. The Long Point Region Source Protection Area Assessment Report received approval from the Ministry of the Environment on April 29, 2011. When new information became available, revisions were made to the Updated Long Point Region Source Protection Area Assessment Report. This report was posted for a public comment period beginning on April 15, 2011. All comments received during this comment period were considered by the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee. The Ministry of the Environment approved the Updated Long Point Region Assessment Report on February 27, 2012. Following the 2012 approval of the Updated Assessment Report further updates and new information has been added to the Long Point Region Assessment Report; these updates include new information regarding a nitrate Issue Contributing Area in Oxford County and a new drinking water system located in the Municipality of Bayham. A 30-day public consultation period took place from February 9 to March 10, 2015 and a separate, focused consultation was held from March 16 to April 10, 2015 for the new Elgin County – Municipality of Bayham section of the Assessment Report. The Long Point Region Source Protection Authority submitted the Updated Long Point Region Assessment Report to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change for approval on June 3, 2015. Comments received during all public consultation periods are summarized in Appendix A. The Assessment Report summarizes the technical studies undertaken in the Long Point Region Source Protection Area (watershed) to delineate areas around municipal drinking water sources that are most vulnerable to contamination and overuse. Within these vulnerable areas, historical, existing and possible future land use activities were identified that could pose a threat to municipal water sources. Technical studies include a characterization of the human and physical geography of the watershed, a water budget and water quantity stress assessment, an assessment of groundwater and surface water vulnerability, a land use activity inventory, and an evaluation of existing water quality contamination Issues. The Assessment Report provides an introduction to the Source Protection Planning process, and the roles and responsibilities of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee, municipalities and conservation authorities. Section 2 of the Assessment Report provides a summary of the human and physical geography of the Long Point Region watershed area, while Section 3 summarizes the water budget and stress assessment findings. Section 4 summarizes groundwater vulnerability, including Highly Vulnerable Aquifer areas and Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas. Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 summarize the studies undertaken for the municipal residential drinking water systems in the Counties of Oxford, Norfolk, Haldimand and

October 30, 2015 ES-1 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Elgin, including delineation of vulnerable areas (groundwater Wellhead Protection Areas and surface water Intake Protection Zones) and summaries of the threats assessment and Issues evaluation in each vulnerable area. Sections 9 and 10 provide information on how climate change in the area may affect the results of the Assessment Report and how Great Lakes agreements were considered as part of the work undertaken. Section 11 summarizes the findings in the Assessment Report and provides an outline of the next steps in developing a source protection plan for the Long Point Region Source Protection Area. The Long Point Region watershed area contains ten municipal drinking water systems, sourced within the Region. Three systems are located in Oxford County in the communities of Dereham Centre, Oxford South (communities of Norwich, Otterville and Springford) and the Town of Tillsonburg, all of which are groundwater systems. Combined, the systems serve over 19,000 people, the majority of which are in the Town of Tillsonburg. Norfolk County has five municipal-residential drinking water systems in the communities of Delhi, Port Dover, Port Rowan, Simcoe and Waterford. The Delhi system draws water from both surface and groundwater sources. Port Dover and Port Rowan draw water from intakes in Lake Erie. The communities of Simcoe and Waterford rely solely on groundwater sources. In total, approximately 32,200 people rely on municipal water supplies in Norfolk County, which represents almost half of the total population. One municipal-residential drinking water system is located in the portion of Haldimand County that falls in the Long Point Region watershed area. The Nanticoke water system, operated by Haldimand County, draws water from Lake Erie. The system serves the communities of Hagersville, Jarvis, Townsend, and the New Credit Reserve, as well as the Lake Erie Industrial Park. Elgin County has one municipal residential drinking water system, located in the Municipality of Bayham that serves the village of Richmond. The system is a groundwater system and serves approximately 50 homes in the village of Richmond. The findings of the Tier 2 Water Budget and Stress Assessment studies indicate that three municipal water systems require additional Tier 3 Water Quantity Stress Assessments: Delhi- Courtland, Simcoe, and Waterford in Norfolk County. The subwatersheds within which these water supplies fall were assessed as having either the potential for moderate or significant stress under current or future conditions. The Tier 3 Water Quantity Stress Assessments for these three systems were completed in April 2015. Information from the Tier 3 Water Quantity Stress Assessments will be added to a future Updated Assessment Report. An additional study was undertaken in 2010 to gather more detailed information on the Simcoe Nitrate Issue Contributing Area. As well, revisions have occurred to the delineations of the Nanticoke and Lehman Intake Protection Zone-2s and to the vulnerability scoring within the County of Oxford. In 2014 a study was undertaken to delineate a Nitrate Issue Contributing Area for wells located to the north of the Town of Tillsonburg. The results of the technical studies have been used to develop policies to protect sources of municipal drinking water. These policies have been developed by municipalities, conservation authorities, property and business owners, farmers, industry, health officials, community groups and others working together to develop a fair, practical and implementable Source Protection Plan. Public input and consultation has played a significant role throughout the process. The Proposed Source Protection Plan was submitted to the Minister of the Environment in

October 30, 2015 ES-2 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

December 2012. The Ministry of the Environment provided comments on the proposed plan in July 2014. The Amended Proposed Long Point Region Source Protection Plan was re- submitted to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change for approval on June 3, 2015.

Note: In June 2014, the Ministry of the Environment changed its name to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and the Ministry of Natural Resources changed its name to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The new and former names of both Ministries are used within this document.

October 30, 2015 ES-3 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

This page left blank intentionally.

October 30, 2015 ES-4 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1-1 1.1 Source Protection Planning Process ...... 1-2 1.2 Source Protection Authorities and Regions ...... 1-4 1.3 Source Protection Committee ...... 1-4 1.4 Financial Assistance ...... 1-6 1.5 Framework of the Assessment Report ...... 1-6 1.6 Continuous Improvement ...... 1-7 1.7 Public Consultation ...... 1-7 1.8 Overview of Source Protection Risk Assessment Process ...... 1-8 1.8.1 Vulnerable Areas ...... 1-9 1.8.2 Drinking Water Threats ...... 1-11 2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION ...... 2-1 2.1 Lake Erie Source Protection Region...... 2-1 2.2 Long Point Region Source Protection Area ...... 2-1 2.3 Population, Population Density and Future Projections ...... 2-2 2.4 Physiography ...... 2-7 2.4.1 Norfolk Sand Plain ...... 2-7 2.4.2 Haldimand Clay Plain ...... 2-7 2.4.3 Horseshoe Moraines/Mount Elgin Ridges ...... 2-7 2.5 Ground Surface Topography ...... 2-8 2.5.1 Bedrock Topography ...... 2-8 2.6 Geology ...... 2-13 2.6.1 Bedrock Geology ...... 2-13 2.6.2 Quaternary (Surficial) Geology ...... 2-14 2.6.3 Overburden Thickness ...... 2-16 2.7 Groundwater ...... 2-20 2.7.1 Aquifer Units ...... 2-20 2.7.2 Overburden Aquifers ...... 2-20 2.7.3 Bedrock Aquifer ...... 2-21 2.7.4 Groundwater Monitoring ...... 2-21 2.8 Groundwater Quality Across the Watershed ...... 2-25 2.9 Climate ...... 2-28 2.10 Land Cover and Land Use ...... 2-30 2.10.1 Forest and Vegetation Cover ...... 2-30 2.10.2 Wetlands ...... 2-31 2.10.3 Wetland and Forest Riparian Areas ...... 2-31 2.11 Surface Water ...... 2-34 2.11.1 Surface Water Characterization ...... 2-34 2.11.2 Surface Water Monitoring ...... 2-34

October 30, 2015 TOC-1 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.11.3 Big Otter Creek ...... 2-34 2.11.4 South Otter and Clear Creeks ...... 2-36 2.11.5 Big Creek ...... 2-36 2.11.6 Dedrick-Young Creeks ...... 2-37 2.11.7 Lynn River-Black Creek ...... 2-37 2.11.8 Nanticoke Creek ...... 2-38 2.11.9 Eastern Tributaries ...... 2-39 2.11.10 Water Control Structures ...... 2-39 2.12 Surface Water Quality ...... 2-40 2.12.1 Conditions Specific to the Big Otter Creek Watershed ...... 2-44 2.12.2 Conditions Specific to the Big Creek Watershed ...... 2-44 2.12.3 Conditions Specific to the Lynn River Watershed ...... 2-45 2.12.4 Conditions Specific to Nanticoke Creek Watershed ...... 2-46 2.12.5 Conditions Specific to Sandusk Creek ...... 2-47 2.12.6 Conditions Specific to Dedrick-Young Creek ...... 2-47 2.13 Aquatic Habitat ...... 2-47 2.14 Species at Risk ...... 2-51 2.15 Interactions Between Human and Physical Geography ...... 2-53 2.16 Watershed Characterization Data Gaps ...... 2-54 2.17 Watershed Characterization Section Summary ...... 2-54 3.0 WATER QUANTITY RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 3-1 3.1 Tier 2 Water Budget ...... 3-1 3.2 Water Use ...... 3-3 3.2.1 Municipal Systems...... 3-4 3.2.2 Private Drinking Water Supplies ...... 3-10 3.2.3 Non Drinking Water Use ...... 3-11 3.2.4 Permitted Rate ...... 3-15 3.2.5 Pumped Rate ...... 3-15 3.2.6 Consumptive Use ...... 3-17 3.3 Surface Water Budget ...... 3-18 3.3.1 Surface Water Model ...... 3-18 3.3.2 Surface Water Budget ...... 3-20 3.4 Groundwater Water Budget ...... 3-23 3.4.1 Groundwater Model ...... 3-23 3.4.2 Groundwater Budget ...... 3-24 3.5 Integrated Water Budget ...... 3-26 3.5.1 Big Otter Creek Above Maple Dell Road Subwatershed ...... 3-31 3.5.2 Otter Creek at Otterville Subwatershed ...... 3-31 3.5.3 Spittler Creek Subwatershed ...... 3-32 3.5.4 Otter Creek at Tillsonburg Subwatershed ...... 3-32 3.5.5 Little Otter Creek Subwatershed ...... 3-33

October 30, 2015 TOC-2 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

3.5.6 Lower Otter Creek Subwatershed ...... 3-33 3.5.7 South Otter and Clear Creek Subwatersheds ...... 3-34 3.5.8 Big Creek Above Cement Road Subwatershed ...... 3-34 3.5.9 Big Creek Above Kelvin Subwatershed ...... 3-35 3.5.10 Big Creek Above Delhi Subwatershed ...... 3-35 3.5.11 North Creek Subwatershed ...... 3-35 3.5.12 Big Creek Above Minnow Creek Subwatershed ...... 3-36 3.5.13 Big Creek Above Walsingham Subwatershed ...... 3-36 3.5.14 Venison Creek Subwatershed ...... 3-37 3.5.15 Lower Big Creek Subwatershed ...... 3-37 3.5.16 Dedrick Creek and Young/Hay Creeks Subwatersheds ...... 3-38 3.5.17 Lynn River Subwatershed...... 3-38 3.5.18 Black Creek Subwatershed ...... 3-39 3.5.19 Upper Nanticoke Creek Subwatershed ...... 3-39 3.5.20 Lower Nanticoke Creek, Sandusk Creek and Stoney Creek Subwatersheds ...... 3-39 3.6 Interactions Between Groundwater and Surface Water ...... 3-40 3.7 Tier 2 Water Quantity Stress Assessment ...... 3-42 3.7.1 Surface Water Stress Assessment ...... 3-42 3.7.2 Groundwater Stress Assessment ...... 3-56 3.7.3 Planned Condition Percent Water Demand ...... 3-59 3.7.4 Future Conditions Percent Water Demand ...... 3-59 3.7.5 Drought Scenario ...... 3-61 3.7.6 Uncertainty in Stress Classifications ...... 3-62 3.7.7 Uncertainty Assessment ...... 3-64 3.7.8 Groundwater Stress Assessment Results ...... 3-65 3.8 Uncertainty/Limitations ...... 3-71 3.9 Tier 2 Water Budget & Water Quantity Stress Assessment Peer Review ...... 3-71 3.9.1 Water Budget Peer Review ...... 3-71 3.9.2 Water Quantity Stress Assessment Peer Review ...... 3-72 3.9.3 Future Work...... 3-73 3.10 Section Summary ...... 3-73 4.0 WATER QUALITY RISK ASSESSMENT...... 4-1 4.1 Aquifer Vulnerability in Long Point Region Watershed Area ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Methodology ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Limitations and Uncertainty ...... 4-4 4.2 Highly Vulnerable Aquifers ...... 4-5 4.2.1 Vulnerability Scoring in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers...... 4-5 4.2.2 Managed Lands and Livestock Density for Highly Vulnerable Aquifers ...... 4-5 4.2.3 Percent Impervious Surfaces for Highly Vulnerable Aquifers ...... 4-10

October 30, 2015 TOC-3 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

4.2.4 Drinking Water Threats in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers ...... 4-11 4.2.5 Drinking Water Issues in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers ...... 4-12 4.3 Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ...... 4-17 4.3.1 Vulnerability Scoring Within Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ...... 4-17 4.3.2 Managed Lands and Livestock Density within Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ...... 4-18 4.3.3 Calculation of Impervious Surfaces for Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ...... 4-18 4.3.4 Drinking Water Threats within Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ...... 4-19 4.3.5 Drinking Water Issues within Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ...... 4-20

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Source Protection Timeline ...... 1-3 Figure 2-1: Long Point Region Watershed Area Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature, 1971-1997 ...... 2-28 Figure 2-2: Departures from Annual Precipitation (Climate Normal) ...... 2-29 Figure 2-3: Flow Distribution for Big Otter Creek near Calton Gauge ...... 2-35 Figure 2-4: Flow Distribution for Big Creek near Walsingham Gauge ...... 2-37 Figure 2-5: Flow Distribution for Lynn River at Simcoe Gauge ...... 2-38 Figure 2-6: Flow Distribution for Nanticoke Creek at Nanticoke Gauge ...... 2-39

LIST OF MAPS

Map 2-1: Lake Erie Source Protection Region ...... 2-4 Map 2-2: Long Point Region Watershed Boundary ...... 2-5 Map 2-3: Population and Population Density in Watershed by Municipality in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-6 Map 2-4: Physiography of the Long Point Region Watershed Area ...... 2-9 Map 2-5: Hummocky Topography in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-10 Map 2-6: Ground Surface Topography in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-11 Map 2-7: Bedrock Topography in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-12 Map 2-8: Bedrock Geology in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-17 Map 2-9: Quaternary (Surficial) Geology in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-18 Map 2-10: Overburden Thickness in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-19 Map 2-11: Water Table Surface in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-22 Map 2-12: Bedrock Potentiometric Surface in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-23 Map 2-13: Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-24

October 30, 2015 TOC-4 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-14: Land Cover in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-32 Map 2-15: Vegetation in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-33 Map 2-16: Selected Surface Water Control Structures in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-41 Map 2-17: Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network Sites in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-42 Map 2-18: Aquatic Habitat in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 2-50 Map 3-1: Water Budget and Water Quantity Stress Assessment Sub-watersheds in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 3-7 Map 3-2: Municipal Water Wells in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 3-8 Map 3-3: Surface Water Intakes in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 3-9 Map 3-4: Domestic Bedrock Wells in the Long Point Region Watershed...... 3-12 Map 3-5: Domestic Overburden Wells in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 3-13 Map 3-6: Permits to Take Water in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 3-14 Map 3-7: Groundwater Discharge Map in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 3-41 Map 3-8: Tier 2 Surface Water Stress Assessment in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 3-55 Map 3-9: Water Quantity Stress Levels by Groundwater Sub-watershed in the Long Point Region Watershed ...... 70 Map 4-1: Aquifer Vulnerability ...... 4-3 Map 4-2: Highly Vulnerable Aquifers ...... 4-13 Map 4-3: Percent Managed Lands in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers ...... 4-14 Map 4-4: Livestock Density in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers ...... 4-15 Map 4-5: Impervious Surface Related to Road Salt in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers ...... 4-16 Map 4-6: Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ...... 4-21 Map 4-7: Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas with Vulnerability Scoring ...... 4-22 Map 4-9: Livestock Density in Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ...... 4-24 Map 4-10: Impervious Surface Related to Road Salt in Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas ...... 4-25

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1: Members of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee ...... 1-4 Table 1-2: Long Point Region Assessment Report – Public Consultation Periods ...... 1-8 Table 2-1: Municipalities in the Long Point Region Watershed Area ...... 2-2 Table 2-2: Population and Population Projections in the Long Point Region Watershed Area ...... 2-2 Table 2-3: Population Density in the Long Point Region Watershed Area ...... 2-3 Table 2-4: 2006 Municipally-Serviced Population in the Long Point Region Watershed Area ...... 2-3 Table 2-5: Quaternary Deposits Located Within the Long Point Region Source Protection Study Area ...... 2-15

October 30, 2015 TOC-5 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 2-6: Number of Samples from Each Aquifer that Exceed MOE Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards ...... 2-26 Table 2-7: Land Cover in the Long Point Watershed Area ...... 2-30 Table 2-8: Summary and Descriptive Statistics for Priority Chemical Parameters ...... 2-43 Table 2-9: List of Species at Risk in Long Point Region Watersheds* ...... 2-51 Table 3-1: Reports and Tools Documenting the Water Budget ...... 3-2 Table 3-2: Long Point Region Watershed Area Subwatersheds ...... 3-3 Table 3-3: Top 10 Water Users in the Long Point Region Watershed Area (Bellamy & Wong, 2005) ...... 3-4 Table 3-4: Un-serviced Domestic Water Use ...... 3-10 Table 3-5: Permitted Rate ...... 3-15 Table 3-6: Non-Permitted Agricultural Water Use ...... 3-16 Table 3-7: Average Rate Pumped ...... 3-17 Table 3-8: Consumptive Demand (By Hydrologic Source Unit) ...... 3-18 Table 3-9: Hydrologic Response Units for Western Watersheds ...... 3-19 Table 3-10: Hydrologic Response Units for Eastern Watersheds ...... 3-20 Table 3-11: Average Annual Water Budget (Surface Water) ...... 3-21 Table 3-12: Surface Water Budget (mm) ...... 3-21 Table 3-13: Surface Water Budget (m3/s) ...... 3-22 Table 3-14: Average Annual Water Budget Summary (Groundwater) ...... 3-24 Table 3-15: Groundwater Water Budget (mm/yr) ...... 3-25 Table 3-16: Groundwater Water Budget (m3/s )...... 3-25 Table 3-17: Integrated Water Budget (mm/year) ...... 3-28 Table 3-18: Integrated Water Budget (m3/s) ...... 3-29 Table 3-19: Summary of Water Budget Components ...... 3-30 Table 3-20: Surface Water Potential Stress Thresholds ...... 3-42 Table 3-21: Surface Water Unit Consumptive Demands (L/s) ...... 3-42 Table 3-22: Surface Water Supply Flows (L/s) ...... 3-44 Table 3-23: Percent Water Demand Estimate (Surface Water) ...... 3-46 Table 3-24: Subwatershed Surface Water Potential for Stress Classification ...... 3-47 Table 3-25: Surface Water Sensitivity Analysis ...... 3-48 Table 3-26: Low or High Uncertainty based on Sensitivity Analysis ...... 3-50 Table 3-27: Lynn River Uncertainty Analysis ...... 3-51 Table 3-28: Groundwater Potential Stress Thresholds ...... 3-56 Table 3-29: Groundwater Unit Consumptive Demands (L/s) ...... 3-56 Table 3-30: Groundwater Percent Consumptive Demands (%) ...... 3-57 Table 3-31: Groundwater Stress Assessment ...... 3-57 Table 3-32: Groundwater Stress Classification (Current Demand) ...... 3-58 Table 3-33: Future Groundwater Municipal Demand Increases ...... 3-60 Table 3-34: Groundwater Stress Assessment Components with Future Demand Estimates ...... 3-60 Table 3-35: Results of Groundwater Drought Scenario - Maximum Drawdown ...... 3-61

October 30, 2015 TOC-6 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-36: Groundwater Sensitivity Analysis (Current Conditions) ...... 3-63 Table 3-37: Low or High Uncertainty based on Sensitivity Analysis ...... 3-64 Table 3-38: Subwatershed Groundwater Stress Classification ...... 3-65 Table 3-39: Breakdown of Consumptive Groundwater Demand By Sector ...... 3-66 Table 4-1: Managed Land Ratios for land use categories ...... 4-7 Table 4-2: Barn/Nutrient Unit Relationship Table ...... 4-8 Table 4-3: Data used for Managed Land and Livestock Density Calculations ...... 4-9 Table 4-4: Input Data for Impervious Surfaces in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers ...... 4-11 Table 4-5: Identification of Drinking Water Quality Threats in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers (HVA) ...... 4-11 Table 4-6: Input Data for Impervious Surfaces in Highly Vulnerable Significant Recharge Areas ...... 4-19 Table 4-7: Identification of Drinking Water Quality Threats in Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRA) ...... 4-19

October 30, 2015 TOC-7 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

This page left blank intentionally.

October 30, 2015 TOC-8 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION Following the public inquiry into the Walkerton drinking water crisis in May 2000, Justice Dennis O’Connor released a report in 2002 containing 121 recommendations for the protection of drinking water in Ontario. Since the release of the recommendations, the Government of Ontario has introduced legislation to safeguard drinking water from the source to the tap, including the Clean Water Act in 2006. The Act provides a framework for the development and implementation of local, watershed-based source protection plans, and is intended to implement the drinking water source protection recommendations made by Justice Dennis O'Connor in Part II of the Walkerton Inquiry Report. The Act came into effect in July 2007, along with the first five associated regulations.

The intent of the Clean Water Act, 2006 is to ensure that communities are able to protect their municipal drinking water supplies now and in the future from overuse and contamination. It sets out a risk-based process on a watershed basis to identify vulnerable areas and associated drinking water threats and Issues. It requires the development of policies and programs to reduce or eliminate the risk posed by significant threats to sources of municipal drinking water through science-based source protection plans.

Source Protection Committees are working in partnership with municipalities, Conservation Authorities, water users, property owners, the Ontario Ministries of the Environment (MOE) and Natural Resources (MNR), and other stakeholders to facilitate the development of local, science based source protection plans.

The Clean Water Act, 2006 and Drinking Water Source Protection are one component of a multi-barrier approach to protecting drinking water supplies in Ontario. The five steps in the multi-barrier approach include:

 Source water protection

 Adequate treatment

 Secure distribution system

 Monitoring and warning systems

 Well thought-out responses to adverse conditions

After the Walkerton Inquiry, the Government of Ontario enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, which provides new requirements and rules for the treatment, distribution and testing of municipal drinking water supplies. Together, the Clean Water Act, 2006 and Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, along with their associated regulations, provide the legislative and regulatory

October 30, 2015 1-1 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report framework to implement the multi-barrier approach to municipal drinking water protection in Ontario.

The protection of municipal drinking water supplies through the Clean Water Act, 2006 is one piece of a much broader environmental protection framework in Ontario. Water resources in Ontario are protected directly and indirectly through the federal and provincial governments, municipalities, conservation authorities and public health units. These agencies are responsible for protecting and improving water quality, water quantity and aquatic habitats, providing land use planning and development rules to ensure that water resources are not negatively affected, providing flood management and responses to low water availability, and many others. For more information on how water resources are protected in Ontario, please visit www.ontario.ca/ministry-environment-and-climate-change or call 1-800-565-4923.

1.1 Source Protection Planning Process The key objectives of this process are the completion of science-based Assessment Reports that identify the risks to municipal drinking water sources, and locally-developed Source Protection Plans that put policies in place to reduce the risks to protect current and future sources of drinking water.

Since 2005, municipalities and conservation authorities have been undertaking studies to delineate areas around municipal drinking water sources that are most vulnerable to contamination and overuse. Within these vulnerable areas, technical studies have identified historical, existing and possible future land use activities that are or could pose a threat to municipal water sources. This Assessment Report is a compilation of the findings of the technical studies undertaken in the Long Point Region Source Protection Area (watershed area).

The Draft Long Point Region Assessment Report was posted for a 35-day public consultation period in July 2010. During this time members of the public, municipalities and other interested bodies had the opportunity to provide comments on the draft report. All comments received during this period were considered by the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee and revisions to the document were made. The Proposed Long Point Region Assessment Report was then posted for a second period of public consultation in October 2010. The Proposed Long Point Region Assessment Report was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment on November 25, 2010. The Long Point Region Assessment Report received approval from the Ministry of the Environment on April 29, 2011.

An Updated Assessment Report (June 16, 2011) was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment on July 7, 2011. This occurred when new information created the need to update the Long Point Region Source Protection Area Assessment Report. Following minor clarifications requested by the Ministry of the Environment, the Updated Assessment Report (December 15, 2011) was re-submitted by the Long Point Region Source Protection Authority in January 2012 and was approved by the Ministry of the Environment on February 27, 2012.

In 2014, further studies were undertaken to better delineate the wellhead protection areas for wells located in the Tillsonburg North wellfield and a new section characterizing a municipal drinking water system serving the Municipality of Bayham was added. The Draft Updated Assessment Report was posted for a 30-day public consultation period from February 9 to March 10, 2015. A separate, focused consultation was held from March 16 to April 10, 2015 for the new Municipality of Bayham section that has been added to the Assessment Report. The comments and feedback received during the comment period were reviewed by the Source

October 30, 2015 1-2 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Protection Committee and considered in the finalization of this report. The Long Point Region Source Protection Authority submitted the Proposed Updated Assessment Report to the Minister on June 3, 2015. For details on the public comment periods and public consultation meetings, please see Section 1.7.

The Source Protection Plan is a document that contains policies to protect sources of drinking water against threats identified in the Assessment Report. The Plan sets out:

 how the risks posed by drinking water threats will be reduced or eliminated;  policy, threat and Issues monitoring programs;  who is responsible for taking action;  timelines for implementing the policies and programs; and  how progress will be measured.

The task of plan development involved municipalities, conservation authorities, property and business owners, farmers, industry, health officials, community groups and others working together to develop a fair, practical and implementable Source Protection Plan. Public input and consultation played a significant role throughout the process.

As illustrated in Figure 1-1, technical studies and the development of the Source Protection Plan has taken a number of years. The Source Protection Plan was submitted to the Minister of Environment on December 6, 2012 for review and approval. Revisions to the Source Protection Plan as a result of Ministry review comments received were consulted on together with changes to this Updated Assessment Report.

After approval of the Source Protection Plan, annual monitoring reports and progress reports on implementation will be required. Implementation of the Source Protection Plan, once it has been approved by the Minister of the Environment, will be led by municipalities in most cases. In some cases, conservation authorities, public health units, or other organizations may be involved in implementing policies in the Source Protection Plans. The implementers will be able to use a range of voluntary and regulatory programs and tools, including education and outreach; incentive programs; land use planning (zoning by-laws, and Official Plans); new or amended provincial instruments; Risk Management Plans; and prohibition. Actions to reduce the risk posed by activities found to be significant threats will be mandatory, since the Clean Water Act, 2006 requires that all significant threats cease to be significant.

Figure 1-1: Source Protection Timeline

October 30, 2015 1-3 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

1.2 Source Protection Authorities and Regions The province has organized the Source Protection Program using watershed boundaries, rather than municipal or other jurisdictions. The watershed boundary is the most appropriate scale for water management, since both groundwater and surface water flow across political boundaries. For Source Protection planning purposes, the watershed is referred to as a Source Protection Area under the Clean Water Act, 2006. The Long Point Region watershed area is called the Long Point Region Source Protection Area. Similarly, conservation authorities are referred to as Source Protection Authorities under the Clean Water Act, 2006 and are responsible for facilitating and supporting the development of source protection plans.

For the purposes of source protection, the Long Point Region Source Protection Authority is partnered with the Catfish Creek Source Protection Authority, Kettle Creek Source Protection Authority and Grand River Source Protection Authority to create the Lake Erie Source Protection Region. The Lake Erie Source Protection Region is one of 19 regions established across the province. The Grand River Source Protection Authority acts as the lead Source Protection Authority in the Lake Erie Region.

1.3 Source Protection Committee In the Long Point Region Source Protection Area, the Source Protection Planning process is being led by a multi-stakeholder steering committee called the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee. The Committee was formed in November 2007, and met monthly until the Proposed Grand River Source Protection Plan was submitted to the Ministry of the Environment in December 2012. Since then the Committee has continued to meet on a quarterly basis. The Committee is responsible for directing the development of the Assessment Reports and Source Protection Plans for each of the four Source Protection Areas in the Lake Erie Region. The list of members is summarized in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Members of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee

Name Seat Held Appointment Joined Resigned Craig Ashbaugh Chair Minister of the Environment Nov, 2007 Jul, 2015 Wendy Wright- Acting Chair Lake Erie Region Source Protection Sep, 2015 - Cascaden Committee Peter Busatto Municipal City of Guelph Nov, 2012 Sep, 2013 Marguerite Ceschi- Public Interest Grand River Source Protection Authority Nov, 2007 Sep, 2014 Smith Howard Cornwell Municipal Perth, Oxford Nov, 2007 - Alan Dale Public Interest Grand River Source Protection Authority Jan, 2012 - Paul General First Nations Six Nations of the Grand River Nov, 2007 - Mark Goldberg Public Interest Grand River Source Protection Authority Nov, 2007 Nov, 2011 Roy Haggart Municipal Brant, Brantford, Hamilton Nov, 2007 - John Harrison Public Interest Grand River Source Protection Authority Nov, 2007 - Andrew Henry Public Interest Elgin Area Primary Water Board Nov, 2007 - Carl Hill First Nations Six Nations of the Grand River Feb, 2012 Mar, 2012 Darryl Hill First Nations Six Nations of the Grand River Apr, 2012 - Ken Hunsberger Agriculture Agricultural Community Nov, 2007 - Robert E. Johnson First Nations Six Nations of the Grand River Mar, 2011 Apr, 2011

October 30, 2015 1-4 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 1-1: Members of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee

Name Seat Held Appointment Joined Resigned Jim Kirchin Public Interest Grand River Source Protection Authority Mar, 2015 - Ralph Krueger Business and Grand River Source Protection Authority Nov, 2007 - Industry Clynt King First Nations Mississaugas of the New Credit Mar, 2011 - Bryan LaForme First Nations Mississaugas of the New Credit Nov, 2007 Mar, 2011 Janet Laird Municipal City of Guelph Nov, 2007 Nov, 2012 Ian MacDonald Business and Grand River Source Protection Authority Nov, 2007 - Industry Christ Martin First Nations Six Nations of the Grand River Nov, 2007 Nov, 2010 George Montour First Nations Six Nations of the Grand River Apr, 2011 Jan, 2012 Dale Murray Municipal Grey, Dufferin, Halton, Wellington Nov, 2007 - Jim Oliver Municipal Haldimand, Norfolk Nov, 2007 - David Parker Agriculture Agricultural Community Nov, 2007 - Lloyd Perrin Municipal Elgin, Middlesex, London Nov, 2007 - Phil Wilson Public Interest Nanticoke Grand Valley Water Supply Nov, 2007 - Geoff Rae Public Interest Nanticoke Grand Valley Water Supply Nov, 2007 Jul, 2010 Peter Rider Municipal City of Guelph Oct, 2013 - Richard Seibel Aggregate Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Assoc. Nov, 2007 Aug, 2011 Industry Thomas Schmidt Municipal Waterloo Region Nov, 2007 - George Schneider Aggregate Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Assoc. Oct, 2011 - Industry Bill Strauss Public Interest Grand River Source Protection Authority Jul, 2012 - Bill Ungar Business and Grand River Source Protection Authority Nov, 2007 - Industry Mark Wales Agriculture Agricultural Community Nov, 2007 - Don Woolcott Public Interest Grand River Source Protection Authority Nov, 2007 - Wendy Wright- Public Interest Grand River Source Protection Authority Nov, 2007 - Cascaden

October 30, 2015 1-5 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Message from the Committee The overall objective of the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee, in partnership with local communities and the Ontario government, is to direct the development of source protection plans that protect the quality and quantity of present and future sources of municipal drinking water in the Lake Erie Source Protection Region. We will work with others to gather technical and traditional (local and aboriginal) knowledge on which well-informed, consensus-based decisions can be made in an open and consultative manner. In developing the Source Protection Plan, the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee intends to propose policies that are environmentally protective, effective, economical, and fair to local communities. The committee will strive to develop policies that are practical and implementable, and that focus limited resources on areas that net the greatest benefit, while recognizing that the plan must address significant threats so that they cease to be significant. Where possible, the committee will strive to develop policies and programs that also provide a benefit to broader protection of water quality and quantity. The process to assess drinking water threats and Issues will be based on the best available science, and where there is uncertainty, we will strive to follow the precautionary approach.

The Committee’s Terms of Reference for the Long Point Region Source Protection Area Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan was submitted to the Minister of the Environment in December 2008. The Terms of Reference sets out the work plan for completing both the Assessment Report and Source Protection Plan, and received Ministerial approval on July 13, 2009. A copy of the Long Point Region Source Protection Area Terms of Reference can be found at: www.sourcewater.ca.

1.4 Financial Assistance Section 97 of the Clean Water Act, 2006 establishes the Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program. The purpose of the program is to provide financial assistance to those whose activities and properties may be affected by the implementation of the Source Protection Plan. The program also provides for outreach and education programs to raise awareness of the importance and opportunities for individuals to take actions to protect sources of drinking water. Ontario Regulation 287/07 (General) further clarifies the details of the Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program.

Under this program, Early Action Programs funded by the Ministry of the Environment have directed grants to landowners within close proximity to municipal wells or surface water intakes to undertake projects to reduce existing potential contamination sources. Communications and outreach efforts have also occurred to persons and businesses in these areas. The program had funding through 2013 to provide grants to undertake Early Response Programs to address significant drinking water threats identified in the Long Point Region Source Protection Area Proposed Assessment Report, in advance of approved source protection plans. The Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee will continue to request that the province fund the program beyond 2013 in order to provide financial assistance to property owners affected by new policies and risk reduction strategies that may result from approved source protection plans.

1.5 Framework of the Assessment Report The Long Point Region Source Protection Area Assessment Report was completed in compliance with Ontario Regulation 287/07 (General) under the Clean Water Act, 2006, which

October 30, 2015 1-6 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report sets out the minimum requirements for Assessment Reports. In addition, the technical work summarized in this Assessment Report was completed in conformance with the Technical Rules: Assessment Report under O.Reg. 287/07. The technical work was undertaken by municipalities and the Grand River Conservation Authority, as the lead source protection authority in the Lake Erie Source Protection Region. Funding to complete the technical studies for the Assessment Report was provided by the Province of Ontario.

Within the Long Point Region Source Protection Area (SPA), the Counties of Elgin, Haldimand, Norfolk and Oxford supply drinking water through ten municipal drinking water systems, sourced within the Region. Six systems draw water from groundwater sources; one system is supplied from both groundwater and surface water (North Creek in the Big Creek watershed); and three systems are supplied by intakes in Lake Erie.

The Clean Water Act, 2006 focuses on the protection of municipal drinking water supplies; however, the Act allows for other water systems to be considered, including clusters of private wells, communal systems, and other non-municipal supplies. Only municipalities within which the supplies are located or the Minister of the Environment have the power to add non-municipal systems. To date, no municipalities in the Long Point Region Source Protection Area have designated non-municipal drinking water supplies under the Clean Water Act, 2006.

The technical studies summarized in this Assessment Report start with information at the watershed scale, and then move to the municipal drinking water system scale. The document is organized into the following sections: Watershed Characterization; Water Budget and Water Quantity Stress Assessment; Water Quality Risk Assessment (including Groundwater Vulnerability, Wellhead Protection Areas and Intake Protection Zones); State of Climate Change Research; Great Lakes Considerations; and Conclusions.

The descriptions of the technical work provided in the Assessment Report are summaries of more detailed technical reports. In order to find more detail on any of the components of the Assessment Report, the reader is encouraged to view the technical studies and background reports available online in full at www.sourcewater.ca.

1.6 Continuous Improvement The findings of this Updated Assessment Report are based on the best available information. It is recognized that new information that informs the findings of this Assessment Report will become available in the future. Beyond the completion of this Assessment Report, municipalities and conservation authorities will continue to refine and improve the findings, and attempt to address the data gaps documented in this report. As new or improved information becomes available, the relevant components of the Assessment Report will be amended as required. Opportunities for input and review of updated Assessment Reports will be made available to those affected by the proposed changes.

1.7 Public Consultation Throughout the development of the Long Point Region Assessment Report there have been multiple periods of public consultation. During each consultation period members of the public, municipalities and other interested bodies were invited to review the Assessment Report documents. These documents were made available via the www.sourcewater.ca website and hard copies were also available at the conservation authority and municipal administrative offices. A series of public meetings were also held during each public consultation period. Table

October 30, 2015 1-7 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

1-2 below provides details regarding each of the public consultation periods held regarding the Long Point Region Assessment Report.

Table 1-2: Long Point Region Assessment Report – Public Consultation Periods

Document / Notification Consultation Public Meetings Notice Date Period Date Location

Long Point Region Conservation Draft Aug 5, 2010 Jul 9, 2010 – Authority, Tillsonburg Assessment Jul 9, 2010 Report Aug 17, 2010 Aug 10, 2010 Talbot Gardens Arena (Simcoe)

Proposed Mar 5, 2010 – Assessment Mar 5, 2010 N/A * N/A * Report Apr 9, 2010

Draft Updated Apr 15, 2011 – Assessment Apr 15, 2011 May 9, 2011 Talbot Gardens Arena (Simcoe) Report May 21, 2011

Long Point Region Conservation Updated Feb 17, 2015 Feb 9, 2015 – Authority, Tillsonburg Assessment Feb 9, 2015 Report Mar 10, 2015 Feb 19, 2015 Simcoe Recreation Centre

Updated Assessment Report: Mar 16, 2015 – Mar 26, 2015 Elgin County Mar 16, 2015 Richmond United Church Apr 10, 2015 – Municipality of Bayham Section * no public meeting required – comments received were appended to the submission package

During each period of public consultation members of the public, municipalities or other interested bodies were able to submit comments to the Source Protection Committee. Comments could be submitted via regular mail, e-mail, fax, or in person at a public consultation meeting. The Committee in turn, considered these comments following each period of public consultation.

All comments received by the Source Protection Committee during periods of public consultation are included in Appendix A.

1.8 Overview of Source Protection Risk Assessment Process Source Protection Area Assessment Reports are summaries of technical studies that identify:

 The vulnerable areas around municipal-residential drinking water sources  How “vulnerable” the vulnerable areas are  Where potential threats to water quality and quantity can be found in each vulnerable area

October 30, 2015 1-8 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

 The activities that pose the biggest threat to human health  How significant the risk of the threat is of contaminating or depleting the water supply

1.8.1 Vulnerable Areas What are vulnerable areas? The Clean Water Act, 2006 identifies four types of vulnerable areas related to drinking water sources:  Highly Vulnerable Aquifer (HVA) areas  Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRA)  Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA)  Intake Protection Zones (IPZ)

The first three vulnerable areas are associated with groundwater, while intake protection zones are associated with surface water (rivers and lakes). The Highly Vulnerable Aquifer areas, Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas and Wellhead Protection Areas are determined through complex modeling of the geology and groundwater flow in an area, as well as the permeability of surface material above the groundwater (aquifers). The Intake Protection Zones are determined by assessing the flow of surface water in the river or lake.

Wellhead Protection Areas and Intake Protection Zones are developed specifically around municipal water supplies (around groundwater wells or surface water intakes). Highly Vulnerable Aquifers and Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas are assessed at the watershed scale, and are not necessarily associated with an existing municipal drinking water system.

What is vulnerability? The word “vulnerability” describes how easily a source of water (aquifer, river or lake) can become polluted with a dangerous material. The vulnerability of an area can range from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most vulnerable. The process for measuring vulnerability is different for aquifers, rivers and lakes.

Groundwater Vulnerability Municipal wells draw their water from underground areas called “aquifers.” These are places where water fills cracks in bedrock or spaces between grains of sand or gravel.

Aquifers are replenished when water from rain and melting snow soaks into the ground. Sometimes, the water can carry pollutants from the surface to an aquifer.

It can take years, or even decades, for water to move from the surface to the aquifer or to move within an aquifer toward a well. The speed depends on the characteristics of the soil and bedrock in the area.

Sometimes, water can find a shortcut from the surface to the aquifer, such as through an abandoned well or an old gravel pit. These are referred to in the Assessment Report as transport pathways.

To determine the vulnerability score for an aquifer, question 1 had to be answered:

1. How quickly does water move vertically from the surface down to the aquifer?

October 30, 2015 1-9 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

 This is called “intrinsic vulnerability” and is ranked as low, medium or high, depending on the nature of the soil and bedrock in the area.  The answer to this question was used to determine where the Highly Vulnerable Aquifer areas are.

To determine the vulnerability score of areas near a municipal well, question 2 had to be answered, and combined with the answers to question 1.

2. How quickly does water move horizontally through an aquifer to the well?  This information was used to draw Wellhead Protection Areas around each municipal groundwater well. WHPAs are divided into rings called Time-of-Travel zones. The innermost zone is a 100-metre circle around the well. The other zones are set at times- of-travel of 2 years, 5 years and 25 years.

To get the vulnerability score for a WHPA, both the rates of vertical and horizontal movement of water through the ground were used. Generally, the scores are highest immediately around the well and lower further away. Because of the proximity to the well, the 100-metre zone around the well was given a vulnerability score of 10, as required by the Ministry of the Environment Assessment Report Technical Rules (2009). Usually, the most vulnerable areas in a WHPA (score of 8 to 10) are in the 2 year time-of-travel zone. For some wells, land may still be highly vulnerable in the 5 year time-of-travel zone.

Surface Water Vulnerability River intakes can be contaminated when dangerous materials are spilled into the water or on nearby land. It may take only a few minutes or hours for spilled material to reach a drinking water intake on a river or lake.

Intake Protection Zones (IPZ) have been established around each municipal intake. These are areas within which a spill or leak may get to the intake too quickly for the operators of the municipal water treatment plant to shut the intake down while the pollutant passes by.

As part of the technical studies, researchers determined how quickly water moves downstream or across a lake in various conditions. They identified streams, municipal storm sewers or rural drains that enter the river or lake upstream of, or close to the intake. Vulnerability scores range from 1 to 10, with 10 being the most vulnerable.

River Intakes The vulnerability of river-based intakes is assessed differently than lake-based intakes. River intakes have three Intake Protection Zones:

IPZ-1 The 200-metre area immediately upstream of the intake. Vulnerability scores range from 9 to 10. IPZ-2 This is the area where water can reach the intake in a specified time, usually two to six hours, based on how much time the operator needs to shut down the intake when a spill occurs upstream. Vulnerability scores range from 6.3 to 9.

October 30, 2015 1-10 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

IPZ-3 Areas further upstream that may affect an intake. The vulnerability score would be less than the IPZ-2 score for that intake. Great Lake Intakes For Lake Erie intakes, researchers studied how water moves in the area around the intake, based on currents, winds and other factors. They also identified onshore areas drained by rivers, streams, storm sewers and other drains that empty into the lake near the intake.

There are three types of Intake Protection Zones for lake intakes:

IPZ-1 A one-kilometre circle around the intake, which may include some onshore areas. Vulnerability score ranges from 5 to 7. IPZ-2 This is the area where water can reach the intake in a specified time, usually two to six hours, based on how much time the operator needs to shut down the intake when a spill occurs upstream. Vulnerability scores range from 3.5 to 6.3. IPZ-3 An area where the storage or handling of a chemical in large amounts could, if the facility fails, seriously affect the quality of water at the intake. All such activities are considered significant threats. No vulnerability score is assigned to a Great Lake IPZ-3.

1.8.2 Drinking Water Threats What are threats to drinking water? Researchers have studied the areas around municipal wells and intakes to identify the human activities that could threaten municipal water supplies.

There are three categories of threats – chemicals, pathogens and water quantity threats.

Chemical threats include things like solvents, fuels, fertilizers, pesticides and similar products. They can be found in many different places such as factories, storage depots, gasoline stations or farms.

A pathogen is a dangerous micro-organism (e.g. bacteria or virus) found in human or animal waste. For example, human pathogens can be found in septic tanks; farm manure contains animal pathogens.

Water quantity threats are activities that reduce the ability of water to “recharge” or move from the surface to an aquifer, and activities that contribute to the overuse of water in an area.

How are the locations of potential threats identified? Researchers working for municipalities or conservation authorities have used a variety of means to identify the locations of potential threats. They include things such as provincial pesticide registries, publicly available industrial databases, interviews with property owners, questionnaires and other means.

October 30, 2015 1-11 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Details on individual threats, including their location and information will not be identified in the Assessment Report. Property owners will be notified directly if it is believed that an activity on their land is a potential threat in order to confirm the information.

Assigning ‘Hazard Ratings’ to Activities Not all threats are equal. The level of risk to human health posed by particular chemicals and pathogens depends on several factors including:

 The amount  The toxicity  How it behaves in the environment (e.g. Does the chemical move rapidly or slowly through the ground? How long do bacteria live in groundwater?) The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has produced a table identifying hundreds of potential chemical and pathogen threats. The threats have been given a score on a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most dangerous. This is known as the “hazard rating.” The table indicates where activities will be threats, based on the level of vulnerability.

Calculating Threat Level: Low, Moderate or Significant The goal of the Clean Water Act, 2006 is to reduce the risk posed by significant threats to water and to prevent new significant threats from developing. So, it is necessary to sort out which potential threats are significant and which pose low or moderate risks. This is done by calculating the “risk score.”

The risk score is a combination of two factors: the vulnerability of the water source (on a scale of 1 to 10) and the hazard rating of the threat (also on a scale of 1 to 10).

The risk score is calculated by multiplying the two factors together to provide a score out of 100. The score is then put into one of three categories; significant, moderate, or low.

Threat Risk Score Significant 80 – 100 Moderate 60 -79 Low 41 - 59 (Threats with risk scores lower than 40 do not have to be dealt with under the Clean Water Act, 2006.)

Examples

Significant Chemical Threat A chemical used in manufacturing has been identified as a possible cause of cancer in humans. It moves easily through the ground and does not break down. It has a hazard rating of 9. A factory just 100 metres upstream from a river intake has a storage tank containing a large amount of the chemical. If the tank were to leak, the chemical could get to the intake in a few minutes. The vulnerability score where the tank is located is 9. The risk score (vulnerability x hazard) would be 81, making it a significant threat.

October 30, 2015 1-12 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Significant Pathogen Threat - Residential A home near a municipal well has an old, failing septic system and untreated sewage is leaking into the ground. The area has a vulnerability score of 10 and the sewage has a hazard rating of 10. The result is a risk score of 100 making it a significant threat.

Significant Pathogen Threat – Farm A farmer spreads manure on his fields to fertilize them. There is a municipal well on the property next door. The vulnerability score for the farmer’s land is 8. The hazard rating for manure is 10. The result is a risk score of 80, making it a significant threat.

What does this mean for your property? A property owner or business can use the Assessment Report to determine whether an activity on their property might be classified as a significant threat. If your property is close to a municipal drinking water system, you can use the vulnerability maps in Sections 5 to 7 of this report to determine whether your property is in a vulnerable area with a score of 8 to 10. If your property is located in a wellhead protection area or intake protection zone with a score of 8 to 10, then you can use the Tables of Drinking Water Threats compiled by the Ministry of the Environment to determine whether any activities on your property might be considered a significant threat. The Tables of Drinking Water Threats can be accessed using the following link: www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/tables-drinking-water-threats

If an activity is identified as a significant threat, the owner will be required to reduce the risk posed by the activity, or demonstrate that actions taken by the owner have already reduced the risk.

That is why it is a good idea to think about any opportunities you have right now to decrease the risk that an activity on your land could pollute a municipal water source.

That action might include:

 For an industry: developing a spill response program or upgrading chemical storage facilities  For a rural resident: upgrading an old septic system or decommissioning an old well  For a farmer: upgrading fuel tanks or developing a nutrient management plan

The Province of Ontario has made funding available under the Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program to help landowners undertake some of these actions and more. To learn more, go to www.sourcewater.ca and look under Stewardship Program or contact your local conservation authority.

As of 2014 the Province has discontinued the Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program.

October 30, 2015 1-13 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

This page left blank intentionally.

October 30, 2015 1-14 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.0 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION Understanding the human and physical characteristics of the watershed is important to protecting and managing water. Interactions between surface water, groundwater and potential sources of contamination require an understanding of the physical characteristics of the bedrock and surficial geology, physiographic regions, climate and significant natural features within the watershed. Additionally, how the people of the watershed interact with these physical characteristics plays an ever-increasing role in determining overall health of the ecosystem. The following sections are intended to provide information on the physical and human characteristics of the Long Point Region watershed area.

2.1 Lake Erie Source Protection Region In an effort to share knowledge and resources for the purposes of developing source protection plans, a partnership was formed in 2004 between the Grand River, Long Point Region, Catfish Creek and Kettle Creek Conservation Authorities to form the Lake Erie Source Protection Region. The partnership was formalized in 2007 by Ontario Regulation 284/07 (Source Protection Areas and Regions) under the Clean Water Act, 2006. The Grand River Conservation Authority, referred to in the regulation as the Grand River Source Protection Authority, acts as the lead source protection authority for the region.

Map 2-1 shows the area covered by the Lake Erie Region, including municipal boundaries and main rivers and tributaries. The four Source Protection Authorities agreed to jointly undertake research, public education, and watershed planning and management for the advancement of drinking water source protection for the respective watersheds. The watersheds have a long history of partnership and cooperation, and also have a natural association by containing the majority of inland rivers and streams flowing from Ontario directly into Lake Erie.

With a population of more than 1 million people (Statistics Canada Census 2006; GSP Group, 2010), the Source Protection Region represents a diverse area, ranging from intense agricultural production to large and rapidly expanding urban areas. The region spans an area from the City of St. Thomas in the west, to Halton Hills on the east, and as far north as Dundalk. The area includes, in whole or in part, 49 upper, lower and single tier municipalities, as well as two First Nations communities (LPRCA, 2008). Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 list the municipalities, population and population projections in the Long Point Region Watershed Area.

2.2 Long Point Region Source Protection Area The Long Point Region watershed area covers an area of approximately 2,900 km2 in Southern Ontario. Map 2-2 shows the several watercourses and watersheds that make up Long Point Region, each with their own unique traits and values. The combined length of all the streams and their tributaries equals over 3,700 km. The Long Point Region watershed area is almost 100 km at its widest point and 60 km running north to south and has 225 km of Lake Erie shoreline, including the internationally renowned Long Point sand spit.

The ground surface elevation ranges from 357 m above sea level in the northwest (west of Norwich), to 169 m above sea level in the southeastern limits of the study area along the Lake Erie shoreline. Moderate relief is apparent in the central part of the study area (north of Tillsonburg, Otterville, Courtland, and Waterford) corresponding to the Tillsonburg, Courtland, St. Thomas and Paris moraines.

Early settlers were attracted to the area due to the presence of flat plains, which were more easily cleared. Other attractions were the transportation afforded by Lake Erie, the abundance

October 30, 2015 2-1 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report of fish, wildlife and fur as well as the moderate climate. The subsequent alteration of the plains and harvest of the surrounding heavily forested lands has had a significant impact on the surface and groundwater quality and quantity.

Table 2-1: Municipalities in the Long Point Region Watershed Area

Upper/Single Tier Municipality Lower Tier Municipality Township of Southwest Oxford Oxford County Town of Tillsonburg Township of Norwich County of Brant Norfolk County Haldimand County Municipality of Bayham Elgin County Township of Malahide

Although there are two First Nations communities located in the Lake Erie Region, neither of these communities are in the Long Point Region Watershed. As such, a map representing the First Nations communities is not included in the Long Point Region Source Protection Area Assessment Report.

2.3 Population, Population Density and Future Projections According to the 2006 Statistics Canada Census, the Long Point Region watershed area had a population of approximately 112,893 people. Table 2-2 shows the breakdown of the population in each municipality for the area that falls within the Long Point Region boundaries. Table 2-2 also summarizes the 2026 and 2056 population projections by municipality. The 2026 projections are based on municipal population projection estimates from municipal official plans, master servicing plans or other municipal documents. The same growth rates and assumptions used for the 2026 projections were applied for the period up to 2056 to estimate the 2056 projections. A detailed summary of population and population projections in the Long Point Region watershed area is provided in the report entitled Grand River, Long Point Region, Catfish Creek and Kettle Creek Watershed Areas: Population Forecasts, January 2010, available online at www.sourcewater.ca.

Table 2-2: Population and Population Projections in the Long Point Region Watershed Area Municipality 2006 Population* 2026 Projection* 2056 Projection* County of Brant 1,360 1,456 1,616 Haldimand County 11,416 12,811 14,766 Norfolk County 66,643 71,996 87,488 Township of Norwich 9,087 11,020 13,610 Township of Southwest Oxford 2,206 2,681 3,357 Town of Tillsonburg 14,822 20,600 27,700 Municipality of Bayham 6,689 8,713 11,561 Township of Malahide 670 909 1,266 Total 112,893 130,186 161,364 Source: Statistics Canada Census, 2006; GSP Group Inc., 2010. *Total population and projected population within Long Point Region watershed area boundary by municipality

October 30, 2015 2-2 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-3 and Table 2-3 illustrate the population density by municipality within the Long Point Region watershed area. The watershed area is mainly rural, with low population density. The most densely populated areas include the Town of Tillsonburg in Oxford County, and the communities of Simcoe and Delhi in Norfolk County.

Table 2-3: Population Density in the Long Point Region Watershed Area 2026 Projected 2006 Population 2056 Projected Population Municipality/Reserve Density Population Density 2 Density 2 (people/km )* 2 (people /km )* (people /km )* County of Brant 9.7 10.4 11.5 Haldimand County 26.3 29.5 34.0 Norfolk County 42.4 45.8 55.6 Township of Norwich 27.7 33.6 41.5 Township of Southwest Oxford 20.3 24.7 30.9 Town of Tillsonburg 672.6 934.8 1257.0 Municipality of Bayham 27.5 35.9 47.6 Township of Malahide 18.7 25.4 35.4 Source: Statistics Canada Census, 2006; GSP Group Inc., 2010. *Prorated to the area of the municipality that falls within the Long Point Region Watershed

The population of the watershed that receives municipal water supplies is approximately 58,749, which represents over 52 percent of the 2006 watershed population. Table 2-4 provides a breakdown of the serviced population by municipality for 2006.

Table 2-4: 2006 Municipally-Serviced Population in the Long Point Region Watershed Area Municipality 2006 Population* County of Brant 0 Haldimand County 5,130 Norfolk County 32,220 Township of Norwich 4,306 Township of Southwest Oxford 188 Town of Tillsonburg 14,822 Municipality of Bayham 1,100 Township of Malahide 0 Total 58,749 Source: Statistics Canada Census, 2006; GSP Group Inc., 2010. *Population receiving municipality serviced drinking water within Long Point Region watershed area boundary by municipality

There are no residents in Brant County or Township of Malahide that are within the Long Point Region watershed that are serviced by municipal drinking water.

October 30, 2015 2-3 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-1: Lake Erie Source Protection Region

October 30, 2015 2-4 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-2: Long Point Region Watershed Boundary

October 30, 2015 2-5 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-3: Population and Population Density in Watershed by Municipality in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-6 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.4 Physiography The physiographic features (as mapped by Chapman and Putnam, 1984) within the Long Point Region watershed area are presented in Map 2-4. These landforms were shaped by glacial processes occurring during the Late Wisconsinan glaciation, and define the three main physiographic regions within the Long Point Region: the Horseshoe Moraines, the Norfolk Sand Plain, and the Haldimand Clay Plain.

There are direct relationships between physiography, groundwater and surface water hydrology. In general, areas with fine-grained clays lying at the surface (e.g. the Haldimand Clay Plain) tend to have more tributaries than those areas where coarse-grained sediments dominate the surficial sediments. This is due to the low infiltration capacity of clay-rich soils. Precipitation falling on the clay plain commonly travels as overland flow to surface water features rather than infiltrating to the groundwater system. In contrast, areas with coarser sands and gravels at the surface (e.g., the Norfolk Sand Plain and moraines) have fewer tributaries as a larger portion of precipitation percolates downward to recharge the groundwater system.

2.4.1 Norfolk Sand Plain The Norfolk Sand Plain is characterized as a low-relief, silty sand and gravel sand plain that extends through most of the western and central portions of the Long Point Region. The sand plain is wedge shaped with a broad curved base along the Lake Erie shoreline tapering northward to a point near Brantford on the Grand River. The sand plain is rich in water and is intensively used as an irrigation source for both mixed farming and cash crops. Many private wells have also been completed in the unconfined, shallow sand aquifer. However, since the soils are more permeable, this also allows for surficially applied chemicals to enter the groundwater system and potentially impact well supplies.

2.4.2 Haldimand Clay Plain The area east of the communities of Waterford and Simcoe is characterized by a low-relief lacustrine clay plain (Chapman and Putnam, 1984), referred to as the Haldimand Clay Plain. The Clay Plain consists of fine-grained silts and clays deposited at the bottom of a deep glacial lake basin during the Port Huron Stade, about 13,000 years ago. It is characterized by heavy clay soils which are relatively impermeable, resulting in a high level of runoff and little groundwater recharge. Much of the land is poorly drained and is used predominantly as livestock pastures and for soybean, corn and hay production. In this area, groundwater is generally obtained from the bedrock of the Dundee Formation and the Detroit River Group because sufficient quantities of water cannot be obtained from the overburden. Groundwater drawn from the bedrock aquifers in this area is often poor in quality as a result of naturally elevated concentrations of sulphur, salts and minerals in the water.

2.4.3 Horseshoe Moraines/Mount Elgin Ridges The Horseshoe Moraines physiographic region includes the Paris and Galt Moraines that are located in the central portion of the Long Point Region and provide low to moderate relief above the surrounding sand plain. The Paris and Galt Moraines, oriented in a north-south direction, are scarcely visible in the Long Point Region as they have been either eroded or buried by overlying glaciolacustrine or glaciofluvial sediments (Barnett, 1982). While not identified as hummocky topography, the general locations of these moraines are shown in Map 2-5. The Mount Elgin Ridges are situated in the northwestern portion of the Long Point Region. They include several end moraines that provide low to moderate relief above the surrounding sand

October 30, 2015 2-7 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report plain and in some areas exhibit slightly hummocky topography. Several of these moraines were deposited at the front of the Lake Erie ice sublobe during the Wisconsin glaciation (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). These moraines, which run east-west roughly paralleling the current Lake Erie shoreline, include (from north to south) the St. Thomas, Norwich, Tillsonburg, Courtland, and Mabee Moraines. These moraines are shown as hummocky topography in Map 2-5. All the end moraines within the Region are kilometres in length. In general, the surface relief of the moraines decreases southward toward Lake Erie. The moraines located nearest to Lake Erie (including the north-trending Paris and Galt moraines) are smaller because they have been more subjected to erosion and burial by the encroachment of glacial Lake Erie (Barnett 1982; Chapman and Putnam 1984). The St. Thomas Moraine (the oldest of the moraines in the area) shows the greatest relief (Chapman and Putnam 1984). It is located in the northwest corner of the watershed, and extends beneath the towns of Mount Vernon and Mount Elgin (Barnett, 1982).

2.5 Ground Surface Topography The present day ground surface topography evolved from erosional and depositional processes that occurred during glacial and post-glacial times. Map 2-6 shows the topography of the Long Point Region watersheds. The ground surface elevation ranges from 357 masl in the northwest on the St. Thomas Moraine, to 169 masl in the southeastern limits along the Lake Erie shoreline. Areas mapped as hummocky topography are minimal through the Long Point Region, and are illustrated on Map 2-5. The Galt and Paris Moraines were not mapped as hummocky topography within Long Point Region.

2.5.1 Bedrock Topography In Ontario, there was an extensive period of time between the final deposition of the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks (approximately 350 million years ago) and the earliest record of glacial deposition during the Wisconsinan Glaciation approximately 115,000 years ago. During this period, the exposed bedrock surface was likely subjected to glacial and fluvial erosion and weathering that shaped the underlying bedrock surface. Much of the bedrock surface’s irregular topography is attributed to fluvial erosion whereby paleo-drainage was focused along the bedrock for extensive periods of time. This led to the erosion of river valleys in the bedrock, which in some places were subsequently infilled with sediment. Generally, bedrock topography slopes from the north towards the south. Map 2-7 illustrates bedrock topography across the Long Point Region.

October 30, 2015 2-8 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-4: Physiography of the Long Point Region Watershed Area

October 30, 2015 2-9 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-5: Hummocky Topography in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-10 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-6: Ground Surface Topography in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-11 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-7: Bedrock Topography in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-12 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.6 Geology The watershed is underlain by a series of gently dipping Paleozoic sedimentary rocks consisting of deep-water shales interbedded with shallow water carbonates and sandstone. These rocks are overlain by unconsolidated Quaternary-aged sediments of variable thickness that were laid down after the last glaciation. Paleozoic rocks outcrop in the Long Point Region in only a few areas in the east near Hagersville; in the remainder of the Long Point Region these rocks are buried beneath a thick veneer of sediments.

2.6.1 Bedrock Geology Glacial sediments in the Long Point Region are underlain by Upper Silurian to Middle Devonian bedrock consisting mainly of limestones, dolostones and shales. This Paleozoic succession is subdivided into 10 formations. In order from oldest to youngest, these are the Salina, Bertie and Bass Island, Oriskany, Bois Blanc, Onondaga, Amherstburg, Lucas, Dundee and Marcellus Formations. The bedrock geology presented in Map 2-8 was assembled by the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) in 2001.

The oldest Paleozoic bedrock subcropping is the Salina Formation. This formation consists of interbedded shale, mudstone, dolostone, and evaporites (including gypsum and salt; Johnson et al., 1992). Within the Long Point Region, the Salina subcrops in the far northern reaches near Hagersville (Johnson et al., 1992), and outside the village of Springvale. Subcropping south of the Salina Formation is the younger (Late Silurian) Bertie/ Bass Islands Formation. The contact between the Salina Formation and the overlying Bertie/ Bass Islands Formation is conformable. The Bertie/Bass Island Formations form a narrow, 1-3 km wide band of oolitic and microsucrosic brown dolostone with minor thin beds of shaley dolostone along the northern edges of the Long Point Region (Hewitt, 1972; Barnett, 1982; Johnson et al., 1992). The Oriskany Formation is a very small and localized (approximately 6 km2) subcrop of Lower Devonian coarse-grained, calcareous, quartz sandstone with a thin basal conglomerate approximately 10 km east of Hagersville that pinches out laterally between the Bertie and Bois Blanc formations. It is estimated to have a maximum thickness of less than 6 m (Johnson et al. 1992). The contact between the Oriskany Formation and the underlying Bertie Formation is sharp and disconformable, showing pronounced small-scale karst features (Johnson et al., 1992). Resting stratigraphically above the Oriskany and Bertie/ Bass Islands Formations, is the Early Devonian Bois Blanc Formation. This formation consists of cherty brownish grey, fossiliferous limestone and is estimated to be roughly 3 to 15 m thick (Johnson et al., 1992). The Bois Blanc Formation and the underlying Bass Islands are separated by a major regional unconformity (Hewitt, 1972; Johnson et al., 1992). This feature may be significant from a hydrogeologic perspective as the upper surface of the Bois Blanc is interpreted to be weathered, highly fractured and therefore, able to transmit greater volumes of water than the more competent rock at depth. The middle Devonian Detroit River Group (Onondaga, Amherstburg and Lucas Formations) stratigraphically overlies the Bois Blanc Formation and extends from Norwich and Otterville, beneath Waterford eastward to Lake Erie. East of Hagersville, the Bois Blanc Formation is overlain by the Onondaga Formation. The contact between the Bois Blanc and Onondaga formations is poorly understood, but is believed to be disconformable (Johnson et al. 1992). The Middle Devonian rocks of the Onondaga Formation consist of cherty fossiliferous limestone (Johnson et al. 1992; Telford and Tarrant, 1975). West of Hagersville, the crinoidal limestones and dolostones of the Amherstburg Formation overlie the Bois Blanc Formation. The contact

October 30, 2015 2-13 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report between the Bois Blanc and Amherstburg formations is poorly defined and largely interpretative. The lateral contact between the contemporaneous Amherstberg Formation (deposited in the Michigan basin) and the Onondaga Formation (deposited in the Appalachian basin) is gradational (Johnson et al. 1992). The Lucas Formation conformably overlies the Amherstberg Formation and consists of microcrystalline limestone (Johnson et al. 1992). The Lucas Formation is thickest in the western part of the Long Point Region. It gradually thins and pinches out near Port Dover. The Dundee Formation is a grey to brown fossiliferous limestone that lies stratigraphically above the Detroit River Group. The Dundee Formation is the subcrop strata across much of the central and southern portions of the Long Point Region and is buried beneath Quaternary sediments throughout the majority of the Long Point Region. The formation outcrops along Black Creek, Nanticoke Creek, a small area just north of the town of Nanticoke, as well as the Lake Erie shoreline between Port Dover and Nanticoke. Several karst features have been mapped in association with the Dundee Formation (Barnett, 1978). Karst is a distinctive type of topography or terrain, formed primarily by the dissolution of carbonate rocks, such as limestone or dolostone, by groundwater. In areas near Port Dover, the mildly acidic groundwater reacts with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and soil, and enlarges the openings in the Dundee Formation limestone, creating a subsurface drainage system. Barnett (1982) mapped several sinkholes within the Long Point Region, ranging up to 15 m in diameter and 8 m deep. From a hydrogeological standpoint, bedrock aquifers in these karstic areas are highly susceptible to groundwater contamination because surface water and contaminants tend to flow directly into the aquifers via sinkhole drains.

The youngest Paleozoic bedrock formation to subcrop beneath the Long Point Region is the Marcellus Formation. This formation is restricted to the southwestern portions of the Long Point Region on the north shores of Lake Erie where it conformably overlies the Dundee Formation. The Marcellus Formation is described as a black, organic-rich shale, with a few minor, thin, impure carbonate interbeds and ranges in thickness between 3 and 15 m (Barnett, 1982, 1993; Johnson et al., 1992). The Marcellus Formation marks a sharp change in the bedrock from older carbonate-dominated bedrock to shale-dominated strata (Johnson et. al., 1992).

2.6.2 Quaternary (Surficial) Geology Quaternary-aged overburden sediments within the watershed provide a detailed record of glacial and interglacial events that took place throughout the most recent Wisconsinan Glaciation. During the Wisconsinan glacial period (115 to 7 ka before present), a continental- scale glacier termed the Laurentide Ice Sheet repeatedly advanced and retreated through Ontario, extending southward into Ohio and Indiana in the United States (Barnett, 1992). The ice front advanced forward during cold periods (glacial stades) and retreated when the climate temporarily warmed (glacial interstades) leaving behind a complex subsurface sedimentological record. As the Laurentide advanced over southern Ontario, it scoured the Paleozoic bedrock surface and reworked the vast majority of pre-existing glacial and interglacial sediments.

Within the Long Point Region, the advance of ice during the Late Wisconsinan essentially erased over 250,000,000 years of climatic history (period of time between the deposition of the Paleozoic rocks (350 ma) and the deposition of pre-Wisconsinan overburden sediments (100 ka)). The Late Wisconsinan lasted from 23,000 years ago (23 ka) to 10,000 years ago (10 ka; Dreimanis and Goldthwait, 1973). It was during this period that the Laurentide Ice Sheet reached its most southerly extent, advancing through Ontario extending into the United States. It was also during the Late Wisconsinan that the Laurentide thinned and formed a series of sublobes, each moving independently of one another at different rates, and in different

October 30, 2015 2-14 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report directions. Both of these sublobes deposited a series of distinct subglacial tills and associated landforms within the Long Point Region. Overburden within the Region was predominately deposited by the Erie sublobe, or at times by the Ontario-Erie sublobe, when the two sublobes temporarily amalgamated. The glacial events of the Late Wisconsinan and their resulting deposits are the most common and extensive in the Long Point Region. Table 2-5 presents a list of the Quaternary sediments identified in the Long Point Region, their distribution, and the general time period in which the deposits were laid down. Map 2-9, shows the spatial distribution of these units at surface across the Region.

Table 2-5: Quaternary Deposits Located Within the Long Point Region Source Protection Study Area

Age (y.b.p)* Glacial Substage Glacial Stade/ Associated Deposits Stage Interstade 5000- Modern alluvium, organic deposits, Holocene/ Recent 11,500 Long Point spit, Eolian sand dunes

Twocreekean Shoreline Formation 11,500- 12,000 Interstade Glaciolacustrine Deposition Wentworth Till, Norfolk Sand Plain,

12,000- 13,200 Port Huron Stade Haldimand Clay Plain 13,200- 14,000 Mackinaw Interstade Paris/ Galt Moraines

Wisconsinan Port Stanley Till, 14,000- 15,500 Port Bruce Stade

Late Late Wisconsinan Glaciolacustrine Deposits 15,500- 18,000 Erie Interstade Glaciolacustrine Deposits 18,000- 25,000 Nissouri Stade Catfish Creek Till Middle 25,000- 53,000 Undifferentiated tills and deposits Wisconsinan

* y.b.p. represents number of years before present

The most extensive subglacial till sheet in southern Ontario is the Catfish Creek Till (deVries and Dreimanis, 1960; Barnett, 1978; 1992; 1993), which was deposited during the Nissouri Stade, when the Laurentide ice sheet last advanced as one thick cohesive ice sheet. The till is composed of stacked layers of subglacial lodgement till as well as stratified glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine sediments and supraglacial till layers and lenses (Dreimanis, 1982; Barnett, 1992). The till is described as a highly calcareous, gritty, sandy silt till. It is often described as hardpan in water well drillers' records because of its stoniness and hardness (Barnett, 1978; 1982; 1992). The till occurs primarily as a buried till plain across the Long Point Region watersheds, but it outcrops along the Tillsonburg Moraine and on selected drumlins in the northeast near Hagersville (Barnett, 1978; 1982).

The Port Stanley Till is described as a silt to clayey silt till with few clasts (Barnett, 1982). Within the watershed, the `till complex' consists of up to 5 layers of subglacial till separated by glaciolacustrine sediments resulting from glacial lake level fluctuations within the Lake Erie basin (Barnett, 1982; 1992). Further inland, the Port Stanley Till consists of only one layer of subglacial till with associated glaciofluvial sediments (Barnett, 1992). The Port Stanley Till is buried beneath younger glaciolacustrine sediments across most of the Long Point Region; however it outcrops north of Tillsonburg (Barnett and Girard, 1982). The Till also makes up the vast majority of the sediments within the east-trending end moraines in the Long Point Region,

October 30, 2015 2-15 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report including (from oldest to youngest) the St. Thomas, Norwich, Tillsonburg, Courtland and Mabee Moraines (Barnett, 1993).

The Wentworth Till is the youngest till within the watershed, and is commonly buried beneath younger glaciolacustrine sediments (Barnett, 1982); however, it outcrops in some areas northeast of Delhi along the Paris Moraine, in areas approximately 3 km north of Port Rowan, and in drumlins north of Hagersville (Barnett, 1978). The Wentworth Till is described as a stony, silt till that coarsens inland (Barnett, 1992; 1993). The Paris and Galt Moraines are both composed of Wentworth Till (Barnett, 1978)

Glacial Lake Whittlesey followed by Glacial Lake Warren, each flooded the Long Point Region throughout the Port Huron Stade (Barnett, 1992). It was at the base of these lakes that the Haldimand Clay Plain and extensive Norfolk Sand Plain were deposited (Barnett, 1982). The Haldimand Clay Plain was deposited in the eastern part of the Long Point Region as fine- grained silts and clays settled to the bottom of the deep lake basin. The Norfolk Sand Plain lies across the western and central parts of the Region and forms an extensive surficial feature deposited when the sediment laden Grand River (historic alignment) emptied into the deep glacial lake. The Grand River deposited a deltaic sequence of sands and silts throughout the western portion of the Region at the front of the eastward retreating ice front (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). Norfolk Sand Plain sands are described as fine to medium-grained, ranging in thickness from less than 1 m to roughly 27 m (although this estimate may include deeper, and older sands; Barnett, 1982). Within the Long Point Region watershed area, the Norfolk Sand Plain forms an important aquifer across the area which is used for private groundwater supply.

Postglacial and erosional processes during the Holocene continued to shape the landscape within the Long Point Region. The 40 km long Long Point sand spit began to form in Lake Erie roughly 7,600 years ago when coarse grained sediments were carried by long shore currents from the west, and this process has continued ever since (Stenson, 1993; Davidson-Arnott and Van Heyningen, 2003). Most sand spits or peninsulas become eroded or separated from the mainland during storms or high water events (Davidson-Arnott, 1988) and the distance between the Long Point sand spit and the mainland will continue to fluctuate with time as deposition and erosion rates fluctuate with the climate. In the Tillsonburg area of the Long Point Region, portions of the Norfolk Sand Plain have been modified to varying extents throughout the Holocene by the wind as it forms large dunes, some reaching 6 m high (Barnett, 1982). In addition, modern alluvial deposits are scattered throughout the Long Point Region and are associated with Big Creek, Big Otter Creek and the Grand River (Barnett, 1993).

2.6.3 Overburden Thickness Overburden thickness is an important feature as it provides an indication of the relative protection of buried overburden and bedrock aquifers. Overburden thickness and grain size distribution of those sediments control the infiltration rate of precipitation, as well as the rate of movement of surface contamination into these aquifers.

Overburden thickness was derived by subtracting the bedrock topographic surface (see above) from the ground surface digital elevation model (DEM). Map 2-10 shows the distribution of overburden throughout the watershed, and illustrates the presence of moraines and incised river valleys. Overburden thickness ranges from zero along some river valleys and on the Haldimand Clay Plain, to over 115 m in areas where the end moraines overlie thick till deposits. The thickest overburden materials are found in the southern regions of the watershed along the Lake Erie shoreline. In addition, the thicknesses of the Norwich, Tillsonburg, Mabee, Courtland, Paris and Galt Moraines are also readily identifiable on this map.

October 30, 2015 2-16 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-8: Bedrock Geology in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-17 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-9: Quaternary (Surficial) Geology in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-18 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-10: Overburden Thickness in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-19 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.7 Groundwater Within the Long Point Region watershed, the location and spatial distribution of aquifers, has largely been based upon geologic and hydrogeologic information held within the Ministry of the Environment’s Water Well Information System (WWIS), in combination with the knowledge of the glacial history of the area. Cross-sections through the subsurface have been drawn across much of the watershed for various water supply or groundwater related studies.

2.7.1 Aquifer Units Groundwater resources are found within both overburden and bedrock aquifers. Two overburden aquifers associated with the Norfolk Sand Plain are found in the western portion of Long Point Region and one bedrock aquifer is located in the eastern portion of the region. In the western portion, an upper unconfined overburden aquifer consists of sand and gravel while the lower overburden aquifer is confined by lower permeability layers of silt and clay till. In the eastern extents of the region, in the vicinity of the Haldimand Clay Plain, the Dundee Formation is utilized as a productive aquifer as the clay-rich overburden sediments are not able to yield significant quantities of groundwater, even for domestic water supplies.

A regional water table elevation map, as produced from Waterloo Hydrogeologic and others, (2003) is shown on Map 2-11. This map is based on the static water levels in wells completed in overburden at depths less than 15 m and assumes unconfined conditions (Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. and others, 2003). The map was also augmented with the elevation of surface water streams and rivers to constrain the water table map. In general, the elevation of the shallow groundwater table is a subdued reflection of the ground surface topography. Water table elevations range from around 330 masl in the north-western portion of Long Point Region, to 166 masl adjacent to Lake Erie. The groundwater gradient is also consistent throughout the area, except for steeper gradients in the areas of the deep river valleys of Big Otter and Big Creek river courses. Regionally, the direction of groundwater flow is southerly to southeasterly towards Lake Erie. Groundwater flow divides also generally follow surface water boundaries.

2.7.2 Overburden Aquifers The upper, shallow aquifer is unconfined and consists of sand and gravel deposits associated with the Norfolk Sand Plain. The water table surface for Long Point Region is included in Map 2-11. This aquifer supports municipal wells for a number of communities. Thicknesses of the upper aquifer appear to range from <3 m to about 30 m. At the municipal wells in Otterville, the upper aquifer thickness is approximately 10 m and the aquifer essentially occurs at surface. The unconfined aquifer is underlain by an aquitard in the morainal areas of the Big Creek drainage area and in much of the area south of Delhi. The aquitard consists of sandy silt and clay glaciolacustrine deposits (Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. et al., 2003) and ranges in thickness from 0 to 30 m thick. It is absent in the same areas where the upper aquifer is more than 20 m thick so that the upper and intermediate aquifer are not separated in these areas. Where there is no underlying aquifer, the upper aquitard is underlain by bedrock. The middle overburden aquifer is distributed discontinuously in the Region and in places is not separated from the upper unconfined aquifer, where the total thickness of saturated aquifer is greater than about 20 m. The middle aquifer consists of medium sand under the western portion of the Big Creek drainage area, grading to fine sand or silty sand under the central portions of this watershed. Further to the east, the middle aquifer thins and grades into clayey sediments. The middle aquifer is absent at a number of locations, both where the upper aquitard is absent and where it is thick. It is most predominant in the southwestern and southeastern parts of the

October 30, 2015 2-20 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Big Creek drainage area. Potentially high yield wells (>200 L/min) have been identified east of Delhi (municipal wells). From south of Kelvin, there is generally an upward gradient from the middle aquifer to the upper aquifer.

2.7.3 Bedrock Aquifer Domestic bedrock wells within Long Point Region are typically completed into the upper 10 to 30 m of the Dundee Formation (Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. et al., 2003) especially in the eastern reaches of the watershed where the overburden is comprised of fine-grained Haldimand Clay Plain sediments. In other areas, including the Norwich municipal wells, the bedrock wells are interpreted as having been completed in the Detroit River Group.

The bedrock potentiometric surface, created using the reported static water levels of all the bedrock wells in the region, is illustrated on Map 2-12. This map shows that higher elevations (314 masl) are located in the northwestern portion of the Region, sloping towards lows (144 masl) adjacent to the Lake Erie shoreline. Groundwater flow direction in the bedrock is from north to south towards Lake Erie (Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc. et al., 2003). Under the Norfolk Sand Plain area, there is generally an upward gradient from the lower aquifer / bedrock into the overlying overburden units.

2.7.4 Groundwater Monitoring Groundwater conditions are primarily monitored in the Long Point Region through the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network (PGMN), a network of wells distributed throughout the province that provide insight on long-term ambient trends and conditions. The monitors are typically sited to be reflective of broad hydrogeologic conditions, away from areas where pumping or contamination may impact the data collected. The Ministry of the Environment owns the monitoring infrastructure and manages the data gathered through the program, but the program is locally administered by the Long Point Region Conservation Authority.

There are currently eleven Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network wells located at eight sites within Long Point Region (Map 2-13). The wells are located throughout the central portion of the Region with ten wells completed in overburden and one well completed in bedrock. Water levels within the wells are monitored through a combination of manual and electronic means. Where electronic dataloggers are in place, water levels are recorded hourly and uploaded to the Ministry of the Environment on a prescribed frequency. Manual measurements are made in all wells on a quarterly basis.

This Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network is relatively recent, with most wells having been instrumented in the early 2000’s. Water well observations from dedicated observation wells associated with municipal supply systems have not yet been collected.

October 30, 2015 2-21 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-11: Water Table Surface in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-22 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-12: Bedrock Potentiometric Surface in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-23 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-13: Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Well Locations in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-24 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.8 Groundwater Quality Across the Watershed The characterization of groundwater chemistry is an important consideration in hydrogeological studies. As well as being available in sufficient quantities, the geochemical properties of groundwater must be compatible with the intended use (e.g., potable, agricultural, industrial).

The geochemical composition of groundwater is a result of many processes, including interaction with atmospheric gases, reaction with minerals, bacteriological processes, anthropogenic effects, and other subsurface reactions and processes. Although there is a public perception that all instances of undesired compounds in groundwater are a result of anthropogenic contamination, groundwater may be rendered unusable due to entirely natural geochemical processes. For instance, some industrial processes are very sensitive to scaling issues, which may eliminate groundwater high in hardness from use. Groundwater may have attained naturally high concentrations of arsenic or total dissolved solids which would eliminate it from use as a source of potable water. Consequently, there is a need to better understand the ambient quality of groundwater and its controlling processes. This in turn allows for a stronger understanding of the impacts other contaminants may have on groundwater and provides insight into pollution trends and their effects on the aquifer system.

Groundwater geochemistry generally evolves as it moves along its flowpath. Typically, groundwater originates as precipitation and is generally low in total dissolved solids, slightly acidic, and somewhat oxidizing (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Upon infiltration, the recent precipitation tends to increase in acidity and begins to react with the geologic material it encounters. As groundwater continues along its flowpath, it may evolve from being dominated by the anion bicarbonate and having relatively low total dissolved solids to sulphate domination and finally domination by the anion chloride and having relatively high total dissolved solids (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). This sequence is commonly referred to as the Chebotarev sequence and can account for the spatial variations in geochemistry that are often observed. The process of geochemical mapping and the recognition of geochemical trends can assist in distinguishing provenance and source identification (i.e. natural versus anthropogenic).

Within Long Point Region, there have been no long-term groundwater quality monitoring programs, but there have been several studies which have characterized groundwater quality through small-scale sampling programs. The following is a description of findings from previous studies within Long Point Region:

A. Blackport & Associates (1997) completed a survey evaluating groundwater quality for the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk. The report reviewed and evaluated the water quality and septic system survey data from 10 hamlets, the majority of which were located on the Norfolk Sand Plain. The report discussed the potential for contamination of the shallow groundwater system within the Norfolk Sand Plain where the more permeable sandy aquifer commonly overlays less permeable silt and clay. Flow in the shallow system is predominantly horizontal and the direction is locally controlled by streams and topography. Blackport & Associates (1997) concluded that the hamlets situated on the more permeable, shallow hydrogeologic systems were more susceptible to degraded groundwater quality (i.e. 2- - bacteria, NO3 , Cl ) from septic system effluent and the application of fertilizer and road salt.

B. As a part of the County of Oxford Phase II Groundwater Protection Study (Golder, 2001), a groundwater quality survey for untreated drinking water was carried out at selected domestic residences within the County. The study focused on sampling wells that were completed in both the shallow overburden aquifer and bedrock aquifer for organic, inorganic and microbiological parameters. The results of the survey concluded that the quality of the raw

October 30, 2015 2-25 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

water within the County was generally good. However, high concentrations of chloride and nitrate in the shallow aquifer reflected a higher susceptibility of that aquifer to surficial sources of contamination such as fertilizer and road salt. The bedrock aquifer was found to 2- contain elevated concentrations of total dissolved solids and SO4 and higher levels of specific conductivity. However, these were considered to be natural characteristics of the aquifer.

More recently, in collaboration with the Ontario Geological Survey, Environment Canada and the Grand River Conservation Authority, a small-scale groundwater quality study was completed across Long Point Region (Banks et. al., 2007). As a component of this study, a total of 91 groundwater samples were collected from private residences from the three aquifers across the Region and analyzed for a suite of major/minor ions, metals and general physical properties. The geochemical data was used to understand the chemical processes occurring in the Region and its relation to groundwater quality.

Groundwater samples analyzed for this study were collected from three hydrostratigraphic facies: shallow overburden (wells <15 m deep), intermediate to deep overburden (wells >15 m deep), and bedrock. The 15 m depth used to delineate the shallow and deep overburden aquifers was based on the groundwater mapping presented in the Norfolk Groundwater Study (Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc., 2003). In total, 35 samples were collected from the shallow overburden aquifer, 29 samples from the deep overburden aquifer, and 26 samples from the bedrock aquifer.

The data collected from the Banks et. al. (2007) study was compared to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards Maximum Acceptable Concentrations (MAC), Interim Maximum Acceptable Concentrations (IMAC) and Aesthetic Objectives (AO). The MAC is established for parameters, when present above a certain concentration, that have known or suspected adverse health effects whereas the IMAC was established for parameters where there were insufficient toxological data to establish a MAC. An AO is established where the parameter may impair taste, odour or colour of the water or which may interfere with good water quality control practices (Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2006a).

Table 2-6 summarizes the number of samples which exceed their respective MAC, IMAC and AO as given in the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards (Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2006a).

Table 2-6: Number of Samples from Each Aquifer that Exceed MOE Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards Shallow Deep Bedrock MAC IMAC AO Overburden Overburden (n=25) (n=31) (n=27) As 0.025 0 0 0 B 5 0 0 0 Ba 1 0 0 0 Cd 0.005 0 0 0 Cr 0.05 0 0 0 Cu 1 0 0 0 Fe 0.3 2 0 0

October 30, 2015 2-26 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 2-6: Number of Samples from Each Aquifer that Exceed MOE Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards Shallow Deep Bedrock MAC IMAC AO Overburden Overburden (n=25) (n=31) (n=27) Mn 0.05 9 2 1 Na 200 0 0 0 Pb 0.01 0 0 0 Sb 0.006 0 0 0 Se 0.01 0 0 0 Zn 5 0 0 0 F 1.5 0 3 8 Cl 250 0 1 1 NO2 1 0 0 0 NO3 10 6 4 2 SO4 500 0 0 6 DOC 5 2 0 1 TDS 500 4 2 9 Colour TCU 5 3 0 4 Turbidity NTU 5 0 1 0 * All units are in mg/L except where given

In total, 49% of the shallow overburden samples, 38% of the deep overburden samples and 65% of the bedrock samples exceeded the MAC, IMAC or AO concentrations for at least one parameter. In the shallow overburden, exceedances are believed to be primarily the result of anthropogenic influences such as the application of nitrogen-containing fertilizers and road salts. The bedrock aquifer, which is generally well protected by a layer of glaciolacustrine clay, likely develops its geochemical character from geologic processes.

Generally, the groundwater quality found within Long Point Region was found to vary significantly between the 3 different aquifers. These variations were the results of the geologic setting (overburden versus bedrock) and also from surficially-derived chemicals entering the groundwater system. The variation between aquifers suggested different provenance (anthropogenic versus natural) for these parameters.

Comparisons with Ontario Drinking Water Standards (MOE, 2006) show the bedrock aquifer to supply the ‘poorest’ relative quality and most mineralized groundwater. The nature of this water however, generally appeared to be related to the ambient geochemistry of the groundwater system rather than anthropogenic activity. Where anthropogenic impacts were apparent within the bedrock aquifer, it was likely a result of poorly constructed or improperly maintained wells and less so through recharge entering the groundwater system. The water quality issues within the shallow overburden aquifer also showed poorer quality in accordance to the Ontario Drinking Water Standards, but the degraded quality is likely the result of fertilizer, road salt, 2- manure, septic systems etc. that have entered the aquifer system. Notably higher NO3 and associated elevated K+ concentrations in the overburden aquifers suggests the downward migration of fertilizers into the aquifer systems. The deep overburden aquifer displayed the best relative groundwater quality because it was afforded a certain degree of protection from surficial activities by the overlying confining sediments and has not been affected by the same geologic processes as the bedrock-derived groundwater.

October 30, 2015 2-27 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.9 Climate The Long Point Region has low latitude and elevation compared to many other parts of southern Ontario, being situated on the northern shore of Lake Erie. The Long Point region has a moderate temperate climate, denoted by evenly distributed precipitation throughout the year and temperatures ranging from warm to hot and humid in the summer to below freezing in winter. Winters are mild compared to the rest of Ontario due to its southerly location, as the proximity to Lake Erie creates a moderating effect. With Lake Erie to the south, winds coming across the lake are often warmer in winter and cooler in summer than the land, thereby moderating air temperatures over the watershed.

This region’s climate consists of four seasons, including winters that see some precipitation in the form of snow, and summers that are hot and humid. Figure 2-1 shows the daily average temperatures for each month of the year, from the Delhi CDA (Canada Department of Agriculture) station, located centrally in the watershed. Winter is generally considered to have temperatures lower than 0oC, beginning in December and lasting until late February or early March. Spring usually lasts two months, followed by four months (June to September) of summer and two months of autumn. The average annual temperature is about 7.5 to 8oC.

LPRCA Monthly Precipitation and Temperature Delhi CDA Station (1971-1997)

120 25.0

20.0 100

15.0 C) o 80

10.0

60

5.0 Precipitation (mm) 40 0.0 Average Daily Temperature ( Temperature Daily Average

20 -5.0

0 -10.0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Snowfall (cm) Rainfall (mm) Average Daily Temperature

Figure 2-1: Long Point Region Watershed Area Average Monthly Precipitation and Temperature, 1971-1997

October 30, 2015 2-28 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Precipitation is fairly evenly distributed throughout the year, although the intensity, duration and frequency of precipitation are quite different among the seasons. The accumulation of snow in the winter months prolongs the effects of precipitation, as infiltration is delayed until a thaw. Spring thaw is often accompanied by long, low intensity rainfall, this coupled with the melting snow can make the spring season appear to be constantly wet and overcast. The summer often brings rainfall events that are of high intensity and short duration. The duration of these events, coupled with the high evapotranspiration rates between events, leaves an impression of less rain than in other seasons in terms of frequency of rain-created runoff and recharge.

Annual average precipitation in the watershed is generally between 950 mm to 1,075 mm. A majority of winter precipitation falls as rain.

There is a large annual variation in precipitation (Figure 2-2) which can have a large affect on stream flow and water demand in the watershed.

Departures from Annual Precipitation Climate Normal (1971-2000) Delhi CDA/CS Weather Station

300.0

200.0

100.0

0.0

-100.0

-200.0

-300.0

-400.0 Departures from Climate Departures Normal AnnualPrecipitation (mm)

-500.0 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year

Figure 2-2: Departures from Annual Precipitation (Climate Normal)

October 30, 2015 2-29 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.10 Land Cover and Land Use Land uses in the Long Point Region watershed area are characterized by a few small urban commercial, industrial and residential centres, surrounded by less-populated rural land used for intensive agricultural production. Map 2-14 shows the distribution of land cover across the watershed. The map illustrates the dominance of agricultural land uses in rural areas of the watershed; however, it does not specifically identify the significant proportion of resort residential development along the lakeshore. According to the 2001 census, about 78 percent of the total land area of the watershed is actively farmed. In some parts of the watershed, the proportion of farmland is even higher, especially in the Norfolk Sand Plain where soils are well drained and the land is relatively flat.

2.10.1 Forest and Vegetation Cover The amount of forest cover in the Long Point Region declined from over 70 per cent in the 1850s to less than 15 per cent by the 1960s. In the mid-1800s some of the crop land had started to become less productive due to erosion and loss of nutrients. The loss of useful crop land due to wind and water erosion prompted the establishment of the first Provincial Forestry Station at St. Williams in 1908. Reforestation and other forms of regeneration have regained some of the forest losses and cover is now estimated at about 21 percent, as shown in Table 2-7 and Map 2-15, with areas in the Clay Plain generally having less forest cover than those in the Sand Plain.

The Long Point Region watersheds fall within the Deciduous Forest Region of Canada. Forests within this region are typically dominated by maple, beech, ash and oak species. However, there are significant forest pockets which are representative of the broader Carolinian Life Zone that include species such as Tulip tree, Black Gum, Sassafras, Black Oak, and Cucumber Tree. These tree species are rare in Canada and occur naturally only in southern parts of Ontario north of Lake Erie.

The Long Point Region Conservation Authority has a rich history of forest management dating back to 1948, and is one of the most significant forest land owners in the watershed, along with the Province of Ontario and Norfolk County. Through a private land reforestation program, the Long Point Region Conservation Authority adds close to 45 hectares of future forests to the land cover annually. The Authority continues to recognize the acquisition and wise management of forest lands for integrated uses as an important part of its mandate, including for source water protection. It is now widely accepted that an integrated ecosystem-based approach to forest management is required to maintain the ecological integrity and productive capacity of the forest while providing multiple benefits to society (Heilman, 1990; Kimmins, 1992).

Table 2-7: Land Cover in the Long Point Watershed Area Area (hectares) % of Total Watershed Area Forest and Vegetation Cover 60673.2 21.0% Wetlands 25540.7 8.8% Total 86213.9 29.8%

October 30, 2015 2-30 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.10.2 Wetlands Wetlands are a significant feature of the Long Point Region. Although a large percentage of the original wetlands have been lost through clearing, filling and drainage, there are still almost 260 square kilometres of evaluated wetlands in the Long Point Region watersheds (Table 2-7 and Map 2-15). The Long Point wetland complex, which includes the wetlands at the mouth of Big Creek, covers 75 square kilometres on its own. This wetland is internationally recognized under the Ramsar Convention and as the Long Point Biosphere Reserve.

Wetlands play an important role in many of the watersheds’ hydrological and ecological processes. The hydrologic function of wetlands vary, with some wetlands being groundwater discharge areas that provide baseflow during low flow periods, while other wetlands provide recharge to the underlying aquifer system during dry periods of the year. Wetlands are also critical as they retain surface runoff and reduce downstream flood flows. They also act as water filters and capture sediment, dissolved nutrients and other contaminants, improving the surface water quality. Wetlands are also typically highly productive ecological habitats, with great biodiversity, and often home to a large number of species.

2.10.3 Wetland and Forest Riparian Areas All wetlands and forest cover help protect and enhance water quantity and quality values of the watershed. Depending on the issues impacting the water resources, the forest and wetland cover that acts as an immediate buffer to the surface streamflow can be even more valuable.

Within the Long Point Region watersheds, the amount of riparian forest and wetland along the watercourses are estimated at 40 percent, (based on a 15 metre buffer on each side of the stream). In addition, many of these watercourses have been provided with a grassed buffer by landowners using best management practices.

October 30, 2015 2-31 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-14: Land Cover in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-32 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-15: Vegetation in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-33 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.11 Surface Water

2.11.1 Surface Water Characterization The Long Point Region is comprised of numerous watersheds and watercourses. The combined length of all the streams and their tributaries within the Long Point Region is over 3,700 kilometres. Most of the western watersheds are found largely within the Norfolk Sand Plain; an area characterized by low runoff, high soil infiltration and sustained baseflows. The upper and western parts of Big Otter Creek are located in the till plain. The eastern watersheds drain through the Haldimand Clay Plain, an area characterized by high runoff and low soil infiltration. The eastern watersheds have a higher density of tributaries than the western watersheds with the river systems being shallower and with a tendency to dry up during the summer months.

The Long Point Region has among the highest number of permitted surface and ground water users of any area in Southern Ontario (LPRCA, 2008). Demand for irrigation water during the summer months can affect stream flow throughout the region, but is focused in the western watersheds on the Norfolk Sand Plain.

2.11.2 Surface Water Monitoring Streamflow monitoring within the Long Point Region watershed area is predominantly carried out by the Water Survey of Canada (WSC). Rating curves and gauge infrastructure are frequently maintained, with observed data undergoing extensive quality assurance and quality controls. As such, streamflow data from WSC stations is considered to be the highest quality streamflow data available.

The flow monitoring network in the Long Point Region has been expanded in recent years with the re-opening of a number of historic gauges. There are 10 active WSC gauges in the Long Point Region. The gauge network is denser in the western part of the region and is focused on the larger watercourses. There are three active gauges in the Big Otter Creek Watershed that cover most of the watershed area. Stream flow data is available beginning in 1948 with the longest continuous data set from 1960 to present. There are 4 active stream gauges in the Big Creek Watershed with 2 gauges in continuous operation since 1955 and 2 recently re-opened gauges. The other 3 stream gauges are on Young Creek, Nanticoke Creek and the Lynn River. The gauge on Young Creek has been operated for various periods since 1963. The Lynn River gauge has a continuous data set beginning in 1957. The Nanticoke Creek gauge is the only gauge in the eastern part of the region and has been in operation since 1969. There is also flow data available from abandoned stations for Hemlock Creek, Little Otter Creek, South Otter Creek, North Creek, Dedrick Creek, Fishers Creek, and Patterson Creek in the western part of the Region, and Sandusk Creek in the eastern part of the Region.

2.11.3 Big Otter Creek Big Otter Creek is the second largest watershed in the region, draining an area of approximately 712 km2. The upper part of the watershed in the northwestern corner of the region lies in the till plain. The creek flows southward in the Norfolk Sand Plain through the communities of Norwich, Otterville, and Tillsonburg before draining to Lake Erie at Port Burwell. The Big Otter Watershed is characterized by moderate runoff, soil infiltration, and baseflows. Spittler Creek joins the Big Otter just south of Otterville and drains about 116 km2. The largest tributary, Little Otter Creek, joins Big Otter Creek past Straffordville. Little Otter is classified as a cold water stream and drains approximately 118 km2.

October 30, 2015 2-34 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

There are three active Water Survey Canada gauges in the Big Otter Creek Watershed. The first one is located in the upper part of the watershed above Otterville, and it was installed in 1964. The second gauge is located at the Town of Tillsonburg. This gauge is the oldest active gauge in the Big Otter Creek watershed and has been in operation since 1960, except for a brief period from 1998-2002 when the rating curve was not maintained; however, water levels were continuously recorded during this time. The third gauge is located near the community of Calton, and it has been in operation since 1975 and captures approximately 95% of the drainage area including Little Otter Creek. Prior to 1975 the gauge was located downstream near the community of Vienna where it had been in operation since 1948. The flow distribution at the Calton gauge is illustrated in Figure 2-3. A stream gauge operated on the Little Otter between 1963 and 1992. The distribution in Figure 2-3 shows both a runoff component with high 10th percentile flows in the spring and a strong groundwater fed baseflow component with steady median and 90th percentile low flows throughout the summer months.

Flow Distribution for Big Otter Creek Near Calton 1975-2003

50

40

30

Flow (m3/s)

20

10

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Median 6.0 6.6 12.7 11.3 5.9 4.2 3.1 2.9 3.0 4.1 5.7 7.9 90th Percentile Flow 2.8 3.2 5.1 5.6 3.9 2.8 1.5 1.6 1.9 2.5 3.0 3.5 10th Percentile Flow 19.8 33.2 43.2 30.5 13.9 10.0 7.3 5.9 8.0 10.3 19.0 23.1 Month Median 90th Percentile Flow 10th Percentile Flow

Figure 2-3: Flow Distribution for Big Otter Creek near Calton Gauge

There are two reservoirs on Big Otter Creek; the Norwich Dam in Norwich, and the Otterville Dam in Otterville. The Norwich Dam is operated by the LPRCA and its functions include supporting recreational activities, water supply, flood control and flow augmentation; the flow through the dam is controlled by a control valve. The Otterville Dam is passively operated by the municipality. Other major control structures in the watershed include Black Bridge and Lake Lisgar. There are also numerous small, private control structures within the watershed that are used to store water for irrigation in the summer months. About 430 Permit to Take Water (PTTW) takings presently exist in the watershed.

October 30, 2015 2-35 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.11.4 South Otter and Clear Creeks South Otter Creek drains an area of approximately 111 km2 adjacent to the lower portion of Big Otter Creek along the Lake Erie shoreline. Clear Creek is similar in size and drains an area of approximately 106 km2 to the east of South Otter Creek. Both creeks are within the Norfolk Sand Plain and are characterized by low runoff, high infiltration, and groundwater fed baseflows. There are no active gauges in this watershed grouping, but there was a historic gauge located on South Otter Creek near its outlet to Lake Erie at Port Burwell that operated from 1964 to 1978. About 150 Permit to Take Water (PTTW) takings exist in each watershed.

2.11.5 Big Creek Big Creek is the largest watercourse in the Long Point Region with a total drainage area of 750 km2. Big Creek’s headwaters are at the most northerly part of the Long Point Region. The creek flows predominately southward, passing through the community of Delhi, where it is joined by North Creek via Lehman’s Reservoir. From Delhi, stream flow continues southward, merging with Venison Creek (the largest tributary draining 98 km2) downstream of Walsingham and finally draining into Lake Erie near Port Rowan. The Big Creek watershed is predominately in the Norfolk Sand Plain, and is characterized by very low runoff and high baseflow. Water use within the drainage area is significant with about 1200 Permit to Take Water (PTTW) takings. Irrigation is the primary water use within the watershed and water takings have the potential to reduce summer flows in the creek during dry years. There are three reservoirs in the Big Creek Watershed; Teeterville, Lehman and Deer Creek Reservoirs. All three reservoirs are operated by the Long Point Region Conservation Authority. The Teeterville Reservoir is located in the upper portion of the watershed on Big Creek, and it is used for recreation, flood control, and low flow augmentation. Lehman’s Reservoir is located in the community of Delhi on North Creek and it is used for flow control/augmentation, recreational shore fishing and to supplement the community of Delhi’s drinking water supply. The final reservoir is located on Deer Creek, a tributary of Big Creek. Most of the Big Creek tributaries have small private dams and reservoirs used for irrigation. There are four active Water Survey Canada gauges in the Big Creek Watershed. The first one is located in the upper part of the watershed near Kelvin, which has operated periodically since 1963. The second gauge is located near Delhi and has been in continuous operation since 1955. A gauge on Venison Creek near Walsingham has operated periodically since 1966. A gauge further downstream on Big Creek near Walsingham captures about 75% of the entire drainage area, and has also been in operation since 1955. The flow distribution plot for the Big Creek at Walsingham gauge is included in Figure 2-4. The narrow range of median, 10th and 90th percentile flows in Figure 2-4 shows the moderating effects of large annual recharge amounts, significant groundwater storage volumes, and reservoir operations upstream of the gauge. There is a very high baseflow component throughout the year with fairly steady median and 90th percentile flows. A stream gauge existed on North Creek between 1954 and 1966.

October 30, 2015 2-36 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Flow Distribution for Big Creek Near Walsingham 1956-2003 30

20

Flow (m3/s)

10

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Median 5.4 5.7 9.9 9.8 6.4 4.6 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.9 5.1 6.3 90th Percentile Flow 3.1 3.2 4.8 6.1 4.2 3.0 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.6 2.9 3.3 10th Percentile Flow 11.5 14.8 22.8 18.0 11.3 7.6 5.9 5.0 6.0 6.8 9.0 12.1 Month Median 90th Percentile Flow 10th Percentile Flow

Figure 2-4: Flow Distribution for Big Creek near Walsingham Gauge

2.11.6 Dedrick-Young Creeks The Dedrick-Young Creek watershed group drains a combined area of 263 square kilometres. The main watercourses in this watershed group are Dedrick, Forestville, Young, and Hay creeks, but this area also includes numerous other small Lake Erie tributaries. These watersheds are mainly located within the Norfolk Sand Plain. With groundwater fed creeks and streams the area contains several significant coldwater fisheries. There are two reservoirs, both used for recreation, the Hay Creek Dam on Hay Creek and Vittoria Pond on Young Creek. Long Point Region Conservation Authority operates both reservoirs. There is one reactivated stream gauge on Young Creek downstream of the Vittoria Pond Reservoir which has been in operation for various periods since 1963. There was also a stream gauge on Dedrick Creek near its outlet to Lake Erie at Port Rowan. This gauge was in operation from 1963 to 1984. Fishers Creek, also had a stream gauge in operation during a period of 8 years beginning in 1969. There are currently about 240 active permitted (PTTW) takings in these watersheds.

2.11.7 Lynn River-Black Creek The Lynn River flows from north of the community of Simcoe to the southeast to Lake Erie at Port Dover. It is joined by Black Creek in Port Dover just prior to draining into Lake Erie. The combined drainage area of this watershed group is approximately 285 km2. The watershed drains two different physiographic regions. The Lynn River, a cool water fishery, is largely located in the Norfolk Sand Plain, where there is low surface runoff, high recharge amounts, and sustained baseflows. Black Creek, drains through the Haldimand Clay Plain, and this part of the watershed is characterized by high runoff, low baseflows, and predominantly

October 30, 2015 2-37 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report warmwater fish communities. There are about 260 current permitted water (PTTW) takings in this watershed, with most of these concentrated in the western area on the Sand Plain. There is one active stream gauge on the Lynn River located in the Village of Simcoe. It has been in continuous operation since 1957, with the flow regime for this gauge illustrated in Figure 2-5. The narrow monthly flow distribution and high baseflows show the moderating influence of the Norfolk Sand Plain and the relatively small drainage area upstream of the gauge. There are also two controlled reservoirs on the Lynn River, Crystal Lake (Quance Dam) in Simcoe and Silver Lake (Misner Dam) in Port Dover, both of which are operated by Norfolk County. A stream gauge operated on Patterson Creek for a period of 29 years beginning in 1963. There are no stream gauges on Black Creek.

Flow Distribution for Lynn River at Simcoe 1957-2003

8

6

Flow (m3/s)

4

2

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Median 1.5 1.7 2.3 2.5 1.8 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 90th Percentile Flow 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 10th Percentile Flow 3.0 3.5 4.9 4.0 2.9 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.5 3.0 Month Median 90th Percentile Flow 10th Percentile Flow

Figure 2-5: Flow Distribution for Lynn River at Simcoe Gauge

2.11.8 Nanticoke Creek The headwaters of Nanticoke Creek contain cool water fisheries, as these headwaters sit within the Norfolk Sand Plain where groundwater discharge is strong. The Creek migrates through the Waterford Ponds, a series of lakes, ponds, and wetlands near the community of Waterford and then heads southeastward onto the Haldimand Clay Plan where it changes to a warm water fishery on its way to discharging in Lake Erie at Nanticoke. There is one stream gauge near Nanticoke which captures most of the watershed. The gauge has been in operation since 1969 and its flow distribution is given in Error! Reference source not found..

October 30, 2015 2-38 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Low flows, shown by the 90th percentile flow, are very low throughout the year. Median flows are also low during the summer months. The wide monthly distribution shows a large runoff component to the flow regime as is expected due to the influence of the Haldimand Clay Plain. There are about 200 permits to take water in this watershed.

Flow Distribution for Nanticoke Creek at Nanticoke 1969-2003 15.00

10.00

Flow (m3/s)

5.00

0.00 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Median 1.40 1.46 3.10 2.38 1.20 0.70 0.35 0.28 0.30 0.58 1.18 1.81 90th Percentile Flow 0.34 0.41 1.08 0.97 0.61 0.23 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.23 0.42 0.51 10th Percentile Flow 5.06 7.36 10.50 6.68 3.89 2.42 1.17 0.85 1.72 2.03 4.60 5.79 Month Median 90th Percentile Flow 10th Percentile Flow

Figure 2-6: Flow Distribution for Nanticoke Creek at Nanticoke Gauge

2.11.9 Eastern Tributaries The Eastern Tributaries includes many relatively small watercourses such as Sandusk, Stoney, Evans, Hickory and Fories-Stelco Creeks covering a combined area of about 367 km2. The largest of these systems are Sandusk (158 km2) and Stoney (118 km2) Creeks. These watercourses drain directly into Lake Erie and their drainage areas are entirely contained within the Haldimand Clay Plain. They have high runoff, low soil infiltration and very little baseflow. There are no active stream gauges within this watershed; however two historical gauges on Sandusk Creek operated for short periods in the 1990’s. There are relatively few permits to take water in these watersheds compared to those to the west.

2.11.10 Water Control Structures In addition to the large water control structures described in the previous sections, several hundred small dams have been constructed on virtually every tributary of Big Creek and Big Otter Creek and other small watercourses in the Norfolk Sand Plain, to store water as a source for irrigation. They were constructed mainly in the last half of the 20th century. There are also several old mill dams that were constructed in the 1800’s and replaced or maintained in various states since. In addition the LPRCA, MNR and municipalities in the Region operate a number of

October 30, 2015 2-39 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report small dams for multipurpose uses, including flood control, low flow augmentation, drinking water supply, irrigation, recreation and wildlife habitat. Selected dams and reservoirs in the Long Point Region are shown on Map 2-16.

2.12 Surface Water Quality The following describes the general surface water quality conditions found in the rivers and creeks in the Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA), as described in the Long Point Region Water Quality and Conditions report (Evans, 2007). The observations are based on data from the Ministry of the Environment’s Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network in addition to specific reports that describe the conditions within each watershed.

The most recent five year contiguous set of water quality data for Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network sites were used to evaluate surface water quality conditions. Ten Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network sites in the region had a sufficient number of data points to make meaningful observations. The Region was divided into six subbasins: Big Otter Creek, Big Creek, Lynn River, Nanticoke Creek, Sandusk Creek and Dedrick-Young Creek. See Map 2-17 for the location of the ten monitoring sites. The most complete dataset for these sites was for the period of 2002-2005.

Water quality sampling for chemical and physical parameters in the Long Point Region watersheds resumed in 2002 following a lengthy period of not participating in the provincial water quality monitoring network. When LPRCA resumed sampling at ten sites, samples were collected on a routine basis however flow was not always considered. Generally, sampling was completed during low to moderate stream flows and peak flows were missed routinely. Therefore, the description of water quality conditions for the Long Point Region is generally limited to low/base flow conditions.

In general, the inherent geology and current landuse practices appear to influence surface water quality Issues in the Long Point Region. For example, watersheds draining the clay and till plains tend to have the highest non-filterable residue and phosphorus concentrations (e.g. Big Otter Creek and Nanticoke Creek). These areas support livestock operations and general cash crop production. Conversely, irrigated specialty crops are produced on the Norfolk Sand Plain but the high recharge and subsequent discharge of cool groundwater helps to sustain cold water fisheries. Consequently, water quality in the creeks draining the Norfolk Sand Plain (e.g. Young, Trout, Venison and Kent Creeks) tends to have better water quality with the exception of elevated nitrate levels. In addition to land use, point source discharges such as water pollution control plants also influence stream water quality in the Region. There are nine small towns/cities with municipal wastewater treatment plants or lagoons that discharge continuously or seasonally into the creeks and rivers of the Region; there is also one municipal industrial lagoon that discharges into a local stream. Summary and descriptive statistics for priority chemical parameters (e.g. nutrients and chloride) are listed in Table 2-8 for each of the ten sampling sites.

October 30, 2015 2-40 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-16: Selected Surface Water Control Structures in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-41 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-17: Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network Sites in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-42 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 2-8: Summary and Descriptive Statistics for Priority Chemical Parameters

Lynn River Nanticoke Big Otter Watershed Big Creek Watershed Watershed Watershed Spittler Lynn Nanticoke Guideline Big Otter Big Creek Venison Trout Kent Variable Statistic Creek River Creek or Benchmark PWQMN Site Number 9007 9008 9010 24012 24011 24013 24014 59010 59003 64001 5th % 2.67 2.56 0.00 2.70 2.38 2.09 2.33 1.98 2.33 0.07 Nitrates Median 3.76 3.43 4.13 3.23 2.97 2.39 2.76 2.49 2.86 1.31 2.93 (mg/L) 75th % 5.11 4.39 9.12 4.14 3.20 2.57 2.87 3.00 3.21 2.50 95th % 6.70 6.14 11.64 6.32 4.15 3.05 2.96 3.28 3.93 4.65 5th % 0.018 0.007 0.004 0.012 0.016 0.013 0.005 0.009 0.049 0.008 Nitrite Median 0.032 0.022 0.027 0.022 0.026 0.025 0.008 0.018 0.159 0.024 0.06 (mg/L) 75th % 0.042 0.040 0.076 0.039 0.031 0.030 0.009 0.022 0.185 0.038 95th % 0.060 0.054 0.148 0.055 0.039 0.047 0.014 0.032 0.309 0.143 5th % 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 Un-ionized Median 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.002 Ammonia 0.016 (mg/L) 75th % 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.021 0.005 95th % 0.005 0.003 0.011 0.006 0.003 0.005 0.001 0.004 0.065 0.020 5th % 3.24 3.01 0.73 3.17 2.86 2.47 2.63 2.45 3.18 0.94 Total Median 4.45 3.92 5.02 3.88 3.50 2.75 3.00 2.92 4.05 2.26 Nitrogen n/a (mg/L) 75th % 6.27 5.29 10.21 4.79 3.92 3.15 3.09 3.37 4.42 3.63 95th % 7.61 7.53 12.53 7.35 4.86 3.79 3.32 3.60 5.20 5.88 5th % 0.029 0.020 0.020 0.018 0.014 0.016 0.014 0.008 0.030 0.051 Total Median 0.057 0.063 0.053 0.032 0.051 0.046 0.027 0.020 0.061 0.113 Phosphorus 0.03 (mg/L) 75th % 0.071 0.119 0.082 0.039 0.061 0.063 0.038 0.026 0.100 0.143 95th % 0.208 0.526 0.287 0.149 0.195 0.108 0.078 0.037 0.171 0.402 Non 5th % 2.0 3.0 2.2 1.3 2.9 3.0 2.9 0.7 3.8 12.0 Filterable Median 7.6 26.9 11.3 2.7 20.8 18.8 7.7 3.4 12.4 38.4 25 Residue 75th % 12.2 77.8 17.6 4.3 31.0 25.3 11.9 4.8 17.7 63.2 (mg/L) 95th % 25.8 367.3 91.0 13.0 95.2 36.6 34.8 9.9 29.1 154.5 5th % 17.5 19.5 19.4 17.5 18.6 10.4 15.3 21.6 36.8 24.6 Chloride Median 28.5 30.3 36.5 24.5 26.2 12.7 17.2 26.8 57.7 39.6 250 (mg/L) 75th % 33.4 32.5 45.6 28.4 27.6 13.9 17.5 28.2 61.4 44.1 95th % 43.2 34.8 60.8 30.9 28.6 22.5 19.3 30.6 71.6 49.4

October 30, 2015 2-43 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.12.1 Conditions Specific to the Big Otter Creek Watershed Nitrate, phosphorus, and non-filterable residue concentrations were found to be the major water quality issue within the Big Otter Creek watershed.

Nitrate and phosphorus concentrations were consistently above the Canadian Environmental Quality Guideline and Provincial Water Quality Objective, and as a result, are the most serious nutrient issues within the Big Otter Creek watershed. In fact, median nitrate levels within Spittler Creek, a tributary of Big Otter Creek, were among the highest across the entire Long Point Region. Spittler Creek was the most impaired area within the watershed with respect to all water quality parameters tested, except for phosphorus and total non-filterable residue levels, which were higher downstream on lower Big Otter Creek.

Land-use including intensive agricultural production, urban development, water pollution control plant effluents, and the underlying geology and the topography within the Big Otter Creek watershed are all likely contributing to the degradation in water quality. The higher nitrate concentrations found in Spittler Creek are likely a result of the intensive agriculture within this region but may also be from nitrate-rich groundwater that discharges to the stream; further research is required to confirm this. Fausto & Finucan (1992) found that phosphorus inputs to Big Otter Creek were mainly anthropogenically driven by fertilizers, household effluent, industry and improper milk-house wash water disposal.

Big Otter Creek has been identified as Canada’s largest source of sediment contamination to Lake Erie (Cridland, 1997). Although median values were just over the 25 mg/L benchmark, the 95th % value (367.25 mg/L) indicated that there were events when significant concentrations were measured. Big Otter Creek reacts to event flows extremely quickly and tends to be flashy (Stone, 1993) resulting in increased erosion and sedimentation. This phenomenon is also compounded by the soil type (clayey-till), lack of riparian vegetation and the deeply incised banks within the lower portion of the watershed.

Bacterial concentrations have also been identified as an issue within the Big Otter Creek watershed. Regular beach postings within the watershed prompted the start of the Clean Up Rural Beaches (CURB) program in 1992. As a result of this study, tributaries within the upper watershed were found to have higher bacterial counts relative to the main branch, and therefore improvement measures were focused within those areas (e.g. Spittler Creek). Since the implementation of the program, bacterial counts have decreased; however, beach postings still occur at Port Burwell. It has been hypothesized that some of the bacteria found at the Port Burwell beaches may be originating from the high bacterial concentrations emptying into Lake Erie from Silver Creek in the Catfish Creek watershed (McCarron and McCoy, 1992).

2.12.2 Conditions Specific to the Big Creek Watershed Generally, water quality is better in Trout Creek compared to other sites sampled in the Big Creek watershed. The upper Big Creek region was the most impaired with respect to nitrogen and chloride concentrations but Venison Creek and lower Big Creek were the most impaired with respect to phosphorus and non-filterable residue concentrations.

October 30, 2015 2-44 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

The intensive agricultural production in the upper region of the Big Creek watershed is likely contributing to the high nitrate concentrations found in the creek. The relatively low nitrate concentrations found in the downstream tributaries of Trout and Venison Creeks is likely having a positive impact on the water quality in lower Big Creek, which is likely why nitrogen levels are lower downstream.

Phosphorus levels were routinely above the provincial objective (0.03 mg/L) in lower Big Creek and Venison Creek and are likely a result of the cumulative inputs from the Delhi Water Pollution Control Plant and the intensive agricultural production in the watershed.

Compared to other watersheds within the Long Point Region, Big Creek is not a major contributor of nutrients or non-filterable residue (NFR) to Lake Erie (Stone, 1993). Flow in Big Creek is partially regulated through several wetlands. Stone (1993) suggests that the wetlands likely reduce the intensities of flow which helps to keep the sediment in the watershed as opposed to discharging to Lake Erie. Due to the wetlands, light soils and high degree of riparian cover, the Big Creek watershed does not react as quickly to event flows relative to Big Otter Creek.

The Lehman Dam Reservoir was built to supply the Town of Delhi with a municipal drinking water system. The reservoir itself is situated on North Creek, a tributary to Big Creek, and is equipped with an operational dam but it is not used for flood control. The reservoir is also fed by South Creek which similar to North Creek has a good rainbow and brown trout fishery. Spawning has been noted to occur in both South and North Creeks so the dam on North Creek has been fitted with a fish ladder to accommodate this. The water quality in the Lehman reservoir is fairly good and meets the Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines for all parameters (nitrate, nitrite, phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature) except turbidity within the deeper sections of the reservoir (Gagnon 1995). The reservoir is thermally stratified and as a result the bottom waters tend to be anoxic. Large algal blooms have been evident indicating the potential for high productivity within the reservoir.

2.12.3 Conditions Specific to the Lynn River Watershed The impact of urban development on the Lynn River is reflected by the extremely high concentrations of nitrite, ammonia and phosphorus found in the river directly downstream to the town of Simcoe. Tributaries such as Kent Creek, which is a groundwater fed creek with minimal urban or agricultural impacts, have significantly better water quality than the Lynn River. Rarely do samples taken on the Lynn River, downstream of the Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP), meet the Canadian environmental quality guideline for nitrite or the Provincial Water Quality Objective for total phosphorus. High nitrite and un-ionized ammonia levels found in aquatic systems tend to be associated with organic pollution through the disposal of sewage or organic waste (Hem, 1985; Hydromantis Inc. et al., 2005). In the Lynn River, the high nitrite and un- ionized ammonia levels are likely a result of the Simcoe WPCP. Both un-ionized ammonia and nitrite are considered toxic to aquatic life which likely is having a negative effect on the aquatic life downstream of the plant.

Non-filterable residue (NFR) did not appear to be an issue in the Lynn River; however, the numerous impoundments upstream of the monitoring site along the Lynn River may be acting as sediment sinks.

Although the Lynn River below Simcoe does not appear to have the best water quality, it does support a very good brown trout fishery downstream of Simcoe and below Brook’s Dam (Gagnon and Giles. 2004). The higher ammonia and nitrite concentrations are likely buffered by

October 30, 2015 2-45 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report the higher water quality in the groundwater being discharged into this section of the Lynn River. This combined with reduced siltation in the lower Lynn River from Brook’s Dam, likely results in more exposed gravel substrate suitable for sustaining fish populations. Other tributaries in the Lynn River watershed are fairly good cold water streams (e.g. Kent & Patterson Creeks).

The better water quality found in Kent Creek is likely having a positive influence on the Lynn River further downstream of its confluence and thereby improving the quality of the water reaching Lake Erie.

Another concern with the high nutrient concentrations occurring in the Lynn River is its limited assimilative capacity especially in light of the population growth forecasted for the town of Simcoe. Currently Norfolk County is carrying out an assimilative capacity study to better understand the Lynn River’s ability to effectively assimilate the WPCP effluent from the Simcoe Plant (pers. comm. Bob Fields).

The primary water quality issues in Black Creek, a major tributary of the Lynn River, were high non-filtered residue (NFR), intermittent stream flow and low dissolved oxygen (Gagnon & Giles, 2004).

2.12.4 Conditions Specific to Nanticoke Creek Watershed The upper-most headwaters of Nanticoke Creek reside in the Norfolk Sand Plain and tend to have better water quality when compared to the rest of the creek which flows through the Haldimand Clay Plain (Van De Lande, 1987). For instance, nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations significantly increase as Nanticoke Creek flows out of the Norfolk Sand Plain and into the Haldimand Clay Plain. The increase in nutrient levels is likely a result of the cumulative urban impact from the town of Waterford, the WPCP effluent and the transition in soil types in the contributing drainage area from sandy- to clay-based soils.

High total phosphorus and non-filterable residue concentrations are the most significant water quality issues in the watershed and appear to progressively increase from upstream to downstream. Phosphorus has been shown to historically increase during the summer low flow season which could be related to the increased NFR levels that also occur during this time (LPRCA, 1979a). Although Nanticoke Creek was not historically considered a major contributor of nutrient concentrations to Lake Erie (LPRCA, 1979a), recent data indicates that the highest median NFR and phosphorus concentrations are found near the mouth of Nanticoke Creek relative to other tributaries in the Long Point Region. However, Nanticoke Creek does not appear to be as event-driven as Big Otter Creek whose maximum concentrations for NFR and phosphorus were much higher.

Dissolved oxygen levels have been found to decrease downstream of Waterford rendering the creek beyond this point unsuitable cold water fish habitat (Van De Lande, 1987). G. Douglas Vallee Ltd. (2004) speculated that the low dissolved oxygen levels found in the summer were likely as a result of the effluent from the Waterford WPCP making up a substantial percentage of the summer base-flow. Norfolk County has since developed a contingency plan detailing the necessary monitoring and appropriate actions required to mitigate these impacts. Currently, an assimilative capacity study is underway to help determine if an upgrade to the Waterford WPCP is required for Nanticoke Creek to effectively assimilate its effluent (pers. comm. Bob Fields). Upgrades such as tertiary treatment, or the addition of sand filters and disinfectants could potentially help reduce effluent contaminants levels thereby resulting in improved downstream water quality.

October 30, 2015 2-46 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.12.5 Conditions Specific to Sandusk Creek High phosphorus and non-filterable residue levels are the primary water quality issues in Sandusk Creek. Levels tend to progressively increase from upstream to downstream. Sandusk Creek drains the Haldimand Clay Plain which has a natural tendency for higher sedimentation and sediment associated nutrient concentrations, such as phosphorus. There are no natural retention areas within the Sandusk Creek watershed to help augment summer low flows (Morse et al., 1982). Therefore, Sandusk Creek tends to be ‘flashy’ during rain events due to soil type (clay), lack of forest cover and the lack of infiltration capacity of the soils (LPRCA, 1979b). However, given the relatively low flows found in this creek, it is only considered to be a moderate contributor of nitrate and phosphorus to Lake Erie yet potentially significant source of atrazine (a common herbicide for row-crops) (LPRCA, 1979b).

2.12.6 Conditions Specific to Dedrick-Young Creek Water quality in the Dedrick - Young Creek tends to be fairly good. Young Creek has been identified as a significant salmonid cold water stream (LPRCA, 1979c; Edmonds et al., 1976). Young Creek tends to be of better water quality compared to Dedrick Creek, which is likely due to the numerous groundwater springs in the creek that recharge higher quality water into the system (Van de Lande, 1987).

2.13 Aquatic Habitat The Long Point Region consists of nine major watersheds draining the Horseshoe Moraine, Norfolk Sand Plan and the Haldimand Clay Plain. Given the predominance of agricultural production and the numerous small cities, towns and villages throughout the region, there are very few areas with limited anthropogenic impact in the Long Point Region. The physiographic features, along with land use and management characteristics in the watershed establish the quality and quantity of aquatic habitat available for aquatic life.

Human actions can have a dramatic impact on aquatic habitats. Water habitats can be impacted by the deforestation of riparian areas – those lands adjacent to streams and rivers. This reduces the amount of shade available to keep waters cool during the summer. Losses of forests and wetlands can lead to degraded aquatic habitat through the reduction in groundwater recharge and subsequent reduced baseflows; increased erosion; and the loss of nutrient and sediment filtration. Further, many streams and watercourses in the Region have been straightened or modified in urban and rural areas to promote drainage. Numerous small dams have also been constructed to impound water for water supply or flood reduction. Besides creating thermal regimes more conducive to warm water fish species, these dams can also create barriers for migratory cold-water fish. Consequently, land use and management including intensive agricultural production, tile drainage, urban development, and wastewater treatment plant effluents have all contributed to the degradation of water quality and aquatic habitats found in the Long Point Region (Evans, 2007).

In addition to the chemical characteristics of the waterway, the suitability of aquatic habitat is dependent on three physical factors: temperature, oxygen and clarity. The thermal regimes in the waterways in the Long Point Region include cold-, cool- and warm-water (Map 2-18). For example, the waterways along the western and central portion of the Long Point Region (e.g. lower Big Otter, Big and Dedrick-Young creeks) contain many cold-water fish species however; this region also boasts the highest number of permits to take water. The high number of permitted agricultural water takings on the sand plain can also impact stream flow levels and temperatures as these takings tend to be most active during dry periods in the summer/fall

October 30, 2015 2-47 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report when streamflows are typically at their lowest. On the other hand, watersheds draining the clay plain in the eastern portion of the Region tend to be warm water habitats.

Many of the tributaries within the Long Point Region are thermally stressed (P. Gagnon, pers. comm.). The warming trend in summer stream temperatures across several watersheds, including Big and Patterson creeks, is a concern (Evans, 2007). High temperatures can limit the diversity of aquatic species present as well as impact dissolved oxygen levels. Therefore, prolonged periods of time that temperatures are above the threshold for cold-cool water fish (24°C) limits the creeks ability to support these species. Although there appears to be a warming trend across the Region, there continues to be streams within the Long Point Region that have temperatures and habitats still suitable for supporting cold water fish species (e.g. Young Creek, Trout Creek and Kent Creek).

Dissolved oxygen is also an important indicator of a river’s ability to sustain aquatic life. Levels can be affected by reduced streamflows, increased water temperatures, and increases in pollutants loads that have a high oxygen demand (e.g. wastewater discharges). Although dissolved oxygen has routinely been measured in streams and rivers within the Long Point Region, spot measurements typically occur during the day – the time oxygen tends to be produced through photosynthesis and therefore, does not provide for a good assessment of the dissolved oxygen regime in the river. However, spot measurements showed levels that were rarely below six milligrams per litre (Evans, 2007). Continuous monitoring, as opposed to spot measurements, is recommended to properly characterize dissolved oxygen levels in streams and rivers in the Long Pont Region.

The Long Point Region watersheds sustain a variety of fish species and habitats. Some of the local cold water streams support resident and migratory salmonid populations that include brook, brown and rainbow trout, and pacific salmon. Young Creek, for instance, has been identified as a biologically significant salmonid cold water stream habitat (Long Point Region Conservation Authority, 1979c; Edmonds et al., 1976). In many places, however, poor land use practices have degraded the salmonid habitat, which has impacted their populations. Further, dams, impoundments and other anthropogenic drainage features (e.g. tile drains) have led to the degradation of many of the natural cold-water habitats in the Region.

Warm water systems in the Region support bass, pike, perch, sunfish, bull head, channel catfish and other panfish species (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1990b). Warm water systems are usually found where heavier soils are dominant such as the Haldimand Clay Plain; till moraines of the north-west; near the Lake Erie shoreline; and in some areas where water is held back through artificial storage. For example, Nanticoke Creek transitions from a cold-water system on the Norfolk Sand Plain upstream of Waterford, passing through the Waterford Ponds area, and into a warm-water system as it progresses downstream through the Haldimand Clay Plain. Further, the flows and habitats of this creek have been greatly altered since pre- settlement times. Dissolved oxygen levels have been found to decrease downstream of Waterford, rendering the creek beyond this point unsuitable as cold water fish habitat (Van De Lande, 1987). G. Douglas Vallee Ltd. (2004) speculated that the low dissolved oxygen levels found in the summer were likely a result of the effluent from the Waterford WWTP making up a substantial percentage of the summer base-flow.

In addition to a wide variety of lotic or stream aquatic habitats in the Long Point Region, there are also significant lentic or lake and lake-like aquatic habitats. Many of the inland lakes and ponds are small reservoirs or rehabilitated gravel extraction pits (e.g. Waterford Ponds). Fish populations in these lakes and ponds include large mouth bass, yellow perch, sunfish and

October 30, 2015 2-48 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report crappie. In addition, Lake Erie provides valuable spawning and nursery habitat through shoreline marshes, an example of which includes the Long Point Bay. Species found in Long Point Bay include largemouth and smallmouth bass, yellow perch, northern pike, sunfish, rock bass, carp and bull head (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1990b). Long Point Region watersheds mainly encompass the eastern basin of Lake Erie, which includes species such as: rainbow smelt, yellow perch, rainbow and brown trout, pacific salmon, lake whitefish, lake herring and lake trout.

Two fisheries management plans are followed within the watersheds: the Aylmer District Fisheries Plan 1987-2000 (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1990a); and the Simcoe District Fisheries Management Plan 1987-2000 (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1990b). The Aylmer District Fisheries Plan focuses mainly on the Big Otter watershed. The focus of the fisheries management plan for the Big Otter watershed is to decrease sediment loading due to siltation, decrease nutrient levels in the river and maintain or decrease where possible the temperature of the river. The Simcoe District Fisheries Management Plan 1987-2000 outlined four key fish management issues for the Region: habitat destruction; demand/supply imbalances; resource use conflict; and inadequate knowledge about the fishery. These issues can have significant implications on the fish population and habitat and therefore a fisheries management plan is needed to help reduce impacts, protect habitat and increase and protect resident fish populations in the Region.

October 30, 2015 2-49 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 2-18: Aquatic Habitat in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 2-50 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

2.14 Species at Risk A complete list of species of animals and plants known to be at risk, rare or endangered in the Long Point Region watersheds is included in Table 2-9.

Table 2-9: List of Species at Risk in Long Point Region Watersheds*

Taxonomy Common Name Scientific Name OMNR Status Notes Lake Sturgeon Lake Sturgeon is found in all the (Upper Great Fish Acipenser fulvescens Threatened Great Lakes, and in all Lakes/St. Lawrence drainages of the Great Lakes population) Plants Colicroot Aletris farinosa Threatened Charlotteville Jefferson Ambystoma Amphibians Threatened SW part of Norfolk County Salamander jeffersonianum Norfolk, Western Haldimand, Eastern Sand Ammocrypta Fish Threatened Southern Brant and Oxford, Darter pellucida Eastern Elgin Ammodramus Birds Henslow’s Sparrow Endangered Southern Norfolk County henslowii southern part of Long Point Amphibians Fowler’s Toad Anaxyrus fowleri Threatened Region Reptiles Spiny Softshell Apalone spinifera Threatened SW Norfolk Plants Green Dragon Arisaema dracontium Special Concern Eastern part of Long Point Birds Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Special Concern Region last recorded near St. Williams Insects Frosted Elfin Callophrys irus Extirpated in Norfolk County in 1988 Caprimlugus Birds Whip-poor-will Threatened vociferus Plants American Chestnut Castanea dentata Endangered Birds Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica Threatened Reptiles Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina Special Concern Spotted Plants Chimaphila maculata Endangered SE Norfolk Wintergreen Birds Black Tern Chlidonias niger Special Concern Birds Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Special Concern Reptiles Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata Endangered Clinostomus Fish Redside Dace Endangered Brant & Haldimand Counties elongatus Olive-sided Birds Contopus cooperi Special Concern flycatcher Eastern Flowering Long Point Region, except NW Plants Cornus florida Endangered Dogwood part Small White Lady’s- Cypripedium near St. Williams in Norfolk Plants Endangered slipper candidum County Insects Monarch Danaus plexippus Special Concern Birds Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea Special Concern Horsetail Spike- Eleocharis Plants Endangered Near Long Point rush equisetoides Birds Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Endangered Reptiles Blanding’s Turtle Emydoidea blandingii Threatened Elgin, in the drainages of Lake Fish Lake Chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta Threatened Erie Eastern Persius Erynnis persius SW Norfolk, but not observed in Insects Extirpated Duskywing persius Ontario in over 18 years

October 30, 2015 2-51 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 2-9: List of Species at Risk in Long Point Region Watersheds*

Taxonomy Common Name Scientific Name OMNR Status Notes Esox americanus Fish Grass Pickerel Special Concern SW Norfolk vermiculatus Pygmy Pocket Mosses Fissidens exilis Special Concern NW Norfolk Moss Northern Map Graptemys Reptiles Special Concern Turtle geographica Kentucky Coffee- Plants Gymnocladus dioicus Threatened SE Oxford tree Haliaeetus Birds Bald Eagle Special Concern leucocephalus Eastern Hog-nosed except eastern part of Long Reptiles Heterodon platirhinos Threatened Snake Point Region in Haldimand Swamp Rose- Plants Hibiscus moscheutos Special Concern coastal marshes of S Norfolk mallow Northern Brook Fish Ichthyomyzon fossor Special Concern S drainages of Lake Erie Lamprey Yellow-breasted Birds Icteria virens Special Concern Chat Large Whorled Plants Isotria verticillata Endangered SW Norfolk Pogonia Birds Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Threatened Plants Butternut Juglans cinerea Endangered American Water- Plants Justicia americana Threatened W Norfolk, E Elgin willow Lampropeltis Reptiles Milksnake Special Concern triangulum Fish Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus Threatened SE Elgin Near St. Williams in S. Norfolk, Lycaeides melissa Insects Karner Blue Extirpated but considered extirpated samuelis provincially Macrhybopsis Fish Silver Chub Special Concern Lake Erie storeriana Plants Cucumber Tree Magnolia acuminata Endangered S. Norfolk Red-headed Melanerpes Birds Special Concern Woodpecker erythrocephalus Mammals Woodland Vole Microtus pinetorum Special Concern Fish Pugnose Shiner Notropis anogenus Endangered W&S Norfolk, SW Haldimand Fish Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis Special Concern Oxford, Brant, N. Norfolk Plants American Ginseng Panax quinquefolius Endangered Eastern Foxsnake Lake Erie shore in Norfolk, Reptiles (Carolinian Pantherophis gloydi Endangered Bayham population) Gray Ratsnake Pantherophis Reptiles (Carolinian Endangered SW Norfolk, central Haldimand spiloides population) tributaries of Lake Erie in E. Fish Channel Darter Percina copelandi Threatened Elgin, S. Oxford, W. Norfolk Phegopteris Plants Broad Beech Fern Special Concern hexagonoptera Insects West Virginia White Pieris virginiensis Special Concern Molluscs Round Pigtoe Pleurobema sintoxia Endangered May persist around Long Point Prothonotary Birds Protonotaria citrea Endangered Warbler

October 30, 2015 2-52 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 2-9: List of Species at Risk in Long Point Region Watersheds*

Taxonomy Common Name Scientific Name OMNR Status Notes SE Elgin & SW Norfolk Lake Plants Common Hoptree Ptelea trifoliata Threatened Erie shoreline, Long Point Mountain Lion or Mammals Puma concolor Endangered Cougar large rivers draining into Lake Molluscs Mapleleaf Mussel Quadrula quadrula Threatened Erie in large marshes on shore of Birds King Rail Rallus elegans Endangered Lake Erie in Elgin, SW Norfolk sites in W. Norfolk & W. Reptiles Queen Snake Regina septemvittata Threatened Haldimand Plants Toothcup Rotala ramosior Endangered Norfolk Louisiana Birds Seiurus motacilla Special Concern Waterthrush Round-leaved Plants Smilax rotundifolia Threatened SW Norfolk Greenbrier Eastern Musk Sternotherus Southern Charlotteville and Reptiles Threatened Turtle odoratus Walsingham, Long Point Symphyotrichum E. Elgin, SW Oxford, & W. Plants Crooked-stem Aster Threatened prenanthoides Norfolk Mammals American Badger Taxidea taxus Endangered largest population in Ontario Norfolk: only known populations Plants Virginia Goat’s-rue Tephrosia virginiana Endangered in Ontario Eastern Reptiles Thamnophis sauritus Special Concern Ribbonsnake Lower portions of large Great Molluscs Fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis Endangered Lakes tribs. Greater Prairie- Birds Tympanuchus cupido Extirpated Extirpated in Ontario Chicken SE Oxford, S Brant, N&E Birds Barn Owl Tyto alba Endangered Norfolk, Haldimand Urocyon Mammals Grey Fox Threatened cinereoargenteus Golden-winged Vermivora Birds Special Concern SW Norfolk Warbler chrysoptera Plants Bird’s-foot Violet Viola pedata Endangered Central Norfolk Birds Canada warbler Wilsonia canadensis Special Concern Birds Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina Special Concern Rusty-patched Insect Bombus affinis Endangered Bumble Bee Northern Barrens Insects Cicindela patruela Endangered Charlotteville Tiger Beetle Birds Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Threatened Plants Virginia Mallow Sida hermaphrodita Endangered Oneida Insects Laura’s Clubtail Stylurus laurae Endangered Big Creek, Big Otter Creek * Source: Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List, 2009

2.15 Interactions Between Human and Physical Geography Land use practices in the watershed can have an increased risk to ground and surface water depending on the geology of the area. The geology can determine the infiltration, runoff and recharge rate of precipitation which corresponds to how fast and easily contaminants may be able to move and infiltrate the ground and surface water. The Norfolk Sand Plain is very

October 30, 2015 2-53 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report permeable, and this can be a concern as runoff from agricultural practices such as fertilizers and pesticides can easily move into the soil and into groundwater supplies. In addition, agricultural crops in the area often require higher levels of water for irrigation since the available soil moisture available for crop uptake may be depleted quickly due to high infiltration rates.

The Haldimand Clay Plain provides moderate to good protection to the groundwater as infiltration of clay is low. However, precipitation moves very quickly over clay which can increase surface runoff. Agricultural land uses in this area may benefit from having water storage on the surface; however, fertilizers, pesticides and manure have an increased chance of moving into water systems through runoff. In addition, paved land in and surrounding the area increases the runoff rate and quickly moves precipitation over the clay and possibly into ground and surface water systems.

The geology and current land use practices appear to be driving some of the chronic groundwater and surface water quality issues within the Long Point Region watersheds. Watersheds that drain the clay and till plains tend to have the highest non-filterable residue and nutrient concentrations in the Long Point Region (e.g. Big Otter Creek, and Nanticoke Creek) (Evans, 2007). Land use practices such as intensive agricultural production or urban development (such as in the Lynn River watershed) are also contributing to the overall high nutrient levels found within the Long Point Region (Evans, 2007).

2.16 Watershed Characterization Data Gaps The following data gaps have been identified in the Watershed Characterization component of the Long Point Region Source Protection Area Assessment Report.

Data Plan to Address Data Gap Location of federal lands in the watershed Data on the location of federal lands is not currently available. As new information is released, it will be included in an updated Assessment Report. List of non-municipal drinking water systems Working with the public health units and the Ministry of the Environment to improve the available data on non- municipal drinking water systems. This information will be included in an amendment to the Assessment Report. Location of monitoring wells related to Working with municipalities to improve the available drinking water systems data on non-municipal drinking water systems. This information will be included in an amendment to the Assessment Report. Geologic characterization While the regional flow system is thought to be insensitive to the varying geologic characterizations, local flow systems may be significantly impacted. To reduce uncertainty associated with local studies, it is recommended that additional effort be expended on accurately characterizing the subsurface, including, interpreting cross sections and drilling additional boreholes (LESPR, 2010).

2.17 Watershed Characterization Section Summary  The Long Point Region watershed is located in south western Ontario and covers an area of approximately 2,900 km2, being almost 100km at its widest and 60km running north to south.

October 30, 2015 2-54 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

 The watershed has 225 km of Lake Erie shoreline, including the internationally renowned Long Point sand spit.

 Many different watercourses make up the Long Point Region, each with their own traits and values. The combined length of all streams and tributaries in Long Point Region watershed is over 3700 km.

 Much of the land area of the watershed is used for agricultural purposes. Several medium- sized urban centres including Tillsonburg (Oxford County), Simcoe and Delhi (Norfolk County) make up the majority of the watershed area’s population.

 Long Point Region watershed is home to over 112,000 residents, with over 52% serviced by municipal water supplies.

 Long Point Region is divided into 24 subwatersheds for the purpose of the water budget; prominent streams in the region include Big Creek, Big Otter Creek, Lynn River, Nanticoke Creek, and Sandusk Creek.

 There are 3 major physiographic regions in Long Point region: the Norfolk Sand Plain, the Haldimand Clay Play and the Horseshoe Moraine/Mount Elgin Ridges.

o Much of the central and western portion of the watershed is within the Norfolk Sand Plain, with high infiltration, high groundwater recharge and good baseflows in the creeks.

o The eastern side of the watershed is in the Haldimand Clay Plain, characterized by fine- grain silts and clays resulting in high runoff from poorly drained soils.

o The northwestern portion of the watershed is comprised of low to moderate relief till moraines of the Horseshoe Moraine/Mount Elgin Ridges.

 The watershed is underlain by a series of gently dipping sedimentary rocks consisting of shales, carbonates and sandstone. These rocks are overlain by unconsolidated sediments of variable thickness and porosity.

 Two overburden aquifers are the main source of water for private supplies in the central portion of the watershed, while bedrock aquifers are used in the eastern portion of the Haldimand Clay Plain.

 The shallow upper overburden aquifer mainly supports most of the private water supplies, for domestic and agricultural purposes, as well as some municipal wells in the Norfolk Sand Plain.

 The deeper overburden aquifer can range from 0 to 30 m thick, disappearing when the shallower aquifer is more than 20 m thick.

 The Long Point Region has amongst the highest density of Provincial Permits-to-take-water in Southern Ontario. Most of these permits are for agricultural irrigation.

 Annual average precipitation ranges between 950-1075 mm, which is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year. The majority of the precipitation falls as rain.

October 30, 2015 2-55 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

 Streamflows are quite variable throughout the year, with high flows in the spring from snowmelt, and much lower flows in the summer months which can be exacerbated by high irrigation demand in the Norfolk Sand Plain, or lack of groundwater contribution in the Haldimand Clay Plain.

 There are 10 active streamflow (WSC) gauges, 10 water quality monitoring stations (PWQMN) and 10 LPRCA operated water control structures for flow augmentation, flood control and recreation across the Long Point Region watershed.

 The land area is dominated by intensive agriculture, yet forest cover has recovered to 21%. Wetlands are a significant feature of the watershed area, making up almost 9% of the land area.

 Stream water quality and temperature is influenced by the geology and current land use.

o The Haldimand Clay Plain and moraine areas support livestock operations and general cash crop production. Lack of vegetative cover and low groundwater recharge and discharge results in both higher water temperatures and phosphorus concentrations from runoff.

o Specialty crops and high irrigation rates in the Norfolk Sand Plain result in elevated nitrate levels due to runoff and infiltration. However, high groundwater recharge and discharge rates create sufficient water quality to support cold water fisheries.

 There are ten municipal wastewater treatment plants and lagoons that discharge continuously or seasonally into the creeks, and two that discharge into Lake Erie.

 Nutrient levels, primarily nitrate, phosphorus and non-filterable residue, are the main surface water quality concerns throughout the Long Point Region watershed area.

 There are 85 species at risk found in Long Point Region watershed area, including 14 reptiles and amphibians, 30 birds and insects, 14 fish and mollusks, 23 plants and mosses and 4 mammals.

October 30, 2015 2-56 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

3.0 WATER QUANTITY RISK ASSESSMENT A Water Budget is an understanding and accounting of the movement of water and the uses of water over time, on, through and below the surface of the earth.

The Water Quantity Risk Assessment provides a framework to evaluate the reliability of surface water intakes or wellheads in the context of the local watershed. The objective of the framework is to help managers identify: 1) drinking water sources which may not be able to meet current or future demands and 2) the drinking water threats contributing to the water quantity problem. The risk assessment is carried out using three tiers that have been designed to minimize the amount of water budgeting work needed for wells and surface water intakes that are not under hydrologic stress.

A water budget and Tier 2 stress assessment was carried out for the Long Point Region watershed area as part of a larger study for Catfish Creek, Kettle Creek, and Long Point Region. Since the study began as a more detailed Tier 2 study in 2005, Conceptual Water Budget and Tier 1 Assessments were not required to be completed separately because this information is included in the Watershed Characterization and Tier 2 reporting, and therefore meets the requirements set out in Technical Rule 24.The results of the Long Point Region Water Budget and Tier 2 Stress Assessment are documented in this Assessment Report.

The Long Point Region water budget and Tier 2 stress assessment is documented in two reports: Long Point Region, Kettle Creek and Catfish Creek Integrated Water Budget – Final Report, April 2009 and Long Point Region, Catfish Creek and Kettle Creek Tier 2 Water Quantity Stress Assessment – Final Report, May 2009 and Addendum: Long Point Region Water Quantity Stress Assessment Otter Creek at Tillsonburg Subwatershed – Groundwater, April 2014. The Addendum report documents an update to the stress assessment for the Otter at Tillsonburg subwatershed using revised values for groundwater supply and future water demand estimates to reduce high uncertainty in the original stress assessment for the subwatershed.

3.1 Tier 2 Water Budget The Tier 2 Water Budget and Water Quantity Stress Assessment were completed by AquaResource Inc. as part of a larger suite of studies conducted to increase the understanding of water pathways in the Long Point Region Watershed. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the reports and tools which comprise the larger suite of studies that document the full Water Budget as given in this Assessment Report.

The Integrated Water Budget Report was completed using a set of water budget tools (groundwater flow and hydrologic numerical models). To simulate surface water flows and partitioning of precipitation, a continuous hydrologic model for the Long Point Region watershed area was built using GAWSER (Schroeter & Associates, 2006c). Hydrologic modelling is able to simulate streamflows that reflect seasonal hydrologic processes. To simulate groundwater flows, a regional-scale groundwater flow model was developed and calibrated to available water level and streamflow data using FEFLOW. The regional groundwater flow model was designed to represent average annual groundwater flow conditions, with particular focus on volumetric flow from one subwatershed to another. Together these modelling tools provide a physical means of quantifying flows through the system for determining available water resources in the Long Point Region Watersheds.

October 30, 2015 3-1 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-1: Reports and Tools Documenting the Water Budget

Report/Tool Content Long Point Region, Kettle Creek and Catfish Conceptual water budget, integrated water budget Creek Integrated Water Budget (AquaResource, including quantity and movement of water within 2009a) and across subwatersheds Long Point Region, Kettle Creek and Catfish Water quantity stress assessment Creek Tier 2 Water Quantity Stress Assessment (AquaResource, 2009b) Addendum: Long Point Region Water Quantity An addendum to the Tier 2 groundwater stress Stress Assessment assessment for the Otter at Tillsonburg Otter Creek at Tillsonburg Subwatershed – subwatershed. Groundwater (Grand River Conservation Authority, 2014) Water Use in the Long Point Region Water Use Conservation Authority (Bellamy & Wong, 2005) Long Point Region Watershed Hydrologic Model Surface water quantity and flow assessment and (Schroeter & Associates, 2006c) recharge abstraction Long Point Region Creek Watershed Describe the physical and human characteristics of Characterization (Glauser et al, 2008) the watershed Norfolk County Groundwater Flow Model (WHI Groundwater quantity and flow assessment and et al., 2003) water levels

Significant efforts were undertaken to better quantify and characterize the consumptive water demand. The water demand characterization completed in this study included efforts to verify Permit To Take Water (PTTW) information, gathering “actual pumping” data, estimating agricultural demand based on discussions with the farming community, validating actual use information through calibration of the surface water model, and gathering relevant information contained within Ministry of the Environment’s Permit To Take Water paper files.

The Tier 2 Water Quantity Stress Assessment (AquaResource, 2009b) was prepared as a structured means of evaluating the degree of potential water quantity stress throughout an area by comparing the volume of water demand to that which is practically available for use. The results of streamflow and groundwater flow modelling and water demand estimates from the Integrated Water Budget were incorporated into the Tier 2 Water Quantity Stress Assessment.

Water Budget and the Water Quantity stress assessment were calculated based on twenty-four subwatersheds as shown in Map 2-2 and given in Table 3-2.

October 30, 2015 3-2 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-2: Long Point Region Watershed Area Subwatersheds

Municipal System/Sources Watershed Subwatershed Area (km2)

Otter Above Maple Dell Road 99 Norwich Otter at Otterville 75 Otterville Otter at Tillsonburg 153 Tillsonburg Otter Creek Spittler Creek 116 Springford, Dereham Centre Lower Otter 168 Richmond Little Otter 118 None South Otter 120 None Lake Erie Tribs Clear Creek 87 None Big Above Cement Road 89 None Big Above Kelvin Gauge 64 None Big Above Delhi 154 None North Creek 58 Delhi (Surface Water) Big Creek Big Above Minnow Creek 72 Delhi (Groundwater) Big Above Walsingham Gauge 123 None Venison Creek 98 None Lower Big 96 None Dedrick Creek 138 None Lake Erie Tribs Young/Hay Creek 120 None Lynn River 172 Simcoe Lynn River Black Creek 134 None Upper Nanticoke 114 Waterford Nanticoke Creek Lower Nanticoke 85 None Eastern Sandusk Creek 182 None Tributaries Stoney Creek 186 None Note: The Richmond municipal water system did not exist at the time of the 2009 Tier 2 Water Budget and Stress Assessment.

3.2 Water Use Water use is expressed in two ways: the amount of water pumped and the amount of water consumed. Consumed water is the amount of water pumped and not returned to the source from which it was pumped.

The amount of water pumped was determined by contacting municipalities for information on municipal water supplies, surveying non-agricultural Permit-To-Take-Water holders, utilizing Statistics Canada data to estimate rural domestic and agricultural water use, reviewing Permit- To-Take-Water information from the Ministry of the Environment including the Permit-To-Take- Water database and Permit-To-Take-Water paper records at the Ministry of the Environment offices, and running an irrigation demand model. The seasonality of a water taking sector was considered when estimating the annual volume of extracted water.

The amount of water consumed was determined by applying a consumptive factor to each taking based on the specific purpose of the taking, while taking into account the source of water and the return of waste water. Specific consumptive use factors are based on work by AquaResource (2005) with modifications to agricultural water use based on Isidoro et al. (2003) and comments from the peer review committee.

October 30, 2015 3-3 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-3 shows the top ten water use sectors active in the Long Point Region watershed area and ranks the ten sectors by their proportion of total demand.

Table 3-3: Top 10 Water Users in the Long Point Region Watershed Area (Bellamy & Wong, 2005)

3 Percentage of Total Rank Purpose Takings (m /year) Demand 1 Agricultural Irrigation 31,983,000 55% 2 Municipal Water Supply 10,378,000 18% 3 Aquaculture 6,562,000 11% 4 Rural Domestic 3,505,000 6% 5 Agriculture (Livestock watering) 3,107,000 5% 6 Remediation 956,000 2% 7 Construction Dewatering 526,000 1% 8 Aggregate Washing 516,000 1% 9 Golf Course Irrigation 400,000 1% 10 Other Minor Uses 676,000 1%

3.2.1 Municipal Systems Municipalities within the Long Point Region rely on groundwater, Lake Erie, and inland surface water for their municipal drinking water needs. The communities on groundwater supplies include Simcoe, Tillsonburg, Waterford, Norwich, Otterville, Springford, Dereham Centre and Richmond. A groundwater source in the Upper Thames Region Source Protection supplies water to residents of Mount Elgin in South-West Oxford. Communities reliant on Lake Erie for their water supply include Port Rowan, St. Williams, Port Dover, Hagersville, Jarvis and Townsend. Some communities within the Municipality of Bayham and the Township of Malahide also obtain their water supplies from Lake Erie through the Elgin Primary Water System. The Delhi-Courtland water system is a combined system obtaining water from both groundwater wells and an inland surface water reservoir, Lehman Reservoir on North Creek. Municipal water use within the watershed is estimated at 10.4 million m3/yr, and this volume services approximately 60,000 residents. The location of the municipal water wells and surface water intakes in this area are illustrated on Map 3-2 and Map 3-3 respectively.

Simcoe Simcoe has approximately 15,500 residents served by three separate overburden wellfields operated by Norfolk County. The Cedar Creek wellfield consists of five individual wells and an infiltration gallery. All five wells are located along the banks of Kent Creek, with well screen bottoms between 10.5m and 15m below ground surface. The infiltration gallery consists of a series of underground pipes that run parallel to Kent Creek. The Northwest Wellfield consists of three wells in very close proximity to Patterson Creek, and within an active aggregate producing operation. Screens for the three wells begin at 19-20 m below ground surface, and extend to 22-26 m below ground surface. The Chapel Street Wellfield consists of a single well within the Town of Simcoe, approximately 24 meters below ground surface, and is far removed from surface water bodies.

October 30, 2015 3-4 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Tillsonburg Approximately 16,340 residents are served by the 10 active groundwater municipal supply wells in Tillsonburg operated by Oxford County. Tillsonburg’s supply wells can generally be assigned to one of two areas: wells located to the Northwest of Tillsonburg; and wells located to the Southeast.

Four wells (Wells 4, 5, 6A and 7A) are located to the Northwest of the town. The primary supply aquifer is a body of sand that is sandwiched between Port Stanley till above, and Catfish Creek till below. This sand aquifer ranges in thickness from 2 to 18 m. All four wells are located in close proximity to Stoney Creek (tributary of Big Otter Creek), and have been previously classified as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GUDI).

The remaining six wells (Wells 1A, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12) are located southeast of Tillsonburg and draw water from a variety of sources. The screen for Well 1A taps a sand aquifer which sits directly on bedrock. Wells 2 and 11 are screened within the same sand aquifer that the Northwest wells rely on. The remaining wells (9, 10, and 12) rely on the surficial sand aquifer associated with the Norfolk Sand Plain. Wells 1A, 2, 4, 5, 7A, 9 and 10 have been classified as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GUDI).

Waterford Waterford is a small community of approximately 3,600 located to the north of the Town of Simcoe. Waterford’s water supply consists of two shallow groundwater wells operated by Norfolk County. The primary water supply aquifer for the Waterford wells consists of local unconfined gravel and sand deposits surrounding the community. The thickness of the aquifer ranges from four to eight metres. The wells are surrounded by ponds on the west, and a wetland complex on the east The Waterford supply wells have been previously classified as GUDI.

Oxford South (Norwich, Otterville and Springford) The Norwich water supply consists of three bedrock wells completed at 34m, 40m and 26m depths. Wells 2 and 5 are located within the community of Norwich off Pitcher Street. Well 4 is located 500m east of Norwich on Norwich Road. The serviced population of Norwich is approximately 3,150 people. The Otterville-Springford water supply consists of four overburden groundwater wells operated by Oxford County. The two wells in Otterville are shallow overburden wells that are 13m deep. The Springford wells are a bit deeper at 24m and 26m deep. The serviced population of Otterville and Springford approximately 1,580. Since 2004, these two communities have been connected by a 3.3 km water main with no service connections between the communities. In late 2013, the Otterville–Springford system was connected with the Norwich system by another transmission main, forming the Oxford South Water System.

Dereham Centre The Dereham Centre system services a population of approximately 48 people from one 36m deep well that is operated by Oxford County. The well source is considered secure groundwater with water drawn from an intermediate aquifer system.

Richmond The Richmond system, owned and operated by the Municipality of Bayham, supplies water to a population of approximately 153 people. The system draws water from two overburden wells and one bedrock backup supply well that are located to the southwest of the village. The

October 30, 2015 3-5 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report overburden supply wells were previously considered to be GUDI with adequate in-situ filtration. Note that this municipal system came into being after completion of the Tier 2 Water Budget; with replacement groundwater sources going into production in 2013 and incorporated into the Assssement Report in 2015.

Port Dover The Port Dover Water Supply System is owned and operated by the Corporation of Norfolk County and consists of a Lake Erie intake and two conventional water treatment plants. The intake is located at a depth of 2.7 m approximately 457m from shore. The design capacity of the system is 12,800 m3/day, and services a population of approximately 5,800.

Port Rowan and St. Williams The Port Rowan water supply system is owned and operated by the Corporation of Norfolk County and consists of a Lake Erie intake and a package conventional water treatment plant. The intake is located in the Long Point inner bay approximately 365m from shore at a depth of 0.9m. This is a relatively new plant commissioned in the summer of 1992 which has a design capacity of 3,000 m3/day that serves a population of approximately 1,300 from the communities of Port Rowan and St. Williams.

Nanticoke, Hagersville, Jarvis and Townsend The Nanticoke water system is owned by the Corporation of Haldimand County. The treatment plant is located southwest of the Hamlet of Nanticoke and treated water is supplied to the communities of Hagersville, Jarvis and Townsend and the Mississaugas of the New Credit Reserve. Additionally, water is supplied to the Ontario Power Generation Nanticoke Plant, Lake Erie Industrial Park, the Steel Company of Canada Lake Erie Works and the Texaco Oil Refinery. This water treatment plant has a rated capacity of 300,000 m3/day. Two intakes are located approximately 465m apart 530m from shore in 9m of water in Lake Erie. Water is transported by gravity from the intakes to a forebay at the Ontario Power Generation Nanticoke Plant where it is then pumped to the WTP via an intake pipe at the western end of the forebay.

Delhi-Courtland The Delhi-Courtland water supply system provides water to approximately 6,000 people within the Town of Delhi and the Village of Courtland, and is comprised of two groundwater wells and one surface water intake, which are operated by Norfolk County.

The surface water intake withdraws water from Lehman Reservoir, located on North Creek, just to the west of Delhi. The reservoir is formed by an earthfill dam built in 1965. Dam discharge can occur through a combination of an emergency spillway, a fishway, or an overflow structure. Reservoir water is provided to a municipal intake through a valve controlled opening, located approximately 0.70 m below normal reservoir operational level. The purpose of the Lehman Reservoir is for municipal water supply, recreation and wildlife habitat. The ongoing maintenance and operation of the dam is the responsibility of LPRCA. The operation of the fish ladder is also the responsibility of the LPRCA in conjunction with the Delhi Anglers Association.

Both groundwater wells are located near the intersection of Windham 13 Road and Windham West Quarter Line Road, just east of the town of Delhi. They are located within the Stoney Creek subwatershed, a tributary of Big Creek. The wells are both completed approximately 30 - 40 m below ground surface in a sand and gravel aquifer. This aquifer ranges from 5 to 35 meters deep, and while interbedded clay/till aquitards are present, is considered to be unconfined.

October 30, 2015 3-6 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 3-1: Water Budget and Water Quantity Stress Assessment Sub-watersheds in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 3-7 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 3-2: Municipal Water Wells in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 3-8 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 3-3: Surface Water Intakes in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 3-9 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

3.2.2 Private Drinking Water Supplies A total of 7,613 domestic wells exist in the Long Point Region Protection Area official boundaries, with 1,531 (20%) of these wells being classified as bedrock wells and 5,922 (78%) as overburden wells. Bedrock wells for domestic use are predominantly located in the eastern and north-western watersheds of the Long Point Region, and along the shore of Lake Erie (Map 3-4). These regions of the watershed are located on the clay plain and the till plain where drilling down to bedrock is needed to find productive groundwater sources. Domestic bedrock and overburden wells as given in the Ministry of the Environment's Water Well Information System (WWIS) are illustrated on Map 3-4 and Map 3-5, respectively.

Domestic overburden wells (Map 3-5) dominate in the west-central portion of the region, where the Norfolk Sand Plain is dominant. Overburden wells are evenly spread out across the central and western subwatersheds coinciding with the Norfolk Sand Plain. Overburden wells are also found in the till plain, but generally these wells tap into deeper overburden aquifers. Overburden wells in this region range from 1.8 to 83.8 m in depth, but the median is 11.9 m, indicating that sufficient water is available close to surface.

Unserviced domestic water use was estimated closely following methodology from the Grand River Water Use Study (Bellamy & Boyd, 2005). These estimates were made by combining Census of Population data for areas known not to be serviced by a municipal system, with a per capita water use rate of 160 L/d/cap. A per capita rate of 160 L/d/cap was estimated by Vandierendonck and Mitchell (1997), and is consistent with the Ministry of the Environment Groundwater Studies Technical Terms of Reference (2001) which suggests an unserviced per capita rate of 175 L/d/cap. The estimates were pro-rated by area to the subwatershed areas and are included in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4: Un-serviced Domestic Water Use

Subwatershed Rural Domestic Demand (m3/s) Otter Above Maple Dell Road 0.003 Otter at Otterville 0.003 Big Otter Otter at Tillsonburg 0.006 Spittler Creek 0.004 Lower Otter 0.007 Little Otter 0.005 South Otter 0.004 Lake Erie Tribs Clear Creek 0.003 Big Above Cement Road 0.003 Big Above Kelvin Gauge 0.002 Big Above Delhi 0.005 Big Creek North Creek 0.002

Big Above Minnow Creek 0.003

Big Above Walsingham 0.004 Venison Creek 0.003 Lower Big 0.006 Dedrick Creek 0.005 Lake Erie Tribs Young/Hay Creeks 0.009 Lynn River 0.007 Lynn River Black Creek 0.004 Nanticoke Upper 0.003 Nanticoke Creek Nanticoke Lower 0.006

October 30, 2015 3-10 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-4: Un-serviced Domestic Water Use

Subwatershed Rural Domestic Demand (m3/s) Sandusk Creek 0.007 Eastern Tribs Stoney Creek 0.005

Due to concerns about poor water quality, this unserviced domestic demand is almost exclusively obtained from groundwater. Therefore, it is assumed that all unserviced domestic demand draws water from groundwater supplies. Consistent with the water consumption ratios for other Water Supply categories, the consumptive ratio is assumed to be 0.2. For domestic water wells, this assumption implies that 80% of pumped water is returned to groundwater through septic systems.

3.2.3 Non Drinking Water Use Long Point Region has one of the highest densities of permitted water takings in the Province. After filtering out expired or cancelled permits and permits from the Great Lakes, Long Point Region has approximately 2650 active individual permits, extracting water from 3740 different sources. The permits are focused primarily within the Norfolk Sand Plain as is illustrated on Map 3-6.

Approximately 60% of the permits withdraw water from groundwater sources, 35% from surface water bodies, and 5% from both groundwater and surface water supplies. Agricultural irrigation accounts for over 90% of the total number of permits in the region, with permits for commercial uses (e.g. golf courses), municipal water supply systems, and miscellaneous uses comprising the remainder of the permits.

October 30, 2015 3-11 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 3-4: Domestic Bedrock Wells in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 3-12 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 3-5: Domestic Overburden Wells in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 3-13 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 3-6: Permits to Take Water in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 3-14 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

3.2.4 Permitted Rate Permitted rates were obtained from the Ministry of the Environment Permit-To-Take-Water database. Table 3-5 shows the total permitted rate of active permitted water takings categorized by subwatershed and source. The total permitted rates are 34 m3/s for groundwater and 20 m3/s for surface water sources, representing a total rate of 54 m3/s.

Table 3-5: Permitted Rate

Permitted (m3/s) Permitted (mm) Subwatershed Surface Groundwater Surface Water Groundwater Water Otter Above Maple Dell Road 0.57 0.31 182 99 Otter at Otterville 0.69 0.50 291 210 Otter at Tillsonburg 1.39 1.41 286 291 Spittler Creek 0.07 0.07 19 18 Lower Otter 0.57 1.52 108 285 Little Otter 1.15 0.89 309 239 South Otter 1.23 1.88 324 496 Clear Creek 1.41 0.61 512 220 Big Above Cement Road 0.28 0.12 97 41 Big Above Kelvin Gauge 1.91 0.08 937 39 Big Above Delhi 4.90 2.09 1000 427 North Creek 1.00 1.04 545 565 Big Above Minnow Creek 2.65 1.02 1156 443 Big Above Walsingham 1.89 2.32 486 596 Venison Creek 1.76 1.84 570 593 Lower Big 0.68 0.64 224 209 Dedrick Creek 1.27 1.20 291 275 Young/Hay Creeks 1.48 0.94 387 247 Lynn River 3.70 0.92 680 168 Black Creek 0.61 0.03 144 6 Nanticoke Upper 4.20 0.61 1160 168 Nanticoke Lower 0.01 0.00 5 0 Sandusk Creek 0.19 0.00 32 0 Stoney Creek 0.00 0.02 1 3 Total 34 20

3.2.5 Pumped Rate Pumped rates include the estimated pumped rates from both permitted uses and non-permitted uses. To calculate the pumped rates from permitted uses, reported rates were used where available. If reported rates were not available, pumped rates for non-agricultural permits were estimated based on maximum permitted rates and a monthly demand factor based on the specific purpose listed for the permit to take into consideration the seasonality of the taking based on the work in the Grand River Water Use Study (Bellamy & Boyd, 2005).

For agricultural permits, pumping rates were estimated by applying an irrigation demand model (Bellamy & Wong, 2005) which uses soil moisture generated by the hydrologic model to determine the occurrence of an irrigation event. By multiplying the number of days of active pumping for each irrigation event (4) with the median number of irrigation events (8), the typical irrigation system is estimated to be pumping water for 32 days per year. A pumping factor of

October 30, 2015 3-15 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

60% of the permitted rate was determined based on a number of reported pumping rates. The number of irrigation dates and the pumping factor were used to determine pumping rates on an average annual basis.

For non permitted (permit exempt) water uses, the GRCA developed a methodology to quantify non-permitted agricultural water use as part of the Grand River Water Use Study (Bellamy & Boyd, 2005). Legal non-permitted agricultural water use includes livestock watering, equipment washing, pesticide/herbicide application or any other minor use of water. Kreutzwiser and de Loё (1999) developed a series of coefficients, that when applied to the Census of Agriculture Data, can be used to estimate agricultural water use. The Water Use Assessment applied this methodology to estimate water use on a watershed basis. Table 3-6 pro-rates these watershed- based estimates for each subwatershed by area.

Table 3-6: Non-Permitted Agricultural Water Use

Subwatershed Non-Permitted Agricultural Demand (m3/s) Otter Above Maple Dell Road 0.006 Otter at Otterville 0.005 Otter at Tillsonburg 0.006 Spittler Creek 0.007 Lower Otter 0.004 Little Otter 0.003 South Otter 0.001 Clear Creek 0.001 Big Above Cement Road 0.003 Big Above Kelvin Gauge 0.002 Big Above Delhi 0.006 North Creek 0.000 Big Above Minnow Creek 0.002 Big Above Walsingham 0.002 Venison Creek 0.002 Lower Big 0.001 Dedrick Creek 0.001 Young/Hay Creeks 0.006 Lynn River 0.005 Black Creek 0.004 Nanticoke Upper 0.003 Nanticoke Lower 0.006 Sandusk Creek 0.004 Stoney Creek 0.003

Due to the census-based estimation technique, it is not possible to reliably determine the source of water for the agricultural water users. In the absence of this information, it is assumed that half of the demand is serviced through groundwater sources, and half is serviced through surface water sources.

Table 3-7 summarizes the estimates of the volume of water pumped, expressed as an annual average rate, for all users. The pumped rate is the average annual amount of water that has been withdrawn from watercourses or aquifers, without allowing for the consumptive nature of the taking. Pumped demand shows approximately 3.6 m3/s pumped on an annual average basis, compared to 54 m3/s that is permitted. This large difference is attributed primarily to the seasonality of agricultural permits, which are the dominant water use within the region.

October 30, 2015 3-16 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-7: Average Rate Pumped

Subwatershed Groundwater (m3/s) Surface Water (m3/s) Otter Above Maple Dell Road 0.04 0.07 Otter at Otterville 0.03 0.02 Otter at Tillsonburg 0.15 0.06 Spittler Creek 0.01 0.01 Lower Otter 0.03 0.05 Little Otter 0.07 0.03 South Otter 0.05 0.07 Clear Creek 0.06 0.02 Big Above Cement Road 0.02 0.01 Big Above Kelvin Gauge 0.14 0.00 Big Above Delhi 0.21 0.12 North Creek 0.11 0.09 Big Above Minnow Creek 0.14 0.04 Big Above Walsingham 0.06 0.31 Venison Creek 0.06 0.08 Lower Big 0.03 0.03 Dedrick Creek 0.05 0.47 Young/Hay Creeks 0.10 0.18 Lynn River 0.24 0.04 Black Creek 0.05 0.00 Nanticoke Upper 0.18 0.02 Nanticoke Lower 0.00 0.00 Sandusk Creek 0.02 0.00 Stoney Creek 0.01 0.01 Total 1.86 1.73

* Total = Estimated +Reported. Due to rounding errors, small summing discrepancies may exist.

3.2.6 Consumptive Use Table 3-8 summarizes the estimated consumptive demand (source scale) within each subwatershed. The consumptive nature of water use is a point of uncertainty. In the absence of source specific information, standard consumptive use factors (AquaResource, 2009a) were used based on the specific purpose as listed on the permit to take water.

The table shows the maximum and minimum monthly and average annual demand for both surface water and groundwater sources. On an average annual basis, 1.45 m3/s of water is estimated to be consumed from aquifers and 0.79 m3/s is consumed from rivers and creeks.

There is significant monthly variability within most subwatersheds in the Long Point Region due to the dominant agricultural sector water usage, which removes water only during the summer months. Consumptive demands for groundwater are larger than for surface water due to the fact that groundwater takings are not recycled back to the aquifer.

October 30, 2015 3-17 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-8: Consumptive Demand (By Hydrologic Source Unit)

Groundwater Demand (m3/s) Surface Water Demand (m3/s) Subwatershed Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Monthly Monthly Annual Monthly Monthly Annual Otter Above Maple Dell Road 0.09 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.02 Otter at Otterville 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.02 Otter at Tillsonburg 0.24 0.08 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.06 Spittler Creek 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 Lower Otter 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.05 Little Otter 0.17 0.03 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.02 South Otter 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.23 0.00 0.07 Clear Creek 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.02 Big Above Cement Road 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 Big Above Kelvin Gauge 0.32 0.05 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 Big Above Delhi 0.67 0.01 0.16 0.26 0.01 0.08 North Creek 0.20 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.01 0.04 Big Above Minnow Creek 0.40 0.02 0.11 0.12 0.00 0.04 Big Above Walsingham 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.25 0.04 0.10 Venison Creek 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.17 0.00 0.05 Lower Big 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.02 Dedrick Creek 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.05 0.07 Young/Hay Creeks 0.24 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.01 0.05 Lynn River 0.60 0.07 0.20 0.14 0.00 0.04 Black Creek 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 Nanticoke Upper 0.54 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.00 0.02 Nanticoke Lower 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sandusk Creek 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Stoney Creek 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 Total 1.45 0.79

Although efforts have been made to determine actual pumping rates for permit holders, there is still a number of permits without reported pumping rates in which standard seasonality and consumption factors had to be used. The biggest water use sector, agricultural, has the most uncertainty since this use is climate driven. Ongoing changes in the dominant crops being grown also contributes to the uncertainty. Production of high water use crops, such as tobacco, has been in decline in the past decade, and the choice of long term replacement crops for these fields is not yet clear. At the same time, domestic water use in the Long Point Region subwatersheds is relatively steady. The low population growth forecast outlined in Table 2-2 (approximately 0.7%) combined with recent trends in water conservation may result in reduced domestic consumption. Therefore, currently there is no indication of increasing water use over time.

3.3 Surface Water Budget

3.3.1 Surface Water Model The Long Point Region watershed area continuous surface water model was built using the Guelph All-Weather Sequential-Events Runoff (GAWSER) model program. This modelling software is a physically-based deterministic hydrologic model that is used to predict the total streamflow resulting from inputs of rainfall and/or snowmelt. The infiltration routine uses the

October 30, 2015 3-18 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Green-Ampt equation to partition precipitation into runoff and infiltrated water (recharge). Potential evapotranspiration is calculated using the Linacre model. Evapotranspiration is then calculated by removing available water from depression storage and the soil layers until wilting point is reached. Modelling procedures are fully documented in the GAWSER Training Guide and Reference Manual (Schroeter & Associates, 1996). Runoff, recharge and evapotranspiration were then aggregated to the subwatershed scale for the water budget.

The Long Point Region watershed area hydrologic model was built by Schroeter and Associates in 2006. The study area has 298 catchments, ranging in size from 0.7 km2 to 56 km2, with the average being 8.8 km2.

Each catchment was assigned to one of 23 Zones of Uniform Meteorology (ZUMs) for climate data input. Climate data from the Atmospheric Environment Services climate stations at Delhi and Simcoe were used for the Long Point Region watershed area hydrologic model, but were adjusted on an individual basis for each ZUM based on additional historic climate data sets from Atmospheric Environment Services, the Conservation Authority and private sources (Schroeter and Associates, 2006c). Missing precipitation and temperature data was filled in using data from nearby stations based on a process described by Schroeter et al (2006c). Climate data for the period November 1960 to November 2004 was used for this study.

Each catchment is comprised of 9 hydrologic response units (HRU), one impervious and 8 pervious. The HRUs were delineated by overlaying mapping with land cover information. Land cover information was taken from LANDSAT imagery obtained from the Great Lakes Conservation Blueprint Project for Terrestrial Biodiversity project (Henson et al., 2005) which was produced by MNR's Natural Heritage Information Centre.

The Long Point Region was divided into two sections with differing response units. The response units used in all watersheds west of Nanticoke Creek are given in Table 3-9 and the response units used in watershed east of and including Nanticoke Creek are included in Table 3-10. An additional response unit was added to the Long Point Region hydrologic model to account for permeable material overlaying less permeable material to account for inconsistencies between the hydrologic model and the groundwater model. The revised hydrologic response unit was assigned hydrologic characteristics from a sand based response unit for the upper soil layer, with the second layer hydrologic characteristics taken from a silt- based response unit. The revised response unit was most used in the Black Creek subwatershed, but also for parts of the Big Otter Creek watershed.

Table 3-9: Hydrologic Response Units for Western Watersheds

Groundwater HRU Description Reservoir 1 Impervious Surfaces NA 2 Wetlands Fast 3 Clays, clay till with low vegetative cover Fast 4 Silts and silty-clays with low vegetative cover Fast 5 Sandy soils with ‘natural’ low vegetative cover Slow 6 Sandy soils with ‘disturbed’ low vegetative cover Slow 7 Sand and gravels with tobacco vegetative cover Slow 8 Slow infiltration soils with forest cover (includes clays and silty-clays) Fast 9 Fast infiltration soils with forest cover (includes sands and gravels) Slow

October 30, 2015 3-19 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-10: Hydrologic Response Units for Eastern Watersheds

Groundwater HRU Description Reservoir 1 Impervious Surfaces NA 2 Wetlands Fast 3 Clays, clay till with low ‘natural’ vegetative cover Fast 4 Clays, clay till, organic matter with low ‘disturbed’ vegetative cover Fast 5 Silts and silty-clays with low vegetative cover Fast 6 Sandy soils with low vegetative cover Slow 7 Sand and gravels with tobacco vegetative cover Slow 8 Slow infiltration soils with forest cover (includes clays and silty-clays) Fast 9 Fast infiltration soils with forest cover (includes sands and gravels) Slow

Contributions from human sources were also modeled by including wastewater treatment plant outflow and agricultural water use which is the dominant water use in the Long Point Region. Wastewater treatment plant outflows from eight facilities in the Long Point Region were added as part of the baseflow from the catchment in which the outfall is located. Agricultural water use was estimated using an irrigation demand model that uses soil water deficient to determine when irrigation may be required. Daily water demand hydrographs were produced based on the demand for irrigation and using permitted rates from surface and shallow groundwater permits to take water, taking into account consumption factors. The demand hydrographs were then subtracted from the outflow hydrograph on a subwatershed basis.

The model was initially calibrated by Schroeter and Associates (2006c) as part of the model building exercise. Calibration was revisited following revisions to the model including a change to the way agricultural water takers were included and the addition of the modified response unit, both described above. Calibration focused on matching the mean, median and 90th percentile seasonal flows with special attention to summer low flows and the transition between cold and warm seasons. There is a trend in the watersheds that drain the Norfolk Sand Plain for elevated flows from the spring freshet to be extended into the late spring/early summer. This is most likely due to a limitation in the GAWSER code in how it handles the groundwater flow system and does not affect the partitioning of precipitation which is the main output required for the surface water budget.

3.3.2 Surface Water Budget The surface water budget components are determined from the hydrologic model (precipitation, evapotranspiration, runoff and recharge) and from the water use study for surface water takings. Some small watersheds which drain directly to Lake Erie were not included in the Long Point Region hydrologic model. Surface water budget components from the same hydrologic response unit and same subwatershed were applied to these areas for the water budget. Surface water budget components have significant temporal variability. Results presented are based on average annual conditions for the 1980-2004 period and it is recognized that these results may vary significantly based on climate conditions. The analysis does not account for changes in water storage that would occur from one time period to the next.

As shown on Table 3-11 the average annual precipitation is approximately 956 mm/year. The hydrologic model has estimated average annual evapotranspiration to be 542 mm/year. The average runoff rate across the Study Area is 191 mm/year, with an average groundwater

October 30, 2015 3-20 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report recharge rate of 223 mm/year. Water taken from watercourses, that is not immediately returned to the surface water system, is approximately 0.79 m3/s, or 9 mm/year. While precipitation and evapotranspiration rates have some degree of spatial variability, runoff and recharge rates have the most significant spatial variability due to changing soils, surficial geology, and land cover.

Table 3-11: Average Annual Water Budget (Surface Water)

Water Budget Parameter Value (m3/s) Value (mm/year) Precipitation 85.5 956 Evapotranspiration 48.4 542 Runoff 17.1 191 Recharge 20.0 223 SW Taking 0.79 9

Table 3-12 and Table 3-13 summarize the water budget components for each of the subwatersheds in mm and m3/s, respectively. The negative values in the 'SW Taking' column represent the amount of water taken from the surface water source that is not immediately returned to the source.

Table 3-12: Surface Water Budget (mm)

Area SW Flow Subwatershed 2 Precip ET Runoff Recharge Inflow Outflow (km ) Taking Yield Otter Above 99 992 542 223 226 -6 439 439 Maple Dell Road Otter at Otterville 75 973 541 223 209 -9 582 997 415 Otter at 153 971 498 264 208 -12 825 1305 480 Tillsonburg Spittler Creek 116 973 529 274 170 -2 447 447 Lower Otter 168 968 535 227 206 -9 1487 1942 455 Little Otter 118 969 552 123 294 -6 426 426 South Otter 120 974 564 96 314 -18 384 384 Clear Creek 87 952 562 88 302 -6 284 284 Big Above 89 914 534 191 189 -2 322 322 Cement Road Big Above Kelvin 64 914 545 101 269 -2 449 731 283 Gauge Big Above Delhi 154 951 549 114 288 -17 304 840 536 North Creek 58 970 565 83 322 -20 252 252 Big Above 72 993 564 81 348 -15 1996 2367 371 Minnow Creek Big Above 123 993 563 135 295 -26 1395 1880 485 Walsingham Venison Creek 98 980 563 102 315 -16 422 422 Lower Big 96 984 490 281 213 -7 2830 3282 452 Dedrick Creek 138 1006 551 180 274 -15 270 270 Young/Hay 120 1004 563 136 305 -13 243 243 Creeks Lynn River 172 983 584 116 283 -8 422 422

October 30, 2015 3-21 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-12: Surface Water Budget (mm)

Area SW Flow Subwatershed 2 Precip ET Runoff Recharge Inflow Outflow (km ) Taking Yield Black Creek 134 979 566 250 163 -1 381 381 Nanticoke Upper 114 915 553 178 185 -5 344 344 Nanticoke Lower 85 897 514 299 84 -1 463 790 327 Sandusk Creek 182 874 505 301 68 -1 338 338 Stoney Creek 186 874 506 302 68 -1 313 313 Total Area 2821 956 542 191 223 -9 386

Table 3-13: Surface Water Budget (m3/s)

Area SW Flow Subwatershed 2 Precip ET Runoff Recharge Inflow Outflow (km ) Taking Yield Otter Above Maple Dell 99 3.12 1.71 0.70 0.71 -0.02 1.38 1.38 Road Otter at 75 2.31 1.28 0.53 0.50 -0.02 1.38 2.36 0.98 Otterville Otter at 153 4.71 2.42 1.28 1.01 -0.06 4.01 6.34 2.33 Tillsonburg Spittler Creek 116 3.57 1.94 1.01 0.62 -0.01 1.64 1.64 Lower Otter 168 5.16 2.85 1.21 1.10 -0.05 7.93 10.35 2.42 Little Otter 118 3.61 2.06 0.46 1.10 -0.02 1.59 1.59 South Otter 120 3.70 2.14 0.36 1.19 -0.07 1.46 1.46 Clear Creek 87 2.63 1.55 0.24 0.83 -0.02 0.78 0.78 Big Above 89 2.59 1.52 0.54 0.54 -0.01 0.91 0.91 Cement Road Big Above 1.86 1.11 0.21 0.55 0.00 0.91 1.49 0.58 Kelvin Gauge 64 Big Above Delhi 154 4.66 2.69 0.56 1.41 -0.08 1.49 4.11 2.62 North Creek 58 1.78 1.04 0.15 0.59 -0.04 0.46 0.46 Big Above 2.28 1.29 0.18 0.80 -0.04 4.58 5.43 0.85 Minnow Creek 72 Big Above 3.86 2.19 0.52 1.15 -0.10 5.43 7.31 1.89 Walsingham 123 Venison Creek 98 3.03 1.74 0.31 0.97 -0.05 1.31 1.31 Lower Big 96 3.00 1.49 0.86 0.65 -0.02 8.62 10.00 1.38 Dedrick Creek 138 4.39 2.41 0.79 1.20 -0.07 1.18 1.18 Young/Hay 120 3.83 2.15 0.52 1.16 -0.05 0.93 0.93 Creeks Lynn River 172 5.35 3.18 0.63 1.54 -0.04 2.30 2.30 Black Creek 134 4.15 2.40 1.06 0.69 0.00 1.61 1.61 Nanticoke 114 3.32 2.00 0.64 0.67 -0.02 1.25 1.25 Upper Nanticoke 85 2.42 1.39 0.81 0.23 0.00 1.25 2.13 0.88 Lower Sandusk Creek 182 5.03 2.91 1.73 0.39 0.00 1.95 1.95

October 30, 2015 3-22 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-13: Surface Water Budget (m3/s)

Area SW Flow Subwatershed 2 Precip ET Runoff Recharge Inflow Outflow (km ) Taking Yield Stoney Creek 186 5.15 2.98 1.78 0.39 0.00 1.84 1.84 Total Area 2821 85.51 48.44 17.08 19.99 -0.79 34.53

Many elements of the water budget modelling process using the hydrologic model are subject to uncertainty. Although the calibration process is performed in an attempt to reduce uncertainty, the model results and water budgets reflect the uncertainty in the input parameters as well as limitations in the modelling approach. The model is designed to reflect general characteristics of each catchment relating to land cover, climate, soils and vegetation, and stream and river hydraulics. Calibration is limited to the available stream flow data and does not include many of the smaller Lake Erie tributaries.

3.4 Groundwater Water Budget

3.4.1 Groundwater Model The steady-state groundwater flow model developed for the Long Point Region watershed area, Catfish Creek watershed area and Kettle Creek watershed area was developed using FEFLOW. The model builds upon earlier work completed by WHI (2003, 2007). The original modelling effort was completed as part of the Norfolk County Groundwater Study (WHI, 2003). The Norfolk County model was extended by WHI (2007) to encompass the Catfish Creek and Kettle Creek watershed areas. The groundwater model is a regional flow model encompassing an area of approximately 4000 km2 with 31 subwatersheds. It has six overburden/unconsolidated layers, two bedrock layers and approximately one million nodes.

The mesh designed by WHI (2007) was redesigned to enhance the ability to conform to key features. The horizontal distribution of node points (discretization) was redesigned to incorporate all major river features as well as permitted pumping locations and to conform to all subwatershed boundaries.

The number of vertical layers applied within the current version of the model was also modified from that developed by WHI (2007). The WHI version of the model contained four bedrock layers (1-weathered and 3 un-weathered) that extended more than 500m into the underlying bedrock (with ~100m overburden). A review of available borehole data and reflection from experienced hydrogeologists suggested that the active, fresh-water portion of the bedrock was limited to the upper 50m (Theo Beukeboom, pers. comm.). As a result, flow through the bedrock layers was simulated using two layers (one weathered and one un-weathered) with a thickness of 5m and 50m respectively. Overburden layers were not modified from the earlier version. The model was developed to have layers follow a series of hydrostratigraphic units (WHI, 2007). However, a review of this representation as well as the stratigraphic sequences in the area suggests that more work would be needed to explicitly delineate and represent physical hydrostratigraphic units. Consequently, the overburden layers are considered to represent a means of subdividing the unconsolidated sediments, without a direct link to specific stratigraphic units. To compensate for this, properties within each model layer are assigned based on the lithology of the surrounding boreholes.

October 30, 2015 3-23 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Recharge estimates were taken from the hydrologic model and applied to the groundwater model to provide a connection between the surface and groundwater numerical models. Streams and rivers within the groundwater model were given specified head values. Stream stage was taken from the available Digital Elevation Model. To determine appropriate lateral boundary conditions for the model, water level trends around the perimeter of the model were carefully reviewed. Where water level trends suggested that natural flow boundaries exist (groundwater divides), a no-flow boundary was applied. In other areas where water level trends indicated cross-boundary flow, fixed water level boundary conditions equivalent to the equipotential heads in those layers were applied. The review process also included evaluation of all cross-boundary flows to ensure that the direction and magnitude of cross-boundary flows was reasonable.

The best available data was used to determine the location, screened interval and pumping rate for wells. Reported “actual” pumping rates were used where available (municipal pumping wells and personal contact). For other permits to take water, the consumptive use estimate for the source was applied. Non-permitted water takings are not represented within the model.

Initial overburden hydraulic conductivity estimates were derived based on borehole lithology records within each model layer, while bedrock values were applied to be consistent with values from previous studies. Initial estimates of hydraulic conductivity were subsequently modified through the model calibration process. Layer thicknesses, however, were not modified during model calibration. As a result, the calibration of the ability of the groundwater system to transmit flow was primarily accomplished by varying hydraulic conductivity.

Observed groundwater levels (head) and groundwater discharge (portion of stream baseflow) were used as calibration targets for the groundwater model. Water levels selected for use in calibration included those with high location reliability and with static water levels observed in the period 1980-onward (2450 well water levels) from the Ministry of the Environment water well information system. Only wells with Ministry of the Environment reliability codes of 5 or better were used. In addition to the water level calibration targets used, baseflow discharge estimates at 15 locations throughout the model domain for the 1980-2005 period were also used as calibration targets.

3.4.2 Groundwater Budget Table 3-14 summarizes the average annual groundwater budget for the Study Area. It is linked to the surface water budget by the recharge rate. Water taken from aquifers, that is not immediately returned to the groundwater system, is approximately 1.53 m3/s, or 17 mm/year. The groundwater model estimates average annual groundwater discharge to surface water features to be 16.01 m3/s. Additionally, approximately a net flow of 0.81 m3/s flows into the Study Area from adjacent watersheds, and 2.67 m3/s flows out of the area to Lake Erie.

Table 3-14: Average Annual Water Budget Summary (Groundwater)

Water Budget Parameter Value (m3/s) Value (mm/year) Recharge 20.0 223 Net Flow In Across Watershed Boundaries 0.81 9 Net Flow into Lake Erie 2.67 30 Net Discharge to Surface Water Features 16.01 179 GW Taking 1.53 17

October 30, 2015 3-24 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-15 and Table 3-16 summarize the water budget components for each of the subwatersheds in mm and m3/s, respectively. The negative values in the 'GW Taking' column represent the amount of water taken from an aquifer that is not immediately returned to the source. Negative values in the River Discharge column indicate that flow is leaving the groundwater system to the surface water system.

Table 3-15: Groundwater Water Budget (mm/yr)

Inter- Flow Area GW Lake Erie Outside River Subwatershed 2 Recharge Basin In (km ) Taking Discharge watershed Discharge Transfer Ratio Otter Above Maple 99 226 -10 35 -174 -80 -19% Dell Road Otter at Otterville 75 209 -12 -176 -21 -10% Otter at Tillsonburg 153 293 23 87 376 138 36% Spittler Creek 116 170 -3 43 -130 -82 -22% Lower Otter 168 206 -5 -17 56 -203 -39 1% Little Otter 118 294 -17 -266 -5 -4% South Otter 120 314 -10 -68 -222 -16 -26% Clear Creek 87 302 -16 -109 -185 7 -33% Big Above Cement 89 189 -4 57 -181 60 -1% Road Big Above Kelvin 64 269 -55 -84 -136 15 -29% Gauge Big Above Delhi 154 288 -33 -25 -264 31 3% North Creek 58 322 -52 -203 -82 -21% Big Above Minnow 72 348 -50 -342 39 12% Creek Big Above 123 295 -13 -322 36 13% Walsingham Venison Creek 98 315 -16 -365 64 21% Lower Big 96 213 -7 -26 -126 -53 -38% Dedrick Creek 138 274 -9 -165 -158 55 -39% Young/Hay Creeks 120 305 -22 -113 -130 -50 -50% Lynn River 172 283 -38 -24 -206 -9 -14% Black Creek 134 163 -10 -35 -117 -2 -22% Nanticoke Upper 114 185 -40 -14 -145 11 0% Nanticoke Lower 85 84 -2 -33 -73 22 -11% Sandusk Creek 182 68 -2 -28 -36 -3 -43% Stoney Creek 186 66 -2 -44 -15 -5 -74% Total Area 2821 223 -17 -30 9 -179

Table 3-16: Groundwater Water Budget (m3/s )

Inter- Flow Area GW Lake Erie Outside River Subwatershed 2 Recharge Basin In (km ) Taking Discharge watershed Discharge Transfer Ratio Otter Above Maple 99 0.71 -0.03 0.11 -0.55 -0.25 -19% Dell Road

October 30, 2015 3-25 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-16: Groundwater Water Budget (m3/s )

Inter- Flow Area GW Lake Erie Outside River Subwatershed 2 Recharge Basin In (km ) Taking Discharge watershed Discharge Transfer Ratio

Otter at Otterville 75 0.50 -0.03 -0.42 -0.05 -10% Otter at Tillsonburg 153 1.5 -0.11 0.42 -1.88 0.67 36% Spittler Creek 116 0.62 -0.01 0.16 -0.48 -0.30 -22% Lower Otter 168 1.10 -0.03 -0.09 0.30 -1.08 -0.21 1% Little Otter 118 1.10 -0.06 -0.99 -0.02 -4% South Otter 120 1.19 -0.04 -0.26 -0.84 -0.06 -26% Clear Creek 87 0.83 -0.04 -0.30 -0.51 0.02 -33% Big Above Cement 89 0.54 -0.01 0.16 -0.52 -0.17 -1% Road Big Above Kelvin 64 0.55 -0.11 -0.17 -0.28 0.03 -29% Gauge Big Above Delhi 154 1.41 -0.16 -0.12 -1.29 0.15 3% North Creek 58 0.59 -0.10 -0.37 -0.15 -21% Big Above Minnow 72 0.80 -0.11 -0.78 0.09 12% Creek Big Above 123 1.15 -0.05 -1.25 0.14 13% Walsingham Venison Creek 98 0.97 -0.05 -1.13 0.20 21% Lower Big 96 0.65 -0.02 -0.08 -0.38 -0.16 -38% Dedrick Creek 138 1.20 -0.04 -0.72 -0.69 0.24 -39% Young/Hay Creeks 120 1.16 -0.08 -0.43 -0.49 -0.19 -50% Lynn River 172 1.54 -0.21 -0.13 -1.12 -0.05 -14% Black Creek 134 0.69 -0.04 -0.15 -0.50 -0.01 -22% Nanticoke Upper 114 0.67 -0.14 -0.05 -0.53 0.04 0% Nanticoke Lower 85 0.23 -0.01 -0.09 -0.20 0.06 -11% Sandusk Creek 182 0.39 -0.01 -0.16 -0.21 -0.02 -43% Stoney Creek 186 0.39 -0.01 -0.26 -0.09 -0.03 -74% Total Area 2821 19.99 -1.53 -2.67 0.81 -16.01

Any model developed to represent a natural system is inherently a simplification of that system. One of the largest points of uncertainty in the groundwater flow model is in the geologic conceptual model. This uncertainty has led to the definition of numerical model layers that are neither representative of hydrostratigraphic conditions, nor uniformly distributed. A lack of borehole logs that penetrate to depth in this area exacerbate the uncertainty associated with the geologic conceptual model and the assigned hydraulic conductivities. Every effort was made to minimize the uncertainty, but results should only be viewed from a regional flow system scale.

3.5 Integrated Water Budget This section presents the integrated water budget for the Long Point Region watershed area. This integrated water budget considers average annual estimates of key hydrologic parameters relating to both surface water and groundwater resources, and the integration between the two.

Values reported are based on annual averages, and may exhibit significant seasonal variation. Due to the regional perspective of this analysis, the subwatershed descriptions may lack local

October 30, 2015 3-26 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report details that may have local hydrologic significance. Local scale interpretation and/or models may provide differing results than those presented here averaged spatially and temporally. Table 3-17 and Table 3-18 summarize the water budget components for each of the subwatersheds in mm and m3/s, respectively. Table 3-19 describes the components of the water budget and explains the significance of negative flow values with respect to the movement of water in, through and out of the watershed.

October 30, 2015 3-27 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-17: Integrated Water Budget (mm/year) Surface Water System Groundwater System Surface Inter- Flow Average Average Flow SW GW Lake Erie Outside Subwatershed Precip ET Runoff Recharge Water Basin In Inflow Outflow Yield Taking Taking Discharge watershed Discharge Transfer Ratio Otter Above Maple 992 542 223 226 439 439 -6 -10 35 -174 -80 -19% Dell Otter at Otterville 973 541 223 209 582 997 415 -9 -12 -176 -21 -10% Otter at Tillsonburg 971 498 264 208 825 1305 480 -12 23 87 376 138 36% Spittler Creek 973 529 274 170 447 447 -2 -3 43 -130 -82 -22% Lower Otter 968 535 227 206 1487 1942 455 -9 -5 -17 56 -203 -39 1% Little Otter 969 552 123 294 426 426 -6 -17 -266 -5 -4% South Otter 974 564 96 314 384 384 -18 -10 -68 -222 -16 -26% Clear Creek 952 562 88 302 284 284 -6 -16 -109 -185 7 -33% Big Above Cement 914 534 191 189 322 322 -2 -4 57 -181 60 -1% Big Above Kelvin 914 545 101 269 449 731 283 -2 -55 -84 -136 15 -29% Big Above Delhi 951 549 114 288 304 840 536 -17 -33 -25 -264 31 3% North Creek 970 565 83 322 252 252 -20 -52 -203 -82 -21% Big Above Minnow 993 564 81 348 1996 2367 371 -15 -50 -342 39 12% Big Above 993 563 135 295 1395 1880 485 -26 -13 -322 36 13% Walsingham Venison Creek 980 563 102 315 422 422 -16 -16 -365 64 21% Lower Big 984 490 281 213 2830 3282 452 -7 -7 -26 -126 -53 -38% Dedrick Creek 1006 551 180 274 270 270 -15 -9 -165 -158 55 -39% Young/Hay Creeks 1004 563 136 305 243 243 -13 -22 -113 -130 -50 -50% Lynn River 983 584 116 283 422 422 -8 -38 -24 -206 -9 -14% Black Creek 979 566 250 163 381 381 -1 -10 -35 -117 -2 -22% Nanticoke Upper 915 553 178 185 344 344 -5 -40 -14 -145 11 0% Nanticoke Lower 897 514 299 84 463 790 327 -1 -2 -33 -73 22 -11% Sandusk Creek 874 505 301 68 338 338 -1 -2 -28 -36 -3 -43% Stoney Creek 874 506 302 68 313 313 -1 -2 -44 -15 -5 -74% Total Area 956 542 191 223 386 -9 -17 -30 9 -179

October 30, 2015 3-28 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-18: Integrated Water Budget (m3/s) Surface Water System Groundwater System Surface Inter- Flow Average Average Flow SW GW Lake Erie Outside Subwatershed Precip ET Runoff Recharge Water Basin In Inflow Outflow Yield Taking Taking Discharge watershed Discharge Transfer Ratio Otter Above 3.12 1.71 0.70 0.71 1.38 1.38 -0.02 Maple Dell -0.03 0.11 -0.55 -0.25 -19% Otter at Otterville 2.31 1.28 0.53 0.50 1.38 2.36 0.98 -0.02 -0.03 -0.42 -0.05 -10% Otter at 4.71 2.42 1.28 1.01 4.01 6.34 2.33 -0.06 Tillsonburg -0.11 0.42 -1.88 0.67 -36% Spittler Creek 3.57 1.94 1.01 0.62 1.64 1.64 -0.01 -0.01 0.16 -0.48 -0.30 -22% Lower Otter 5.16 2.85 1.21 1.10 7.93 10.35 2.42 -0.05 -0.03 -0.09 0.30 -1.08 -0.21 1% Little Otter 3.61 2.06 0.46 1.10 1.59 1.59 -0.02 -0.06 -0.99 -0.02 -4% South Otter 3.70 2.14 0.36 1.19 1.46 1.46 -0.07 -0.04 -0.26 -0.84 -0.06 -26% Clear Creek 2.63 1.55 0.24 0.83 0.78 0.78 -0.02 -0.04 -0.30 -0.51 0.02 -33% Big Above 2.59 1.52 0.54 0.54 0.91 0.91 -0.01 Cement -0.01 0.16 -0.52 -0.17 -1% Big Above Kelvin 1.86 1.11 0.21 0.55 0.91 1.49 0.58 0.00 -0.11 -0.17 -0.28 0.03 -29% Big Above Delhi 4.66 2.69 0.56 1.41 1.49 4.11 2.62 -0.08 -0.16 -0.12 -1.29 0.15 3% North Creek 1.78 1.04 0.15 0.59 0.46 0.46 -0.04 -0.10 -0.37 -0.15 -21% Big Above 2.28 1.29 0.18 0.80 4.58 5.43 0.85 -0.04 Minnow -0.11 -0.78 0.09 12% Big Above 3.86 2.19 0.52 1.15 5.43 7.31 1.89 -0.10 Walsingham -0.05 -1.25 0.14 13% Venison Creek 3.03 1.74 0.31 0.97 1.31 1.31 -0.05 -0.05 -1.13 0.20 21% Lower Big 3.00 1.49 0.86 0.65 8.62 10.00 1.38 -0.02 -0.02 -0.08 -0.38 -0.16 -38% Dedrick Creek 4.39 2.41 0.79 1.20 1.18 1.18 -0.07 -0.04 -0.72 -0.69 0.24 -39% Young/Hay 3.83 2.15 0.52 1.16 0.93 0.93 -0.05 Creeks -0.08 -0.43 -0.49 -0.19 -50% Lynn River 5.35 3.18 0.63 1.54 2.30 2.30 -0.04 -0.21 -0.13 -1.12 -0.05 -14% Black Creek 4.15 2.40 1.06 0.69 1.61 1.61 0.00 -0.04 -0.15 -0.50 -0.01 -22% Nanticoke Upper 3.32 2.00 0.64 0.67 1.25 1.25 -0.02 -0.14 -0.05 -0.53 0.04 0% Nanticoke Lower 2.42 1.39 0.81 0.23 1.25 2.13 0.88 0.00 -0.01 -0.09 -0.20 0.06 -11% Sandusk Creek 5.03 2.91 1.73 0.39 1.95 1.95 0.00 -0.01 -0.16 -0.21 -0.02 -43% Stoney Creek 5.15 2.98 1.78 0.39 1.84 1.84 0.00 -0.01 -0.26 -0.09 -0.03 -74% Total Area 85.51 48.44 17.08 19.99 34.53 -0.79 -1.53 -2.67 0.81 -16.01

October 30, 2015 3-29 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-19: Summary of Water Budget Components

Parameter Source Description Data Analysis / Climate data used to represent the precipitation over each of Precipitation GAWSER the subwatersheds is summarized by GAWSER. GAWSER estimates actual evapotranspiration for each Evapotranspiration GAWSER hydrologic response unit (HRU). When the precipitation exceeds the infiltration capacity of a Runoff GAWSER soil, overland runoff is created. GAWSER estimates the amount of groundwater recharge for Recharge GAWSER each HRU. The total streamflow entering the subwatershed from Average Inflow GAWSER upstream subwatersheds. The total average annual streamflow leaving the subwatershed. This includes any upstream inflows to the Average Outflow GAWSER subwatershed as well as flow generated by the specific subwatershed in question. This component quantifies the amount of streamflow increase seen in the particular subwatershed, on an average Flow Yield GAWSER annual basis. The value is the difference between the average inflow and the average outflow. The amount of water taken from a surface water source Surface Water Water Use (represented as a negative value) and not immediately Taking Estimates returned to that source. Includes estimates from permits as well as rural domestic and permit-exempt agricultural use. The amount of water taken from an aquifer (represented as a Groundwater Water Use negative value) and not immediately returned to that source. Taking Estimates Includes estimates from permits as well as rural domestic and permit-exempt agricultural use. This component identifies groundwater flow through the Lake Erie boundary of the groundwater flow model at Lake Erie FEFLOW Discharge (represented as a negative value). This is representative of groundwater flux to Lake Erie. This component identifies groundwater flow through the boundaries of the groundwater flow model, except for Lake Outside Watershed FEFLOW Erie. This is representative of groundwater flow out of, or into, the Study Area. Negative flows indicate water leaving the basin, positive flows indication water entering the basin. This parameter quantifies the groundwater flux to rivers and Surface Water streams in the particular subwatershed. Negative values FEFLOW Discharge indicate that flow is leaving the groundwater system to the surface water system The amount of groundwater flow to another subwatershed within the Study Area. Positive values indicate where the Inter-Basin subwatershed is experiencing a net increase of groundwater FEFLOW Transfer flow from adjacent subwatersheds. Negative values indicate where the subwatershed is experiencing a net loss of groundwater flow to adjacent subwatersheds.

October 30, 2015 3-30 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-19: Summary of Water Budget Components

Parameter Source Description RiverDischarg e WellExtractions  1 Rech arg e This parameter is the ratio of groundwater discharge (river discharge + extractions) to the amount of recharge in a Flow In Ratio FEFLOW particular subwatershed. Where the value is negative, it indicates a percentage of recharge that is leaving the basin. Where the value is positive, it indicates how much water, with respect to existing recharge, is entering the subwatershed.

3.5.1 Big Otter Creek Above Maple Dell Road Subwatershed The surficial materials in Big Otter Creek Above Maple Dell Road Subwatershed are characterized as a mixture of Port Stanley Till and pervious deposits associated with the Norfolk Sand Plain. Port Stanley Till dominates in the westerly portion of the subwatershed, with the majority of the pervious deposits in the easterly portion. Precipitation for this area is 990 mm, which is higher than average, with evapotranspiration being estimated at 540 mm, which is lower than average. Runoff and recharge estimates are the same, with the Subwatershed producing 225 mm of each. There are a number of groundwater aquifers located in this subwatershed, as well as the Spittler Creek and Otter Creek at Otterville Subwatersheds. Singer et al. (2003), identified a number of local aquifers located within the St. Thomas Moraine, near the northwest boundary of LPRCA. These aquifers are typically confined, approximately 10 m thick, and consist of sand and gravel. The aquifers are located nearby Culloden, Mount Elgin, Holbrook and Burgessville. Numerous wells are also completed in the bedrock (Dundee Formation) in this region of the Study Area. Groundwater discharge is moderate, with a total of 0.31 m3/s being discharged within the subwatershed. The majority of the discharge occurs in the easterly portion of the subwatershed, within the pervious deposits. Water demand within the subwatershed is moderate, with 0.57 m3/s of groundwater takings permitted and 0.31 m3/s of surface water takings permitted. Including non-permitted takings, it is estimated that 0.11 m3/s is pumped, with 0.05 m3/s consumed. The Norwich municipal wells are located within this subwatershed.

3.5.2 Otter Creek at Otterville Subwatershed The surficial materials found in the Otter at Otterville Subwatershed are similar to the Otter Above Maple Dell Road Subwatershed. The western portion is dominated by Port Stanley Till, with the easterly portion mainly comprising pervious deposits. Precipitation for the Otter at Otterville Subwatershed is 973 mm, which is higher than the area average of 955 mm. Evapotranspiration is estimated to be approximately 540 mm, which is close to the area average of 555 mm. Much like Otter Above Maple Road Subwatershed, this Subwatershed is estimated to generate similar amounts of runoff (225 mm) and recharge (210 mm).

October 30, 2015 3-31 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Significant aquifers within the Subwatershed are limited to local aquifers found within the St. Thomas Moraine, as described above, as well as the Dundee bedrock aquifer. A moderate amount of groundwater discharge, 0.40 m3/s is predicted to occur almost exclusively within the main channel of Big Otter Creek, with no significant discharge occurring in the westerly portions of the Subwatershed. There is a negligible net groundwater outflow of 0.05 m3/s to adjacent subwatersheds. Water demand is moderate within the subwatershed, and is driven primarily by agricultural uses in the easterly portions of the Otter at Otterville Subwatershed. In total, 0.69 m3/s of groundwater takings are permitted, with 0.50 m3/s of surface water takings permitted. It is estimated, that including non-permitted uses, on an annual average basis, approximately 0.05 m3/s is pumped and not returned to its original source. The Otterville municipal supply wells are located within this subwatershed.

3.5.3 Spittler Creek Subwatershed The predominant quaternary material throughout the Subwatershed is Port Stanley Till. Sand and gravel deposits are present, on the eastern portion of the Subwatershed grouping, and are also interspersed throughout the Port Stanley Till. Precipitation for this area is 975 mm, which is higher than the area average of 955 mm. Evapotranspiration is estimated to be slightly below the area average of 555 mm, with a subwatershed estimate of 530 mm. In comparison to the first two Big Otter subwatersheds, Spittler Creek Subwatershed has a smaller proportion of granular deposits. As a result, the Subwatershed is predicted to have a higher runoff depth, of 275 mm, and lower rate of groundwater recharge (170 mm). The groundwater aquifers located within the Spittler Creek Subwatershed are similar to those of the Otter at Otterville and Otter Above Maple Road Subwatersheds, and are generally limited to the local St. Thomas Moraines and the Dundee bedrock aquifer. Spittler Creek generates a moderate amount of groundwater discharge, with 0.48 m3/s predicted to discharge, mostly in the easterly portion of the subwatershed. There is a net groundwater outflow of approximately 0.30 m3/s into the Otter Creek at Otterville Subwatershed. Water demand is low in the Spittler Creek Subwatershed, with permitted rates being 0.07 m3/s for groundwater and 0.07 m3/s for surface water. The total estimated permitted and non- permitted pumping rate is 0.02 m3/s and considered as entirely consumptive. The municipal wells for Springford and Dereham Center are located within the Spittler Creek Subwatershed.

3.5.4 Otter Creek at Tillsonburg Subwatershed The surficial materials of the Otter Creek at Tillsonburg Subwatershed are characterized as a mixture of pervious materials associated with the Norfolk Sand Plain on the east, and Port Stanley deposits to the west. The Subwatershed also includes the urban area of Tillsonburg. The average precipitation for the subwatershed is 970 mm, which is more than the area average of 955 mm. Evapotranspiration is estimated to be approximately 500 mm per year, which is less than the area average of 555 mm. Runoff is estimated to be 265 mm per year, which is higher than the watershed average (195 mm). Average annual recharge is estimated to be 210 mm per year. Singer et al. (2003) described a significant confined aquifer in the Tillsonburg area. This aquifer is described as consisting of sand and gravel deposits up to 20 m in thickness. The confined aquifer is overlain by tills and clays that range from 2-56 m in thickness. There is also extensive groundwater discharge predicted throughout the subwatershed, but is focused on the main channel of Big Otter Creek. It is estimated that 1.88 m3/s of groundwater discharges into surface

October 30, 2015 3-32 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report water in this Subwatershed. This Subwatershed also receives 0.97 m3/s of net groundwater inflow from adjacent subwatersheds. Water demand is significant in this subwatershed, with permitted groundwater takings totaling 1.39 m3/s and permitted surface water takings totaling 1.41 m3/s. Including non-permitted uses, it is estimated that 0.21 m3/s of water is pumped, of which 0.19 m3/s is not returned to the source from which it was taken. The town of Tillsonburg’s municipal wellfields for the town of Tillsonburg are located within this subwatershed.

3.5.5 Little Otter Creek Subwatershed The Little Otter Creek Subwatershed is characterized as having a mixture of pervious deposits associated with the Norfolk Sand Plain, as well as finer-grained deposits associated with Port Stanley Till. Precipitation for Little Otter is 970 mm, which is slightly higher than the area average of 955 mm. Evapotranspiration is estimated to be approximately 552 mm, which is slightly lower than the area average of 555 mm. Estimated runoff for the Subwatershed is 125 mm, which is lower than the area average (195 mm). Average annual recharge is estimated to be 295 mm, which is significantly higher than the area average (205 mm). Groundwater discharge is significant throughout Little Otter Creek Subwatershed. The groundwater model estimates that approximately 1.00 m3/s of discharge occurs within the Subwatershed, and is fairly evenly distributed along the creek. There is low net groundwater outflow from Little Otter to adjacent subwatersheds equal to 0.02 m3/s. Water demand within the Little Otter Subwatershed is high and primarily driven by agriculture. In total, 1.15 m3/s of groundwater extractions are permitted and 0.89 m3/s of surface water is permitted. Including non-permitted takings, it is estimated that 0.10 m3/s of water is pumped, with 0.08 m3/s of pumped water being classified as consumptive.

3.5.6 Lower Otter Creek Subwatershed Lower Otter Creek Subwatershed, the last subwatershed before Big Otter Creek discharges into Lake Erie, consists of a mixture of pervious deposits, Port Stanley Till and glaciolacustrine deposits. The average annual precipitation is 970 mm and average annual evapotranspiration is estimated to be 535 mm per year. Surface runoff and recharge are estimated to be 230 mm and 205 mm, respectively. The estimated groundwater discharge for Lower Otter Creek Subwatershed is 1.08 m3/s and is estimated to be focused in the upper reaches of this Subwatershed. A significant discharge flux is predicted at the confluence of the Little Otter and Big Otter Creeks, where the main channel of Big Otter has incised into the surficial deposits. Little Otter has a low groundwater outflow to Lake Erie, totaling 0.09 m3/s. The total permitted groundwater taking from the Lower Otter Subwatershed is 0.57 m3/s. The total permitted surface water taking from the Subwatershed is 1.52 m3/s. Including non- permitted water takings, it is estimated that on an annual average basis, 0.08 m3/s of water is pumped and that 0.07 m3/s of pumped water is not returned to the original source. The municipal wells for Richmond are located within the Lower Otter Creek subwatershed. However, the system only became a municipal system after completion of the Tier 2 Water Budget, with replacement groundwater sources going into production in 2013 and incorporated into the Assssement Report in 2015. The municipal wells for Richmond are located within the Lower Otter Creek subwatershed, however the system only became a municipal system after completion of the Tier 2 Water

October 30, 2015 3-33 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Budget; with replacement groundwater sources going into production in 2013 and incorporated into the Assssement Report in 2015.

3.5.7 South Otter and Clear Creek Subwatersheds The South Otter and Clear Creek Subwatersheds discharge directly to Lake Erie and almost exclusively comprise permeable surficial materials. They have been grouped together here, only for descriptive purposes. Precipitation for South Otter and Clear Creek is 975 mm and 950 mm, respectively, which is close to the area average of 955 mm. Evapotranspiration is estimated to be in the 560-565 mm range for both Subwatersheds, which is roughly equal to the area average (555 mm). Due to the South Otter and Clear Creek Subwatersheds primarily consisting of granular material, runoff depths (95 mm, 90 mm) are much lower than the area average (195 mm). Recharge rates for South Otter and Clear Creek Subwatersheds are estimated to be 315 mm, and 300 mm respectively, which is significantly higher than the area average (205 mm). The primary aquifer in both Subwatersheds is a very large unconfined aquifer created by the Norfolk Sand Plain. Underlying aquifers likely exist; however, the availability of sufficient amounts of available water near the surface has resulted in minimal drilling into deeper deposits. Groundwater discharge in the South Otter and Clear Creek Subwatersheds is moderate, with 0.84 m3/s and 0.51 m3/s, respectively, predicted to occur in each Subwatershed. Approximately 0.50 m3/s of groundwater flow is predicted to discharge to Lake Erie from both Subwatersheds. Water demand in both Subwatersheds is high. For the South Otter Subwatershed, permitted groundwater takings total 1.23 m3/s and permitted surface water takings total 1.88 m3/s. Of this, approximately 0.12 m3/s, on an annual average basis, is estimated to be actually pumped, and 0.10 m3/s is not returned to the source from which it came. In total, 0.08 m3/s is not returned to any location within the Subwatershed. For the Clear Creek Subwatershed, approximately 1.41 m3/s of groundwater is permitted and 0.61 m3/s of surface water is permitted. For permitted and non-permitted uses, it is estimated that 0.08 m3/s is pumped, with 0.06 m3/s not being returned to its original source.

3.5.8 Big Creek Above Cement Road Subwatershed The Big Creek Above Cement Road Subwatershed is located in the headwaters of the Big Creek Watershed Area and is characterized by having a mixture of low permeability surficial materials and granular, high permeability materials. The high permeability materials are predominately located in the eastern portions, but are also scattered throughout the remainder of the subwatershed. The average precipitation for the subwatershed is 915 mm, which is less than the area average of 955 mm. Evapotranspiration is estimated to be approximately 535 mm per year, which is also less than the area average of 555 mm. Due to the mixture of surficial materials, surface runoff (190 mm) and recharge (190 mm) are close to the area averages, 195 mm and 205 mm, respectively. Groundwater aquifers are generally limited to unconfined aquifers present in areas with granular deposits, and the deeper bedrock aquifer. Simulated groundwater discharge is minimal throughout the Subwatershed, with most of the discharge predicted to occur where pervious materials are present at surface. Approximately 0.17 m3/s of groundwater outflow is predicted to leave the subwatershed, likely to the headwaters of Big Otter Creek. There is also an estimated groundwater inflow of 0.16 m3/s through the model boundary from adjacent watersheds.

October 30, 2015 3-34 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Water demand is low in this subwatershed, with 0.28 m3/s of groundwater extractions being permitted, and 0.12 m3/s of surface water takings being permitted, and is predominantly agricultural in nature. It is estimated that 0.03 m3/s is actually pumped on an annual average basis, and that 0.02 m3/s is not returned to its original source.

3.5.9 Big Creek Above Kelvin Subwatershed The Big Creek Above Kelvin Subwatershed consists predominantly of materials associated with the Norfolk Sand Plan; however, isolated deposits of Port Stanley Till are present. The average precipitation for the Subwatershed is 915 mm, which is lower than the area average of 955 mm. The estimated evapotranspiration is approximately 545 mm, which is close to the average value (555 mm) for the Study Area. The predominance of granular material within this Subwatershed produces significantly less runoff (100 mm) than the area average (195 mm) and more groundwater recharge (270 mm) than average (205 mm). As with most areas within the Norfolk Sand Plain, the most significant aquifer and source of water is the unconfined aquifer created by the Sand Plain. A number of bedrock wells within this Subwatershed are completed at depth into the Dundee formation. Groundwater discharge within this Subwatershed is relatively low, with 0.28 m3/s of discharge predicted, largely focused on the main channel of Big Creek. Approximately 0.17 m3/s of groundwater flow is predicted by the groundwater model to exit the Long Point Region watershed and enter the Grand River watershed along the easterly boundary. Permitted water takings are predominately groundwater based with 1.91 m3/s of groundwater takings permitted and 0.08 m3/s of surface water takings permitted. It is estimated that 0.14 m3/s is pumped on an annual average basis, of which 0.11 m3/s is not returned to its original source.

3.5.10 Big Creek Above Delhi Subwatershed The Big Above Delhi Subwatershed reaches from Delhi to the Big Creek at Kelvin gauge. Like many subwatersheds in the Norfolk Sand Plain, it almost exclusively comprises permeable surficial materials, interspersed with some deposits of Port Stanley Till. Average precipitation for the Subwatershed is 950 mm, which is close to the area average of 955 mm. Evapotranspiration for the area is predicted to be 550 mm, which is similar to the area average (555 mm). Due to the high percentage of permeable materials, surface runoff (115 mm) is lower than average (195 mm), and groundwater recharge (290 mm) is higher than average. The model predicts groundwater discharge to be 1.30 m3/s, and this discharge is focused on the main Big Creek channel. As with the Big Creek Above Kelvin Subwatershed, the Big Creek Above Delhi Subwatershed also discharges groundwater flow to the east (0.12 m3/s), into the Grand River Watershed. The Big Creek Above Delhi Subwatershed is also estimated to receive a net inflow of groundwater, of 0.15 m3/s, from upstream subwatersheds including the Big Creek Above Kelvin Subwatershed and the headwaters of Big Otter Creek. Permitted water demand within this Subwatershed is high, with 4.9 m3/s of groundwater extractions permitted, and 2.1 m3/s of surface water takings permitted. Including non-permitted takings, it is estimated that 0.33 m3/s on an annual average basis is pumped. The annual average amount of water taken and not returned to its original source is 0.24 m3/s; however, the monthly maximum consumptive demand is 0.93 m3/s.

3.5.11 North Creek Subwatershed North Creek is a small tributary that joins Big Creek in the town of Delhi. The North Creek Subwatershed is characterized as being dominated by pervious surficial materials, with a small

October 30, 2015 3-35 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report proportion being Port Stanley Till. The average annual precipitation is 970 mm for the Subwatershed, which is slightly above the area average of 955 mm. Evapotranspiration is 565 mm which is similar to the average of 555 mm. The predominance of the Norfolk Sand Plain results in runoff being very low (85 mm) and recharge very high (320 mm) as compared to area average values. Simulated groundwater discharge is moderate, with a predicted discharge volume of 0.37 m3/s, or 205 mm of equivalent depth. The majority of the discharge is predicted to occur along the North Branch of North Creek, with minimal discharge along the South Branch. The North Creek Subwatershed also exhibits a net outflow of approximately 0.15 m3/s to adjacent subwatersheds. Water demand is substantial with permitted groundwater takings equal to 1.00 m3/s and permitted surface water takings equal to 1.04 m3/s. Including non-permitted takings, it is estimated that 0.20 m3/s is pumped, and that 0.13 m3/s is pumped and not returned to the source from which it came. The North Creek Subwatershed contains the Delhi surface water intake located at Lehman Reservoir.

3.5.12 Big Creek Above Minnow Creek Subwatershed The Big Creek Above Minnow Creek Subwatershed is located in the middle of the Norfolk Sand Plain, and is characterized by its permeable surficial materials. The buried Galt Moraine is also present in some locations, which is indicated by Wentworth Till at the surface. The average precipitation for the Subwatershed is 993 mm which is above the area average of 955 mm. Evapotranspiration is estimated to be 565 mm which is slightly higher than the area average (555 mm). The surface runoff is estimated to be 80 mm and groundwater recharge to be 350 mm, which reflects the nature of the pervious surficial materials. Groundwater discharge is predicted to be high, with approximately 0.78 m3/s of groundwater entering the surface water system. This discharge is highest along the main channel of Big Creek. There is a small net groundwater inflow, equal to 0.09 m3/s, entering the Subwatershed from adjacent subwatersheds. As with other subwatersheds located within the Norfolk Sand Plain, water demand is high due to agricultural use. Permitted groundwater takings total 2.65 m3/s and permitted surface water takings total 1.02 m3/s. It is estimated that including non-permitted takings, a total of 0.18 m3/s is pumped, and that 0.15 m3/s of that total is not returned to its original source. The municipal supply wells for the town of Delhi are located in this Subwatershed.

3.5.13 Big Creek Above Walsingham Subwatershed The Big Creek Above Walsingham Subwatershed is characterized by the pervious surficial deposits of the Norfolk Sand Plain. Isolated deposits of silt and clay are also present in the central portion of the Subwatershed. On average, the Subwatershed receives approximately 995 mm of precipitation, which is higher than the area average. Estimated evapotranspiration is approximately 565 mm, which is close to the area average. Runoff and recharge rates are reflective of the pervious surficial materials, and estimated to be 135 mm and 295 mm, respectively. Whereas the Big Above Minnow Creek Subwatershed had the majority of its groundwater discharge predicted to occur along the main channel, the majority of discharge in the Big Above Walsingham Subwatershed is estimated to occur in the tributaries of Big Creek. Approximately 1.25 m3/s of discharge is estimated to occur largely in the tributaries of Trout Creek, Mosquito

October 30, 2015 3-36 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Creek, Cattle Creek, Silverthorn’s Creek, and Deer Creek. The Subwatershed also receives a net groundwater inflow of approximately 0.14 m3/s from adjacent subwatersheds. Water demand is high and dominated by the agricultural sector. There is approximately 1.89 m3/s of groundwater takings permitted, and 2.32 m3/s of surface water takings permitted. It is estimated that on an annual basis, 0.37 m3/s of water is pumped, and that 0.15 m3/s is taken that is not returned to its original source.

3.5.14 Venison Creek Subwatershed Venison Creek is a tributary that joins Big Creek just below the Walsingham stream gauge. The Subwatershed is characterized by predominantly pervious surficial materials, with some isolated deposits of Port Stanley Till in the headwaters. The average precipitation received by the Subwatershed is 980 mm, and the estimated evapotranspiration is 565 mm. As with all subwatersheds in the Norfolk Sand Plain, runoff (100 mm) is lower than the area average (195 mm) and recharge is higher (315 mm) than average (205 mm). There is a significant amount of groundwater discharge predicted to occur within the Venison Creek Subwatershed. On an annual basis, 1.13 m3/s of groundwater is estimated to discharge, and this is estimated by the model to be evenly distributed over the watercourses within the Venison Creek Subwatershed. Adjacent subwatersheds also provide the Venison Creek Subwatershed with a net groundwater inflow of 0.20 m3/s. There is a high water demand within the Venison Creek Subwatershed, driven predominantly by agricultural requirements. Approximately 1.76 m3/s of groundwater takings is permitted, and 1.84 m3/s of surface water takings is permitted. Including non-permitted takings, on an annual basis, it is estimated that 0.14 m3/s is pumped, and 0.10 m3/s is not returned to its original source.

3.5.15 Lower Big Creek Subwatershed The Lower Big Creek Subwatershed is the last subwatershed before Big Creek enters into Lake Erie. The surficial materials of the Subwatershed contain the pervious materials of the Norfolk Sand Plain, Wentworth Till associated with the buried Paris Moraine, as well as glaciolacustrine deposits close to Lake Erie. A large portion of the Subwatershed has wetlands as the dominant land cover. The Subwatershed receives, on average, 984 mm of precipitation a year. Evapotranspiration is estimated to be approximately 490 mm per year, which is lower than the area average (555 mm). With the presence of glaciolacustrine deposits as well as wetlands, the runoff component of the water budget is estimated to be higher (280 mm) than average (195mm), with recharge (215 mm) being close to average (205 mm). Due to the high proportions of wetlands in this Subwatershed, there is more uncertainty surrounding these water balance estimates, as GAWSER’s representation of wetland features may not fully represent groundwater/surface water interactions and evapotranspiration. Approximately 0.38 m3/s of groundwater discharge is estimated to occur within the Lower Big Subwatershed. Most of this discharge is estimated to occur in the upper reaches of Big Creek, near the Venison Creek/Big Creek confluence. Groundwater discharge downstream of the confluence to Lake Erie is lower. The Subwatershed has a net groundwater outflow of approximately 0.16 m3/s, to the Dedrick Creek Subwatershed to the east, and a groundwater outflow to Lake Erie of 0.08 m3/s. Water demand is moderate within the Lower Big Subwatershed, with 0.68 m3/s of groundwater takings permitted and 0.64 m3/s of surface water takings permitted. It is estimated that, on an

October 30, 2015 3-37 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report annual average basis, 0.06 m3/s of water is pumped, and 0.04 m3/s is withdrawn and not returned to the source from where it was drawn.

3.5.16 Dedrick Creek and Young/Hay Creeks Subwatersheds The Dedrick Creek and Young/Hay Creek Subwatersheds drain directly to Lake Erie and have been grouped here for description purposes. Both Subwatersheds are predominantly comprised of pervious surficial materials commonly associated with the Norfolk Sand Plain. The Dedrick Creek Subwatershed has a significant portion consisting of Wentworth Till associated with the buried Paris Moraine, and the Young/Hay Creeks Subwatershed has minimal isolated pockets of glaciolacustrine deposits. The average annual precipitation received by the Subwatersheds is 1005 mm, which is the highest in the Study Area. Evapotranspiration is estimated to range between 550-565 mm, which is close to the area average of 555 mm. Due to the presence of Wentworth Till, Dedrick Creek produces more runoff (180 mm) than Young/Hay Creeks (135 mm), and less recharge (275 mm) than Young/Hay Creeks (305 mm). Groundwater discharge is estimated to be 1.18 m3/s, or 150 mm/year of equivalent depth within the Subwatersheds. This discharge is estimated to be evenly distributed throughout the stream reaches. A large amount of groundwater flow, 1.2 m3/s leaves the Subwatersheds into Lake Erie. Water demand is high in both Subwatersheds and is predominately agricultural based. Permitted takings in the Dedrick Creek Subwatershed total 1.27 m3/s for groundwater sources and 1.2 m3/s for surface water sources. Permitted takings in the Young/Hay Creeks Subwatershed total 1.48 m3/s for groundwater takings and 0.94 m3/s for surface water takings. Including non-permitted takings, total pumping from the Dedrick Creek Subwatershed equals 0.52 m3/s and 0.10 m3/s is not returned to its original source. For the Young/Hay Creeks Subwatershed, total pumping equals 0.28 m3/s, and 0.13 m3/s is not returned to the source from where it was drawn.

3.5.17 Lynn River Subwatershed The surficial materials of the Lynn River Subwatershed are predominately pervious materials associated with the Norfolk Sand Plain, with some pockets of Wentworth Till associated with the buried Galt Moraine. Glaciolacustrine deposits are present near the outlet of the Lynn River. The Subwatershed, on average, receives about 985 mm of precipitation and it is estimated that evapotranspiration removes 585 mm of that precipitation. Surface runoff depths are typical of a pervious subwatershed, and are estimated to be 115 mm, compared to the area average of 194 mm. Recharge is estimated to be 285 mm, compared to the area average of 205 mm. As with most subwatersheds located within the Norfolk Sand Plain, the predominant groundwater source is the unconfined aquifer that comprises the Norfolk Sand Plain. There is 1.12 m3/s of groundwater discharge predicted to occur within the Lynn River and its tributaries, with the majority of it occurring within Patterson Creek and in the main channel of the Lynn River, just downstream of Simcoe. The groundwater model predicts a small net groundwater outflow from the Lynn River to adjacent subwatersheds equal to approximately 0.05 m3/s. Water demand within the Lynn River Subwatershed is high and predominantly driven by agricultural uses. Groundwater takings for the Subwatershed total 3.7 m3/s, and surface water takings total 0.92 m3/s. It is estimated that actual pumping, on an annual average basis, totals 0.28 m3/s, of which, 0.24 m3/s is not returned to the source from which it was taken. Municipal supply wells which service the town of Simcoe are located in this Subwatershed.

October 30, 2015 3-38 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

3.5.18 Black Creek Subwatershed The Black Creek Subwatershed is situated on the interface between the Norfolk Sand Plain and the Haldimand Clay Plain. The extreme westerly portion of the Subwatershed contains pervious materials associated with the Norfolk Sand Plain, with the eastern portion comprising glaciolacustrine deposits. On average, the Subwatershed receives 980 mm of precipitation per year, and 566 mm of that becomes evapotranspiration. Due to the higher proportion of glaciolacustrine deposits, runoff is higher (250 mm) than the area average (195 mm), and recharge is lower (165 mm) than the area average (205 mm). In the western areas of the Subwatershed, the main aquifer is the Norfolk Sand Plain aquifer; however, the only viable aquifer towards the east is the Dundee bedrock aquifer, which tends to have natural water quality issues. Groundwater discharge is moderate along most of Black Creek, with 0.50 m3/s predicted to discharge (120 mm equivalent). Areas of higher discharge are located in the westerly portions of the Subwatershed, near the pervious deposits of the Sand Plain. Approximately 0.15 m3/s of groundwater flow exits the Subwatershed to Lake Erie to the south. Water demand is moderate within the Black Creek Subwatershed, and similar to other subwatersheds, is primarily driven by agriculture. Permitted water demands total 0.61 m3/s from groundwater sources and 0.03 m3/s from surface water sources. It is estimated that for all demands, including non-permitted uses, approximately 0.05 m3/s of water is pumped, of which 0.04 m3/s is not returned to its original source.

3.5.19 Upper Nanticoke Creek Subwatershed The Upper Nanticoke Creek Subwatershed is almost completely within the Norfolk Sand Plain, and therefore predominately consists of permeable surficial materials, but also includes deposits of Wentworth Till associated with the buried Galt/Paris Moraines, and glaciolacustrine deposits of the Haldimand Clay Plain in the extreme eastern portions of the Subwatershed. The Subwatershed receives, on average, 915 mm of precipitation per year, which is lower than the area average of 955 mm. Evapotranspiration is estimated to be approximately 555 mm, which is equal to the area average. Simulated runoff, 180 mm, is slightly lower than the simulated recharge, 185 mm. Due to the lower precipitation, both values are less than the area average of runoff (195 mm) and recharge (205 mm). Groundwater discharge in Upper Nanticoke is estimated to be 0.53 m3/s, and is focused on the western reaches in Subwatershed. Little to no discharge occurs in the eastern reaches in the Subwatershed, where the Clay Plain is predominant. There is minimal net groundwater inflow from adjacent subwatersheds and minimal groundwater outflow to the north to the Grand River Watershed. There are substantial water demands within the Upper Nanticoke Subwatershed, driven primarily by agricultural requirements. In total, there are 4.2 m3/s of groundwater takings permitted and 0.61 m3/s of surface water takings permitted. It is estimated that, including non- permitted takings, the total amount of water pumped is 0.20 m3/s, of which 0.16 m3/s is not returned to the source from which it was taken. The Upper Nanticoke Creek Subwatershed includes the Waterford municipal supply wells.

3.5.20 Lower Nanticoke Creek, Sandusk Creek and Stoney Creek Subwatersheds Lower Nanticoke Creek, Sandusk Creek, and Stoney Creek Subwatersheds are all located within the Haldimand Clay Plain, and share similar characteristics. Each has been grouped together here for discussion purposes only. The three Subwatersheds in the eastern portion of

October 30, 2015 3-39 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

LPRCA overwhelmingly comprise glaciolacustrine deposits associated with the Haldimand Clay Plain. The Lower Nanticoke Creek Subwatershed does have some small portions of its area containing pervious deposits. The precipitation over the eastern Subwatersheds ranges from 875-900 mm, which is less than the area average of 955 mm. Evapotranspiration is estimated to range between 505-515 mm for these Subwatersheds, which is also lower than the area average. Surface runoff is typical of an area dominated by fine-grained materials, and is estimated to be 300 mm, which is the highest of all the subwatersheds investigated. Recharge is much lower than average, at 65-85 mm per year. Lower Nanticoke has the highest recharge of the three, at 85 mm, due to the localized pervious deposits. The main groundwater source within the three Subwatersheds is the Dundee bedrock aquifer. As is the case in Black Creek Subwatershed, natural water quality issues are common with such wells, which indicate a very slow-moving groundwater flow system. Groundwater discharge is minimal, with 0.50 m3/s (~50 mm/year equivalent) of discharge predicted. The majority of this discharge occurs along the Lower Nanticoke reaches. Discharge to Lake Erie from all three Subwatersheds totals 0.50 m3/s. Water demand is low for all three Subwatersheds. For all Subwatersheds, the total permitted groundwater takings is 0.20 m3/s and 0.02 m3/s for surface water takings. Including the non- permitted water takings, it is estimated that 0.03 m3/s is pumped, and 0.01 m3/s is not returned to its original source.

3.6 Interactions Between Groundwater and Surface Water The calibrated groundwater model provides a synthesis of available information that can be used to increase the understanding of the groundwater flow system and its interaction with the surface water system. Map 3-7 presents the distribution of groundwater discharge flux to the streams and rivers throughout the Long Point Region Area. The majority of the stream network in the Long Point Region watershed has high discharges from groundwater. Groundwater and surface water interaction occurs predominantly in the central/western portion of the watershed, where a shallow groundwater system is located within the sandy, coarse- grained deposits of the Norfolk Sand Plain. Big Creek, Big Otter Creek and Little Otter Creek and their associated tributary creeks (e.g., Spittler Creek) are supported by significant groundwater discharge. Temperature mapping (Map 2-18) of the water courses in this area shows that they are typically classified as cold water with sustained baseflows indicating groundwater discharge into the creeks and streams. Ground and surface water pumping in the summer months when flows are reduced has the potential to affect the groundwater-surface water interactions. Years where precipitation and recharge are decreased can lead to increased water demand for various uses, and this can place stress on both the surface water and groundwater systems, and the ecological systems dependent on sustained baseflows.

In the eastern portion of the watershed region, the low permeability Haldimand Clay Plain limits the interaction between the groundwater and surface water features. The watercourses in this area are runoff-driven and there is little baseflow provided by groundwater discharge.

October 30, 2015 3-40 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 3-7: Groundwater Discharge Map in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 3-41 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

3.7 Tier 2 Water Quantity Stress Assessment All Long Point Region subwatersheds were evaluated at the Tier 2 level for water quantity potential stress for both groundwater and surface water using the percent water demand calculation given below. Subwatersheds with either a ‘moderate’ or ‘significant’ potential for stress and a municipal drinking water system would then be recommended to have a Tier 3 Water Quantity Risk Assessment conducted.

QDEMAND Percent Water Demand = x 100% QSUPPLY - QRESERVE

Being classified as having a Moderate or Significant potential for stress does not necessarily imply that a subwatershed is experiencing local hydrologic or ecologic stress. This classification indicates where additional information is required to understand local water supply sustainability and potential cumulative impacts of water withdrawals.

3.7.1 Surface Water Stress Assessment For surface water systems, the percent water demand equation is carried out using monthly estimates. The maximum Percent Water Demand for all months is then used to categorize the surface water quantity potential for stress into one of three levels; Significant, Moderate or Low (see Table 3-20).

Table 3-20: Surface Water Potential Stress Thresholds

Surface Water Potential Stress Level Assignment Maximum Monthly % Water Demand Significant > 50% Moderate 20% - 50% Low <20 %

Existing Conditions Percent Water Demand The monthly unit consumptive surface water demand estimates are shown in Table 3-21 for each subwatershed and were calculated as described in the Water Use Section.

Table 3-21: Surface Water Unit Consumptive Demands (L/s)

Subwatershed Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Otter Above Maple Dell 3 3 3 3 13 40 40 40 40 13 13 3 Road Otter at Otterville 2 2 2 2 2 59 63 66 62 2 2 2 Otter at Tillsonburg 3 3 3 3 3 143 165 178 160 3 3 3 Spittler Creek 4 4 4 4 4 14 14 14 14 4 4 4 Lower Otter 2 2 2 2 2 125 146 167 146 2 2 2 Little Otter 2 2 2 2 3 61 75 76 65 2 2 2 South Otter 1 1 1 1 1 175 228 230 198 1 1 1 Clear Creek 0 0 0 0 0 40 51 57 46 0 0 0 Big Above Cement 2 2 2 2 2 14 15 17 15 2 2 2

October 30, 2015 3-42 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-21: Surface Water Unit Consumptive Demands (L/s)

Subwatershed Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Road Big Above Kelvin Gauge 1 1 1 1 1 6 8 10 8 1 1 1 Big Above Delhi 7 7 7 7 7 197 238 264 223 7 7 7 North Creek 7 7 7 6 8 83 111 112 88 6 6 6 Big Above Minnow 1 1 1 1 1 92 108 117 104 1 1 1 Creek Big Above Walsingham 36 36 36 36 37 212 237 251 230 36 36 36 Venison Creek 4 4 4 4 4 126 170 142 124 4 4 4 Lower Big 2 2 2 2 2 57 62 65 60 2 2 2 Dedrick Creek 45 45 45 45 45 104 124 113 102 45 45 45 Young/Hay Creek 15 15 15 17 22 105 131 123 96 19 15 16 Lynn River 3 3 3 3 3 104 124 136 118 3 3 3 Black Creek 2 2 2 2 2 7 7 7 7 2 2 2 Nanticoke Upper 2 2 2 2 5 49 58 58 45 2 2 2 Nanticoke Lower 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sandusk Creek 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Stoney Creek 2 2 2 2 2 8 8 8 8 2 2 2

th The monthly QSUPPLY (Median Flow) and QRESERVE (90 percentile flow) were calculated using hydrologic model predicted streamflow at the outfall of each subwatershed for the period 1980- 2004. A longer-term period was not used for averaging as it was felt that the current water demand estimates would not be representative of historical water use. Table 3-22 shows the supply and reserve terms, in addition to their difference, used in the Stress Assessment equation (QSUPPLY- QRESERVE).

October 30, 2015 3-43 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-22: Surface Water Supply Flows (L/s)

Subwatershed Term Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Qsupply 882 790 1,281 1,168 922 959 820 588 465 521 834 1,044 Otter Above Qreserve 630 571 658 646 682 535 374 266 221 263 295 595 Maple Dell Road Difference 252 219 623 522 240 424 446 322 245 259 539 449 Qsupply 1,507 1,347 2,090 1,997 1,567 1,627 1,378 936 746 837 1,414 1,712 Otter at Otterville Qreserve 1,070 982 1,109 1,122 1,153 854 607 452 376 438 489 942 Difference 437 365 981 875 415 773 771 485 371 399 925 770 Qsupply 3,720 3,312 5,258 5,346 4,038 4,137 3,747 2,400 1,905 2,507 3,763 4,225 Otter at Qreserve 2,704 2,448 2,767 3,035 2,864 2,113 1,311 983 846 1,094 1,273 2,318 Tillsonburg Difference 1,016 864 2,491 2,311 1,174 2,024 2,436 1,417 1,059 1,414 2,490 1,907 Qsupply 865 705 1,151 1,360 837 908 721 281 188 310 913 999 Spittler Creek Qreserve 617 561 656 720 566 218 133 101 88 99 139 394 Difference 249 144 494 640 271 689 588 180 100 211 774 605 Qsupply 7,120 6,536 9,066 9,551 7,774 8,021 6,909 4,795 3,776 4,363 6,404 7,764 Lower Otter Qreserve 4,904 4,576 5,037 5,597 5,545 4,294 2,866 2,148 1,747 2,299 2,587 4,073 Difference 2,216 1,960 4,029 3,954 2,229 3,727 4,043 2,647 2,030 2,063 3,817 3,691 Qsupply 1,365 1,358 1,527 1,618 1,538 1,525 1,404 1,114 922 872 1,050 1,235 Little Otter Qreserve 868 854 916 1,011 1,073 1,033 793 639 529 572 588 692 Difference 496 504 611 606 465 491 611 476 393 300 461 543 Qsupply 1,407 1,495 1,607 1,757 1,706 1,677 1,568 1,308 1,069 1,006 1,137 1,308 South Otter Qreserve 936 951 992 1,002 1,116 1,131 937 751 617 626 663 786 Difference 472 544 615 756 591 546 631 557 452 381 474 521 Qsupply 986 1,029 1,103 1,203 1,182 1,162 1,088 905 746 691 784 910 Clear Creek Qreserve 641 653 692 684 758 783 641 515 422 421 450 539 Difference 346 377 412 519 424 379 447 390 324 270 334 371 Big Above Qsupply 513 405 666 781 493 530 360 112 80 138 494 592 Cement Road Qreserve 299 309 384 417 300 100 54 40 36 41 45 154 Difference 213 96 282 365 193 430 307 72 44 97 449 438 Big Above Kelvin Qsupply 1,020 899 1,218 1,388 1,072 1,097 807 472 366 426 874 1,091 Gauge Qreserve 588 611 711 801 748 448 313 231 203 228 252 392 Difference 431 288 507 587 323 649 494 240 163 199 623 699 Big Above Delhi Qsupply 3,469 3,328 3,884 4,259 3,832 3,854 3,391 2,532 2,067 2,115 2,706 3,206 Qreserve 2,215 2,150 2,325 2,464 2,755 2,428 1,705 1,269 1,073 1,268 1,468 1,833 Difference 1,254 1,178 1,559 1,796 1,076 1,426 1,687 1,263 995 847 1,238 1,374 North Creek Qsupply 386 390 420 453 438 442 426 363 303 280 316 349 Qreserve 251 251 262 275 289 304 245 201 166 178 188 216 Difference 136 139 158 178 149 138 181 161 137 103 129 133 Big Above Minnow Qsupply 4,742 4,663 5,290 5,768 5,330 5,316 4,677 3,347 2,631 3,011 3,780 4,290

October 30, 2015 3-44 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-22: Surface Water Supply Flows (L/s)

Subwatershed Term Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Creek Qreserve 3,063 3,035 3,222 3,420 3,853 3,159 2,003 1,379 1,044 1,687 2,087 2,586 Difference 1,679 1,628 2,069 2,348 1,477 2,157 2,673 1,969 1,586 1,324 1,694 1,704 Big Above Qsupply 6,455 6,383 7,257 7,835 7,326 7,245 6,535 4,792 3,874 4,231 5,156 5,799 Walsingham Qreserve 4,204 4,202 4,414 4,644 5,373 4,619 3,012 2,219 1,697 2,548 2,888 3,612 Difference 2,251 2,181 2,843 3,191 1,953 2,626 3,524 2,573 2,177 1,683 2,268 2,187 Venison Creek Qsupply 1,169 1,224 1,323 1,439 1,397 1,370 1,293 1,074 882 832 940 1,077 Qreserve 771 778 817 865 929 935 773 619 506 518 544 660 Difference 399 445 506 574 467 435 520 455 376 314 396 417 Lower Big Qsupply 8,678 8,592 10,041 10,526 9,724 9,834 8,649 6,087 5,262 6,152 7,200 7,956 Qreserve 5,669 5,548 6,289 6,199 7,115 6,056 3,782 2,585 2,048 3,812 4,263 4,842 Difference 3,009 3,045 3,753 4,327 2,609 3,778 4,867 3,502 3,214 2,340 2,936 3,114 Dedrick Creek Qsupply 1,700 1,677 1,977 2,071 1,937 1,893 1,679 1,342 1,153 1,159 1,346 1,558 Qreserve 1,079 1,059 1,230 1,259 1,325 1,266 985 781 682 765 795 887 Difference 621 619 748 811 612 627 694 561 471 395 551 671 Young/Hay Qsupply 1,524 1,232 1,341 1,400 1,384 1,364 1,272 1,063 878 872 957 1,084 Creeks Qreserve 997 1,001 1,027 894 1,148 1,173 968 802 664 692 719 856 Difference 527 231 314 506 236 190 304 261 214 180 238 229 Lynn River Qsupply 2,020 2,089 2,303 2,427 2,338 2,232 1,941 1,783 1,506 1,535 1,542 1,665 Qreserve 1,273 1,296 1,387 1,491 1,541 1,690 1,283 993 900 989 1,070 1,219 Difference 747 793 916 937 796 542 658 790 606 547 472 445 Black Creek Qsupply 998 841 1,230 1,215 975 1,070 1,071 281 226 285 875 1,134 Qreserve 771 660 772 816 798 265 184 138 122 132 175 609 Difference 227 182 458 399 177 804 887 143 105 153 700 525 Nanticoke Upper Qsupply 1,401 1,392 1,340 1,356 966 900 535 395 367 1,239 1,194 1,282 Qreserve 503 557 424 399 537 380 248 231 225 275 736 428 Difference 897 835 916 957 429 520 287 164 142 964 458 853 Nanticoke Lower Qsupply 2,051 1,958 2,113 2,112 1,494 1,390 663 262 194 1,425 1,616 1,990 Qreserve 720 819 847 783 805 276 58 46 36 162 894 581 Difference 1,331 1,140 1,266 1,329 689 1,113 605 215 158 1,263 722 1,410 Sandusk Qsupply 843 661 1,656 1,658 756 720 191 94 162 156 558 1,038 Creek Qreserve 308 334 630 689 193 55 26 23 101 26 35 104 Difference 535 327 1,026 969 564 664 165 72 61 129 523 934 Stoney Creek Qsupply 798 614 1,417 1,164 708 682 157 46 35 83 455 945 Qreserve 283 280 594 605 181 37 9 8 8 8 8 40 Difference 515 334 823 559 528 645 148 39 28 75 447 905

October 30, 2015 3-45 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Monthly Percent Water Demand for surface water is calculated using the Percent Water Demand equation, as well as the values shown in Table 3-21 and Table 3-22.The results of this calculation are included in Table 3-23.

Table 3-23: Percent Water Demand Estimate (Surface Water)

Subwatershed Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Max Otter Above Maple Dell Road 1% 1% 0% 1% 5% 9% 9% 12% 16% 5% 2% 1% 16% Otter at Otterville 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 8% 8% 14% 17% 1% 0% 0% 17% Otter at Tillsonburg 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 7% 13% 15% 0% 0% 0% 15% Spittler Creek 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 8% 14% 2% 0% 1% 14% Lower Otter 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% 6% 7% 0% 0% 0% 7% Little Otter 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 12% 12% 16% 17% 1% 0% 0% 17% South Otter 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 32% 36% 41% 44% 0% 0% 0% 44% Clear Creek 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 11% 15% 14% 0% 0% 0% 15% Big Above Cement Road 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 3% 5% 23% 35% 2% 0% 0% 35% Big Above Kelvin Gauge 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 4% 5% 1% 0% 0% 5% Big Above Delhi 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 14% 14% 21% 22% 1% 1% 0% 22% North Creek 5% 5% 4% 4% 5% 60% 62% 69% 64% 6% 4% 4% 69% Big Above Minnow Creek 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 6% 7% 0% 0% 0% 7% Big Above Walsingham 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 8% 7% 10% 11% 2% 2% 2% 11% Venison Creek 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 29% 33% 31% 33% 1% 1% 1% 33% Lower Big 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% Dedrick Creek 7% 7% 6% 6% 7% 17% 18% 20% 22% 11% 8% 7% 22% Young / Hay Creeks 3% 7% 5% 3% 9% 55% 43% 47% 45% 10% 6% 7% 55% Lynn River 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 19% 19% 17% 19% 1% 1% 1% 19% Black Creek 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 6% 2% 0% 0% 6% Nanticoke Upper 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 9% 20% 35% 32% 0% 0% 0% 35% Nanticoke Lower 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% Sandusk Creek 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 4% 5% 2% 1% 0% 5% Stoney Creek 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 6% 22% 31% 3% 0% 0% 31%

Note: Shaded cells have Percent Water Demand greater than the Moderate Stress Threshold (20%)

October 30, 2015 3-46 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

The potential for stress classification is determined based on the thresholds presented in Table 3-20. The stress classification for each of the subwatersheds is summarized in Table 3-24.

Table 3-24: Subwatershed Surface Water Potential for Stress Classification

Potential Stress Municipal Water Supply Subwatershed Classification (Surface Water)

Otter Above Maple Dell Road Low None Otter at Otterville Low None Otter at Tillsonburg Low None Spittler Creek Low None Lower Otter Low None Little Otter Low None South Otter Moderate None Clear Creek Low None Big Above Cement Road Moderate None Big Above Kelvin Gauge Low None Big Above Delhi Moderate None North Creek Significant Delhi Big Above Minnow Creek Low None Big Above Walsingham Low None Venison Creek Moderate None Lower Big Low None Dedrick Creek Moderate None Young / Hay Creeks Significant None Lynn River Low None Black Creek Low None Nanticoke Upper Moderate None Nanticoke Lower Low None Sandusk Creek Low None Stoney Creek Moderate None

Planned Condition Percent Water Demand No planned systems exist outside of the subwatersheds identified as having a Moderate or Significant potential for stress under the Current Demand Scenario; therefore, the Planned Demand Scenario was not required.

Future Conditions Percent Water Demand A number of the Long Point Region subwatersheds have a low potential for stress classification and therefore a future water use scenario needs to be applied. As the urban areas within the Long Point Region watershed area are seen as low-growth, future land use changes are expected to have minimal, to no, impact on average subwatershed water budget parameters. As such, water budget parameters for existing land use conditions were used for the supply and reserve terms.

One surface water municipal intake is present in the Long Point Region, the Lehman Reservoir intake for Delhi, located in the North Creek Subwatershed. The Delhi municipal system relies on both surface and groundwater; it has been assumed that all future demand will be serviced from

October 30, 2015 3-47 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report the groundwater wells. As a result, the future surface water municipal demands equal the current surface water municipal demands, and no additional assessment is required. Furthermore, North Creek has already been identified as having a Significant potential for stress, which also negates the need to complete a future demand scenario at the Tier 2 stress assessment stage.

Drought Scenario The drought analysis is to be completed only for municipal surface water intakes located in subwatersheds that have not previously been identified as having a Moderate or Significant potential for stress. The only surface water intake in the Long Point Region is located in North Creek Subwatershed. As the North Creek Subwatershed is the only surface water municipal intake, and has already been identified as having a Significant potential for stress under current conditions, evaluation of a drought scenario is not required at the Tier 2 stress assessment stage.

Uncertainty in Stress Classifications The Technical Rules indicate that each subwatershed should be labeled as having a “Low” or “High” uncertainty in regards to the Stress Assessment classification assigned to each subwatershed.

Two scenarios of sensitivity analysis were to consider the variability with the number of pumping days per irrigation event. While the original assessment assumed 4 days of active pumping for an irrigation event, the sensitivity analysis considers low and high estimates equal to 3 days (- 25%) and 5 days (+25%), respectively. Two additional scenarios of sensitivity analysis considered the varying water supply upwards and downwards by 25%.

Table 3-25 summarizes the results of the sensitivity analysis for surface water. The Percent Water Demand for maximum monthly demand is presented for the four surface water sensitivity scenarios. Subwatersheds which meet or exceed the Moderate potential stress thresholds are formatted Bold.

Table 3-25: Surface Water Sensitivity Analysis

(1) (2) Results Agricultural Agricultural Under Surface Surface (3) Supply x (4) Supply x Current Water Water 75% 125% Subwatershed Conditions Demand x Demand x 75% 125% % Water % Water % Water % Water % Water Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Max Month Max Month Max Month Max Month Max Month Otter Above Maple Dell Road 16% 13% 19% 22% 13% Otter at Otterville 17% 13% 21% 22% 13% Otter at Tillsonburg 15% 11% 19% 20% 12% Spittler Creek 14% 12% 17% 19% 11% Lower Otter 7% 5% 9% 10% 6% Little Otter 17% 13% 21% 22% 13% South Otter 44% 33% 55% 59% 35% Clear Creek 15% 11% 18% 19% 12% Big Above Cement Road 35% 27% 43% 47% 28% Big Above Kelvin Gauge 5% 4% 6% 6% 4%

October 30, 2015 3-48 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-25: Surface Water Sensitivity Analysis

(1) (2) Results Agricultural Agricultural Under Surface Surface (3) Supply x (4) Supply x Current Water Water 75% 125% Subwatershed Conditions Demand x Demand x 75% 125% % Water % Water % Water % Water % Water Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Max Month Max Month Max Month Max Month Max Month Big Above Delhi 22% 17% 28% 30% 18% North Creek 69% 53% 86% 93% 56% Big Above Minnow Creek 7% 5% 8% 9% 5% Big Above Walsingham 11% 8% 13% 14% 8% Venison Creek 33% 25% 41% 44% 26% Lower Big 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% Dedrick Creek 22% 19% 25% 29% 17% Young/Hay Creeks 55% 46% 64% 74% 44% Lynn River 19% 15% 24% 26% 16% Black Creek 6% 6% 7% 8% 5% Nanticoke Upper 35% 27% 44% 47% 28% Nanticoke Lower 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Sandusk Creek 5% 5% 5% 7% 4% Stoney Creek 31% 31% 31% 41% 24%

The sensitivity analysis had a minimal impact on the Stress Assessment classifications presented in Table 3-24. For seven of the nine subwatersheds classified as having a Moderate or Significant potential for stress in Table 3-24 (i.e. South Otter, Big Above Cement Road, North Creek, Venison Creek, Young/Hay Creeks, Nanticoke Upper, and Stoney Creek Subwatersheds), the sensitivity analysis confirmed the Percent Water Demand as being greater than the 20% threshold value for all four sensitivity scenarios. For the remaining two identified subwatersheds (i.e. Dedrick Creek and Big Above Delhi Subwatersheds), a 25% decrease in demand and a 25% increase in supply resulted in these subwatersheds having a Low potential for stress.

The Lynn River, Little Otter, Otter at Tillsonburg, Otter at Otterville, and Otter Above Maple Dell Road Subwatersheds were classified as having a Low potential for stress in the base scenario. However, the sensitivity analysis shows that a Percent Water Demand greater than 20% is possible by increasing the agricultural water demand or decreasing the water supply parameters by 25%.Table 3-26 summarizes the results of the sensitivity analysis. Those subwatersheds which were originally identified as having a Moderate or Significant potential for stress and retained that classification for all sensitivity scenarios, were assigned an Uncertainty Classification of “Low”. Likewise, those subwatersheds originally identified as having a Low potential for stress, and retained this classification for all sensitivity scenarios were assigned an Uncertainty Classification of “Low”. An uncertainty classification of “High” was assigned to subwatersheds whose potential for stress changed for at least one of the sensitivity scenarios.

October 30, 2015 3-49 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-26: Low or High Uncertainty based on Sensitivity Analysis

Subwatershed Low or High Uncertainty

Otter Above Maple Dell Road High Otter at Otterville High Otter at Tillsonburg High Spittler Creek Low Lower Otter Low Little Otter High South Otter Low Clear Creek Low Big Above Cement Road Low Big Above Kelvin Gauge Low Big Above Delhi High North Creek Low Big Above Minnow Creek Low Big Above Walsingham Low Venison Creek Low Lower Big Low Dedrick Creek High Young / Hay Creeks Low Lynn River High Black Creek Low Nanticoke Upper Low Nanticoke Lower Low Sandusk Creek Low Stoney Creek Low

Uncertainty Assessment As per the Technical Rules (MOE, 2009a), subwatersheds that are not identified as being under a Moderate or Significant potential for stress may be assigned a classification of Moderate potential for stress if all the following are true (Technical Rules 34 and 2(f)):

1) The maximum monthly Percent Water Demand is between 18% and 20%;

2) The uncertainty associated with the Percent Water Demand calculations, when evaluated to be either “Low” or “High” is High; and

3) When an uncertainty analysis using appropriate error bounds suggests that the potential for stress could be Moderate.

As presented in Table 3-23, the only subwatershed that meets the first criteria is Lynn River. The Percent Water Demand for the Lynn River was found to be 19% under Current Demand and a “High” uncertainty (Table 3-26). Table 3-27 displays the Percent Water Demand results for the four uncertainty scenarios.

October 30, 2015 3-50 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-27: Lynn River Uncertainty Analysis

Results Under (1) Surface Water (2) Surface Water (3) Supply x (4) Supply x Current Demand x Demand x 90% 110% Conditions 90% 110% Subwatershed % Water % Water % Water % Water % Water Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Max Month Max Month Max Month Max Month Max Month

Lynn River 19% 15% 24% 26% 16%

As shown in this Table, the Lynn River Subwatershed is shown to have a Moderate potential for stress (>20% Demand) when either consumptive demand is increased by 10%, or supply is decreased by 10%. Consequently, the Lynn River subwatershed meets all three criteria of the Technical Rules for the uncertainty assessment and is classified as having a Moderate potential for stress.

Surface Water Stress Assessment Results The Surface Water Subwatershed Stress Assessment described in this section classifies the following subwatersheds as having a Moderate potential for stress:

• South Otter Creek; • Big Creek Above Cement Road; • Big Creek Above Delhi; • Venison Creek; • Dedrick Creek; • Lynn River; • Nanticoke Upper; and • Stoney Creek.

The Surface Water Stress Assessment classifies the following subwatersheds as having a Significant potential for stress:

• North Creek; and • Young/Hay Creeks. All other subwatersheds in the Long Point Region are classified as having a Low potential for surface water stress, as defined within the Technical Rules (MOE, 2008).

The following sections summarize the subwatersheds which were classified as having a Moderate or Significant potential for surface water stress. The principle hydrologic factors for the identification are discussed, and municipal supplies located within the subwatershed are identified. The results of the Tier 2 Surface Water Stress Assessment are illustrated on Map 3-8.

South Otter Creek Subwatershed The South Otter Creek Subwatershed has been assigned a Moderate potential for stress, based on the surface water Stress Assessment. There are 107 active surface water takings located within the Subwatershed, of which all are for agricultural purposes. With no takings for non-agricultural purposes, the Percent Water Demand for non-irrigated months is minimal. For the months of June-September, the Percent Water Demand is 32%, 36%, 41%, and 44%.

October 30, 2015 3-51 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Sixteen of the water takings have reported pumping rates associated with them. No single taking is influencing this classification, as there are no individual takings having greater than 10% of the total demand.

There are no municipal surface water intakes found within the South Otter Creek Subwatershed.

Big Creek Above Cement Road Subwatershed The headwaters of Big Creek, Big Creek above Cement Road Subwatershed, has been identified as having a Moderate potential for stress. This Subwatershed has limited portions within the Sand Plain, and is predominately located within the Till Plains. As a result, the Subwatershed only has 9 active takings, which are all agricultural, with the exception of a single Wildlife Conservation taking. Percent water demand is close to 0 for most months, including the months of June and July. In the month of August, the Percent Water Demand rises to 23%, and in September rises to 35% which are both above the surface water stress threshold of 20%.

Water demand throughout the summer months remains fairly steady , from 14 to 17 L/s; however the surface water supply declines from 430 L/s in June to 44 L/s in September. The uncertainty with the hydrologic model in predicting such low flows is considerably higher than with more substantial flows, and therefore may be impacting the stress assessment at this location. None of the water takings have reported rates associated with them, and no single permit is responsible for the majority of the demand.

There are no municipal surface water intakes found within the Big Creek Above Cement Road Subwatershed.

Big Creek Above Delhi Subwatershed Based on the stress assessment analysis, the Big Creek Above Delhi Subwatershed has been identified as having a Moderate potential for stress. There are 94 active takings within the Subwatershed, and all are for agricultural purposes, with the exception of a single wildlife conservation taking. Percent water demand is minimal for non-summer months (~1%), but increases to 21% and 22% in the months of August and September, respectively. There are 14 takings which have reported water taking rates associated with them. Given the proximity of the calculated Percent Water Demand to the Moderate threshold, additional characterization of the other 80 takings may reduce the Percent Water Demand below the 20% threshold.

There are no municipal surface water intakes located within the Big Creek Above Delhi Subwatershed.

North Creek Subwatershed The North Creek Subwatershed has been classified as having a Significant potential for stress on the basis of this stress assessment. Due to no streamflow gauge being located on North Creek, this classification is not able to be confirmed with observed data. However, in 1998 and 1999, concern with North Creek streamflow and the short-term sustainability of Delhi’s municipal intake from Lehman reservoir, led to the formation of the Province’s first Irrigation Advisory Committee. The primary objective of this Committee is to mediate water related disputes between irrigators, to reduce the impact of water taking operations on watercourses. This local response to dry conditions confirms the current potential for stress identification.

There are 56 active surface water takings located within the Subwatershed. 53 of the permits are for agricultural purposes, with additional takings for Dams & Reservoirs, Wetlands, and a Municipal Water Supply. Percent Water Demand is minimal for the non-irrigated months (~5%);

October 30, 2015 3-52 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report however, it increases to approximately 65% for the months of June-September. Thirteen of the takings have reported pumping rates associated with them, including the water supply taking. Total demand is well distributed throughout all the takings, with no single taking being responsible for more than 10% of demand.

Delhi’s surface water intake at Lehman reservoir is located within this Subwatershed. For the Delhi surface water intake, conditions meet the requirements for a Tier 3 Water Quantity Risk Assessment.

Venison Creek Subwatershed The results of the analysis suggest that Venison Creek has a Moderate potential for stress in terms of surface water. There are approximately 79 surface water takings within the Subwatershed, 76 of which are for agricultural purposes, with 2 wetland takings and a single aquaculture taking. Like many subwatersheds, the Percent Water Demand is minimal for non- irrigated months, but increases considerably for the months of June-September to approximately 30%. Approximately 27 water takings have reported rates associated with them, which is a high proportion in comparison to other subwatersheds. No single taking is responsible for more than 10% of the total monthly demand.

There are no municipal surface water intakes located within Venison Creek Subwatershed.

Dedrick Creek Subwatershed The Dedrick Creek Subwatershed has been identified as having a Moderate potential for stress in terms of surface water. There are a total of 42 takings located within the Subwatershed. Two takings are for wetlands, another for golf course irrigation, and one for wildlife conservation, with the remainder being agricultural purposes. There is approximately 10% Percent Water Demand for most non-summer months; percent water demand increases to 17%, 18%, and 20% for the months of June, July, and August, respectively. The Percent Water Demand for the month of September reaches 22%, which is responsible for the Moderate classification. Due to proximity of the calculated Percent Water Demand to the Moderate threshold, increased characterization of water taking operations may remove this classification. There are 9 takings with reported pumping rates associated with them.

There are no municipal surface water takings within Dedrick Creek Subwatershed.

Young/Hay Creeks Subwatershed The Subwatershed contributing to Young and Hay Creeks is classified with a Significant potential for surface water stress. This Subwatershed has 50 takings, of which 46 are for agricultural purposes, 2 are for Dams and Reservoirs, one Wildlife Conservation taking and one Golf Course taking. Percent water demand is low for most months, but increases to 55% for June, and approximately 45% for the months of July-September. There are 12 takings with reported pumping rates associated with them. One taking is responsible for more than 15% of the monthly demand; however, reported rates are available for this taking, which reduces the uncertainty associated with it.

There are no municipal surface water intakes located within the Young/Hay Creeks Subwatershed.

Lynn River Subwatershed Under the existing conditions for the Surface Water Stress Assessment the Lynn River was found to have a Percent Water Demand of 19%, and was subsequently not identified as having

October 30, 2015 3-53 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report a potential for stress. Due to an uncertainty analysis required for subwatersheds with Percent Water Demands within 2% of the threshold, the Lynn River Subwatershed was identified as having a Moderate potential for stress.

This Subwatershed has 58 takings, of which 56 are for agricultural purposes and 2 are for golf course irrigation. Percent water demand is low for most months (~1%), but increases to 19% for the months of June-September. There are 6 takings with reported pumping rates associated with them. No takings are responsible for more than 10% of the monthly demand.

There are no municipal surface water intakes located within the Lynn River Subwatershed. However, it should be noted that municipal groundwater supplies within this Subwatershed are derived from wells that rely on induced infiltration from the Lynn River at Simcoe. As municipal demands are highest during the same time period as the agricultural demands, maintaining surface water flow in this subwatershed is important for Source Water Protection.

Upper Nanticoke Creek Subwatershed The Upper Nanticoke Creek Subwatershed has been classified as having a Moderate potential for surface water stress. There are 24 agricultural water takings within this Subwatershed. Percent water demand is minimal for most non-summer months, but reaches 35% and 32% during August and September, respectively. Approximately half of all the water takings (13) within this Subwatershed have reported water takings associated with them. There are a number of takings each representing more than 10% of the total demand. Takings associated with three permits constitute more than 40% of the demand from this subwatershed, and obtaining reported rates from these takings may lower the Percent Water Demand below the 20% threshold.

There are no municipal surface water intakes located within the Upper Nanticoke Creek Subwatershed. However, it should be noted that municipal groundwater supplies within this Subwatershed are derived from wells that are suspected to induce infiltration from surface ponds, known as the Waterford Ponds. As municipal demands are highest during the same time period as the agricultural demands, maintaining surface water flow in this subwatershed is important for Source Protection.

Stoney Creek Subwatershed The easternmost subwatershed in the study area, Stoney Creek Subwatershed, has been identified as having a Moderate potential for stress. This Subwatershed is almost exclusively located within the Haldimand Clay Plain. As a result, the Subwatershed only has 2 active takings, both of which are for golf course irrigation. Percent water demand is 0% for most months, and is minimal for the months of June and July. In the month of August, the Percent Water Demand rises to 22%, and in September rises to 31% which are both above the surface water stress threshold of 20%. Water demand throughout the summer months remains steady at 8 L/s, however the surface water supply declines from 645 L/s in June to 28 L/s in September. The uncertainty with the hydrologic model in predicting very low flows is considerably higher than with more substantial flows, and therefore may be impacting the stress assessment at this location. There are no reported rates available for the takings within this subwatershed; however, increased water use characterization may lower the Percent Water Demand below the threshold.

There are no municipal surface water intakes found within Stoney Creek Subwatershed.

October 30, 2015 3-54 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 3-8: Tier 2 Surface Water Stress Assessment in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 3-55 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

3.7.2 Groundwater Stress Assessment For groundwater systems, the Stress Assessment calculation is carried out for the average annual demand conditions and for the monthly maximum demand conditions; groundwater supply is considered constant. The stress level for groundwater systems is categorized into three levels (Significant, Moderate or Low) according to the thresholds listed in Table 3-28.

Table 3-28: Groundwater Potential Stress Thresholds

Groundwater Potential Stress Average Annual Monthly Maximum Level Assignment Significant > 25% > 50% Moderate > 10% > 25% Low 0 – 10% 0 – 25% Existing Conditions Percent Water Demand Table 3-29 contains the monthly estimates of unit consumptive groundwater demands calculated for each subwatershed. The average and maximum monthly demands are shown in the table; they are used to estimate subwatershed potential stress in the groundwater stress assessment.

Table 3-29: Groundwater Unit Consumptive Demands (L/s)

Subwatershed Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg Max

Otter Above Maple 12 12 12 13 13 37 63 86 60 13 12 12 29 86 Dell Road Otter at Otterville 5 4 5 5 6 38 70 98 65 6 6 4 26 98 Otter at 79 85 84 79 83 135 191 241 187 89 79 75 117 241 Tillsonburg Spittler Creek 7 7 7 7 7 10 13 15 14 7 6 7 9 15 Lower Otter 4 4 4 4 4 30 56 82 56 4 4 4 21 82 Little Otter 29 29 29 29 29 76 123 169 122 29 29 29 60 169 South Otter 1 1 1 1 1 50 98 145 97 1 1 1 33 145 Clear Creek 1 1 1 1 1 62 130 187 125 1 1 1 43 187 Big Above Cement 2 2 2 2 2 14 26 38 26 2 2 2 10 38 Road Big Above Kelvin 48 47 47 47 52 143 234 325 234 52 52 47 111 325 Gauge Big Above Delhi 9 9 9 9 9 229 456 672 448 9 9 9 156 672 North Creek 65 65 65 65 66 110 153 197 153 65 65 65 94 197 Big Above Minnow 30 30 32 33 36 157 280 401 274 26 29 22 112 401 Creek Big Above 2 2 2 2 2 67 137 196 131 3 2 2 46 196 Walsingham Venison Creek 2 2 2 2 2 68 136 199 133 2 2 2 46 199 Lower Big 2 2 2 2 2 26 57 78 51 2 2 2 19 78 Dedrick Creek 2 2 2 2 2 49 98 147 99 2 2 2 34 147 Young/Hay Creek 31 35 34 38 26 103 189 237 167 37 31 38 80 237 Lynn River 91 99 95 87 91 273 418 595 428 79 79 74 201 595 Black Creek 17 17 25 25 25 47 74 89 62 25 25 17 37 89 Nanticoke Upper 22 20 20 21 25 217 394 542 359 22 23 23 141 542 Nanticoke Lower 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 4 Sandusk Creek 7 8 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 9 9 Stoney Creek 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 4 5

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-56 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-30: Groundwater Percent Consumptive Demands (%)

Subwatershed Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Otter Above 1 1 1 1 1 4 8 10 7 1 1 1 Maple Dell Rd Otter at Otterville 0 0 0 0 1 5 10 14 9 0 0 0 Otter at 4 4 4 4 4 6 9 11 8 4 4 3 Tillsonburg Spittler Creek 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 Lower Otter 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 4 0 0 0 Little Otter 2 2 2 2 2 7 11 15 11 2 2 2 South Otter 0 0 0 0 0 4 8 13 8 0 0 0 Clear Creek 0 0 0 0 0 7 15 22 15 0 0 0 Big Above 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 7 5 0 0 0 Cement Road Big Above Kelvin 7 7 7 7 8 22 36 50 36 8 8 7 Gauge Big Above Delhi 0 0 0 0 0 15 30 44 29 0 0 0 North Creek 11 11 11 11 11 19 26 34 26 11 11 11 Big Above 3 3 3 3 4 17 30 43 30 3 3 2 Minnow Creek Big Above 0 0 0 0 0 6 11 17 11 0 0 0 Walsingham Venison Creek 0 0 0 0 0 6 13 19 12 0 0 0 Lower Big 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 12 8 0 0 0 Dedrick Creek 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 10 7 0 0 0 Young/Hay Creek 2 3 3 3 2 9 16 20 14 3 3 3 Lynn River 6 6 6 6 6 18 28 40 28 5 5 5 Black Creek 2 2 3 3 3 7 11 13 9 3 3 2 Nanticoke Upper 3 2 3 3 3 31 57 79 52 3 3 3 Nanticoke Lower 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Sandusk Creek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stoney Creek 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

Groundwater supply is calculated as the sum of the average annual recharge and the total amount of groundwater flowing laterally into each subwatershed. The groundwater Flow In for each subwatershed is calculated from the model results as the sum of all positive flow vectors into each area. Groundwater reserve is calculated as 10% of the estimated groundwater discharge to surface water streams in each subwatershed. The groundwater reserve for each subwatershed is given in Table 3-31.

Table 3-31: Groundwater Stress Assessment

Supply and Demand (L/s) % Water Demand Average Maximum Ground Ground Ground Subwatershed Average Maximum Annual Monthly water water water Demand Demand Water Water Flow In Recharge Reserve Demand Demand Otter Above Maple 124 713 56 29 86 4% 11%

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-57 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-31: Groundwater Stress Assessment

Supply and Demand (L/s) % Water Demand Average Maximum Ground Ground Ground Subwatershed Average Maximum Annual Monthly water water water Demand Demand Water Water Flow In Recharge Reserve Demand Demand Dell Road Otter at Otterville 215 497 43 26 98 4% 15% Otter at Tillsonburg 967 1466 188 117 241 5.2% 10.7% Spittler Creek 263 625 47 9 15 1% 2% Lower Otter 258 1098 107 21 82 2% 7% Little Otter 118 1096 98 60 169 5% 15% South Otter 32 1190 85 33 145 3% 13% Clear Creek 67 833 51 43 187 5% 22% Big Above Cement 0 535 51 10 38 2% 8% Road Big Above Kelvin 126 547 29 111 325 17% 50% Gauge Big Above Delhi 240 1412 129 156 672 10% 44% North Creek 30 593 39 94 197 16% 34% Big Above Minnow 203 799 80 112 401 12% 44% Creek Big Above 140 1149 123 46 196 4% 17% Walsingham Venison Creek 190 974 111 46 199 4% 19% Lower Big 23 649 40 19 78 3% 12% Dedrick Creek 310 1199 68 34 147 2% 10% Young/Hay Creeks 75 1162 51 80 237 7% 20% Lynn River 57 1540 112 201 595 14% 40% Black Creek 23 691 49 37 89 6% 13% Nanticoke Upper 64 670 52 141 542 21% 79% Nanticoke Lower 67 227 21 3 4 1% 2% Sandusk Creek 37 392 20 9 9 2% 2% Stoney Creek 0 387 9 4 5 1% 1%

The results of the Groundwater Stress Assessment are shown in Table 3-31. Table 3-32 contains the estimated potential for hydrologic stress. The table also lists the municipal groundwater supplies in each of the subwatersheds.

Table 3-32: Groundwater Stress Classification (Current Demand) Potential Stress Potential Stress (Maximum Municipal Water Subwatershed (Average Annual Monthly Supplies Demand) Demand) Otter Above Maple Dell Road Low Low Norwich GW Otter at Otterville Low Low Otterville GW Otter at Tillsonburg Low Low Tillsonburg GW Springford GW, Spittler Creek Low Low Dereham Center GW

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-58 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-32: Groundwater Stress Classification (Current Demand) Potential Stress Potential Stress (Maximum Municipal Water Subwatershed (Average Annual Monthly Supplies Demand) Demand) Lower Otter Low Low Richmond GW Little Otter Low Low None South Otter Low Low None Clear Creek Low Low None Big Above Cement Road Low Low None Big Above Kelvin Gauge Moderate Significant None Big Above Delhi Moderate Moderate None North Creek Moderate Moderate None Big Above Minnow Creek Moderate Moderate Delhi GW Big Above Walsingham Low Low None Venison Creek Low Low None Lower Big Low Low None Dedrick Creek Low Low None Young / Hay Creeks Low Low None Lynn River Moderate Moderate Simcoe GW Black Creek Low Low None Nanticoke Upper Moderate Significant Waterford GW Nanticoke Lower Low Low None Sandusk Creek Low Low None Stoney Creek Low Low None

3.7.3 Planned Condition Percent Water Demand No planned systems exist outside of the subwatersheds identified as having a Moderate or Significant potential for stress under the Current Demand Scenario; therefore, the Planned Demand Scenario was not required.

3.7.4 Future Conditions Percent Water Demand The Percent Water Demand was also calculated using future demand estimates. Future demand only accounts for projected increases in municipal demand. All other non-municipal water demand was assumed to be equal to current demand. Since the urban areas within the Study Area were seen as areas of low-growth, future land use changes were expected to have minimal, to no, impact on average subwatershed water budget parameters. Therefore, water budget parameters for existing land use conditions were used for the supply and reserve terms.

Table 3-33 contains estimated future additional water demand requirements for each municipal groundwater supply system in the Long Point Region. Municipal future water demand was estimated by applying future population estimates to current average daily per capita water use, for each municipal water system. Future population is based on municipal official plans current to 2006, while current water use data was collected from water system owners and operators. All future water demand is projected to 2031. Further explanation of future water demand calculations is given in the Status Report on Municipal Long Term Water Supply Strategies (Shifflett, 2007).

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-59 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-33: Future Groundwater Municipal Demand Increases

Estimated Average Estimated Average Municipal Water Day Increase in Day Increase in Subwatershed Supply System Groundwater Groundwater Demand (m3/d) Demand (L/s) Otter Above Maple Dell Road Norwich GW 122 1 Otter at Otterville Otterville GW 91 1 Otter at Tillsonburg Tillsonburg GW 1,960 22 Springford GW, Spittler Creek 68 1 Dereham Center GW Big Above Minnow Creek Delhi GW 1,348 16 Lynn River Simcoe GW 1,924 22 Nanticoke Upper Waterford GW 576 7

Groundwater supply and reserve remained unchanged for the Groundwater Stress Assessment estimated for future conditions. Future average monthly demand and maximum monthly demand were estimated by summing the demands under current conditions with the additional average increase in demand for future conditions. The results of the Percent Groundwater Demand under future conditions are presented in Table 3-34.

Table 3-34: Groundwater Stress Assessment Components with Future Demand Estimates

Supply and Demand (L/s) % Water Demand Average Maximum Ground Ground Ground Subwatershed Average Maximum Monthly water water water Annual Demand Demand Flow In Recharge Reserve Water Water Demand Demand Otter Above Maple 124 713 56 30 87 4% 11% Dell Road Otter at Otterville 215 497 43 27 99 4% 15% Otter at Tillsonburg 967 1466 188 139 263 6.2% 11.7% Spittler Creek 263 625 47 10 16 1% 2% Lower Otter 258 1098 107 21 82 2% 7% Little Otter 118 1096 98 60 169 5% 15% South Otter 32 1190 85 33 145 3% 13% Clear Creek 67 833 51 43 187 5% 22% Big Above Cement 0 535 51 10 38 2% 8% Road Big Above Kelvin 126 547 29 111 325 17% 50% Gauge Big Above Delhi 240 1412 129 156 672 10% 44% North Creek 30 593 39 94 197 16% 34% Big Above Minnow 203 799 80 128 417 14% 45% Creek Big Above 140 1149 123 46 196 4% 17% Walsingham Venison Creek 190 974 111 46 199 4% 19%

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-60 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-34: Groundwater Stress Assessment Components with Future Demand Estimates

Supply and Demand (L/s) % Water Demand Average Maximum Ground Ground Ground Subwatershed Average Maximum Monthly water water water Annual Demand Demand Flow In Recharge Reserve Water Water Demand Demand Lower Big 23 649 40 19 78 3% 12% Dedrick Creek 310 1199 68 34 147 2% 10% Young/Hay Creeks 75 1162 51 80 237 7% 20% Lynn River 57 1540 112 223 618 15% 42% Black Creek 23 691 49 37 89 6% 13% Nanticoke Upper 64 670 52 147 548 22% 80% Nanticoke Lower 67 227 21 3 4 1% 2% Sandusk Creek 37 392 20 9 9 2% 2% Stoney Creek 0 387 9 4 5 1% 1%

In Table 3-34, subwatersheds which met or exceeded the stress thresholds given in Table 3-28 are formatted Bold for Moderate potential for stress, and Bold and Italic for Significant potential for stress.

3.7.5 Drought Scenario Both a two year and a ten year drought scenario were considered. These scenarios are designed to capture probable periods of drought conditions; both short and long term duration droughts. With the surface water simulation producing groundwater recharge estimates for the 1960-2004 time period, the impacts of any drought within this time period can be assessed.

The 1960’s represent a recorded period of low precipitation, for which estimated recharge is available from the hydrologic model simulations. Since this information is readily available, the two-year and ten-year scenarios were evaluated during the same simulation for this Stress Assessment. Information relating to the planned pumping rates for municipal wells was not available and therefore the drought assessment is only carried out for existing pumping rates.

The Technical Rules stipulates that the drought scenario applies only to municipal wells that have not already been identified as having a Moderate or Significant potential for stress under current and future demand conditions. The results of the drought scenario for the twenty-three municipal wells in the Long Point Region that fall into this category are given in Table 3-35. These results are based on a regional groundwater flow model that is not calibrated to the local scale of individual well fields.

Table 3-35: Results of Groundwater Drought Scenario - Maximum Drawdown

Maximum Municipal Drawdown (m Municipality Subwatershed Well System below initial water level) County of Oxford Norwich Otter Above Maple Dell Road Well_#1 -2.08

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-61 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-35: Results of Groundwater Drought Scenario - Maximum Drawdown

Maximum Municipal Drawdown (m Municipality Subwatershed Well System below initial water level) County of Oxford Norwich Otter Above Maple Dell Road Well_#2 -2.09 County of Oxford Norwich Otter Above Maple Dell Road Well_#4 -2.21 County of Oxford Otterville Otter at Otterville Well_2-A -1.03 County of Oxford Otterville Otter at Otterville Well_3 -1.37 County of Oxford Otterville Otter at Otterville Well_4 -1.38 County of Oxford Springford Spittler Creek Well_1 -1.39 County of Oxford Springford Spittler Creek Well_2 -1.37 County of Oxford Springford Spittler Creek Well_3 -1.36 County of Oxford Springford Spittler Creek Well_TW1 -1.40 County of Oxford Springford Spittler Creek Well_TW2 -1.37 County of Oxford Tillsonburg Little Otter Well_13_Vance Site -2.01 County of Oxford Tillsonburg Little Otter Well_14_Vance Site -2.01 County of Oxford Tillsonburg Big Otter at Tillsonburg Well 1A -2.0 County of Oxford Tillsonburg Big Otter at Tillsonburg Well 2 -2.0 County of Oxford Tillsonburg Big Otter at Tillsonburg Well 4 -0.9 County of Oxford Tillsonburg Big Otter at Tillsonburg Well 5 -0.9 County of Oxford Tillsonburg Big Otter at Tillsonburg Well 6A -0.9 County of Oxford Tillsonburg Big Otter at Tillsonburg Well 7 -1.0 County of Oxford Tillsonburg Big Otter at Tillsonburg Well 9 -1.3 County of Oxford Tillsonburg Big Otter at Tillsonburg Well 10 -1.3 County of Oxford Tillsonburg Big Otter at Tillsonburg Well 11 -1.3 County of Oxford Tillsonburg Big Otter at Tillsonburg Well 12 -1.3 Note: Tillsonburg Well 7A replaced Well 7 in 2009; Well 7A was completed a few metres away in the same aquifer.

It is assumed that all municipal wells would be constructed with an available drawdown of approximately 5 metres. As all municipal wells are shown to have a maximum drawdown less than this threshold it is unlikely that there are instances of a municipal well being unable to pump water due to drought impacts. Therefore, no subwatersheds will be classified as having a moderate potential for stress based on the drought scenario.

3.7.6 Uncertainty in Stress Classifications Table 3-36 summarizes the results of the sensitivity analysis for groundwater. The Percent Water Demand for average annual demand and maximum monthly demand is presented for the groundwater sensitivity analysis. Subwatersheds which meet or exceed the stress thresholds are formatted Bold to indicate a Moderate or Significant potential for stress.

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-62 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 3-36: Groundwater Sensitivity Analysis (Current Conditions)

Current (1) Groundwater (2) Groundwater (3) Recharge x (4) Recharge x Conditions Demand x 75% Demand x 125% 75% 125% % Water % Water % Water % Water % Water Subwatershed Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand

Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max Avg Max Annual Month Annual Month Annual Month Annual Month Annual Month Otter Above Maple Dell 4% 11% 3% 9% 4% 13% 5% 15% 3% 9% Road Otter at 4% 15% 3% 11% 5% 18% 5% 20% 3% 12% Otterville Otter at 5% 11% 5% 10% 6% 11% 6% 13% 4% 9% Tillsonburg Spittler Creek 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% Lower Otter 2% 7% 1% 5% 2% 8% 2% 9% 1% 5% Little Otter 5% 15% 5% 12% 6% 18% 7% 20% 4% 12% South Otter 3% 13% 2% 10% 4% 16% 4% 17% 2% 10% Clear Creek 5% 22% 4% 17% 6% 27% 7% 29% 4% 18% Big Above 2% 8% 2% 6% 3% 10% 3% 11% 2% 6% Cement Road Big Above Kelvin 17% 50% 15% 40% 20% 61% 23% 67% 14% 40% Gauge Big Above 10% 44% 8% 33% 13% 55% 14% 59% 8% 35% Delhi North Creek 16% 34% 15% 28% 17% 39% 22% 45% 13% 27% Big Above Minnow 12% 44% 10% 34% 14% 53% 16% 58% 10% 35% Creek Big Above 4% 17% 3% 13% 5% 21% 5% 22% 3% 13% Walsingham Venison Creek 4% 19% 3% 14% 5% 24% 6% 25% 3% 15% Lower Big 3% 12% 2% 9% 4% 15% 4% 16% 2% 10% Dedrick Creek 2% 10% 2% 8% 3% 13% 3% 14% 2% 8% Young/Hay 7% 20% 6% 16% 8% 24% 9% 27% 5% 16% Creeks Lynn River 14% 40% 12% 32% 15% 48% 18% 53% 11% 32% Black Creek 6% 13% 5% 12% 6% 15% 8% 18% 5% 11% Nanticoke 21% 79% 16% 60% 25% 98% 28% 106% 17% 64% Upper Nanticoke 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% Lower Sandusk Creek 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% Stoney Creek 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1%

For the groundwater assessment, there are three subwatersheds (Clear Creek, Venison Creek, and Young/Hay Creeks) whose classifications were shown to change due to the sensitivity calculations. All of these subwatersheds are classified as having a Low potential for stress

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-63 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report under existing conditions. If recharge decreased by 25% or agricultural demand increased by 25%, these three subwatersheds may move to a Moderate potential for stress classification.

The six subwatersheds identified as having either a Moderate or Significant potential for stress in the Groundwater Stress Assessment in Table 3-32 (i.e. Big Above Kelvin Gauge, Big Above Delhi, North Creek, Big Above Minnow Creek, Lynn River, and Nanticoke Upper Subwatersheds) maintain estimated Percent Water Demands consistent with their original classification for each sensitivity scenario. Despite large changes to demand and supply parameters in the Sensitivity Analysis calculations, all the subwatersheds identified as having a Moderate or Significant potential for stress would still be identified under each scenario. This confirmation of the stress classification provides additional confidence in the classification. Table 3-37 summarizes the results of the sensitivity analysis.

Table 3-37: Low or High Uncertainty based on Sensitivity Analysis

Subwatershed Low or High Uncertainty

Otter Above Maple Dell Road Low Otter at Otterville Low Otter at Tillsonburg Low Spittler Creek Low Lower Otter Low Little Otter Low South Otter Low Clear Creek High Big Above Cement Road Low Big Above Kelvin Gauge Low Big Above Delhi High North Creek Low Big Above Minnow Creek Low Big Above Walsingham Low Venison Creek High Lower Big Low Dedrick Creek Low Young / Hay Creeks High Lynn River Low Black Creek Low Nanticoke Upper Low Nanticoke Lower Low Sandusk Creek Low Stoney Creek Low

3.7.7 Uncertainty Assessment As required by the Technical Rules, any subwatershed with an average monthly Percent Groundwater Demand between 8% and 10% or with a maximum monthly Percent Groundwater Demand between 23% and 25% is required to undergo further evaluation to reduce uncertainty in the Percent Water Demand results.

No subwatersheds met the criteria required for an uncertainty assessment.

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-64 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

3.7.8 Groundwater Stress Assessment Results Based on the Percent Water Demand calculations for current and future demand conditions, and the results of the Drought Scenario, the groundwater stress classifications are included in Table 3-38.

Table 3-38: Subwatershed Groundwater Stress Classification

Potential Potential Stress Stress Municipal Water Subwatershed (Average (Maximum Supplies Annual Monthly Demand) Demand) Otter Above Maple Dell Road Low Low Norwich Otter at Otterville Low Low Otterville Otter at Tillsonburg Low Low Tillsonburg Springford, Spittler Creek Low Low Dereham Center Lower Otter Low Low Richmond Little Otter Low Low None South Otter Low Low None Clear Creek Low Low None Big Above Cement Road Low Low None Big Above Kelvin Gauge Moderate Significant None Big Above Delhi Moderate Moderate None North Creek Moderate Moderate None Big Above Minnow Creek Moderate Moderate Delhi Big Above Walsingham Low Low None Venison Creek Low Low None Lower Big Low Low None Dedrick Creek Low Low None Young / Hay Creeks Low Low None Lynn River Moderate Moderate Simcoe Black Creek Low Low None Nanticoke Upper Moderate Significant Waterford Nanticoke Lower Low Low None Sandusk Creek Low Low None Stoney Creek Low Low None

The Groundwater Subwatershed Stress Assessment described in this section classifies the following subwatersheds as having a Moderate or Significant potential for stress: • Big Creek Above Kelvin Gauge; • Big Creek Above Delhi; • Big Creek Above Minnow Creek; • North Creek; • Lynn River; and • Nanticoke Upper.

These subwatersheds represent the upstream portion of the Big Creek, Lynn River and Nanticoke Creek Watersheds, as well as the most developed portion of the Big Otter Creek

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-65 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Watershed. All other subwatersheds in the Long Point Region are classified as having a Low potential for groundwater stress, as defined within the Technical Rules (MOE, 2008). It should be noted that the following subwatersheds were found to have a Low potential for stress, but assigned a High level of uncertainty:

• Clear Creek; • Venison Creek; and • Young / Hay Creeks. The uncertainty classification of High indicates that Percent Water Demand for these subwatersheds could be above the threshold for a Moderate potential for stress, given variations of +-25% in either the water supply or demand terms. While these subwatersheds are classified as having a Low potential for stress under the Technical Rules (MOE, 2008), the sensitivity surrounding that classification should be considered for watershed management initiatives beyond Source Protection.

The following sections summarize the subwatersheds classified as having a Moderate or Significant potential for stress under existing and future demand conditions. The hydrologic factors influencing the classification are discussed, and municipal supplies located within the subwatershed are identified. The results of the Tier 2 Groundwater Stress Assessment are illustrated on Map 3-9. To facilitate the discussion of the driving factors that result in the relative levels of potential for stress for each subwatershed, Table 3-39 presents a breakdown of the consumptive water demand by sector.

Table 3-39: Breakdown of Consumptive Groundwater Demand By Sector

Non- Average Average Livestock Municip Agric- Com- De- Ind- Recre- Munic. Demand % Water Misc. and Rural al Subwatershed ultural mercial watering ustrial ational Water (L/s) Demand Domestic Demand Supply

Otter Above Maple Dell Rd 29 4% 56% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 32% Otter at Otterville 26 4% 77% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 12% Otter at Tillsonburg 130 8% 23% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 56% Spittler Creek 9 1% 24% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 26% Lower Otter 21 2% 83% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 0% Little Otter 60 5% 52% 44% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% South Otter 33 3% 96% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% Clear Creek 43 5% 97% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% Big Above Cement Road 10 2% 79% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 21% 0% Big Above Kelvin Gauge 111 17% 55% 28% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Big Above Delhi 156 10% 94% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 2% 0% North Creek 94 16% 31% 68% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% Big Above Minnow Creek 112 12% 72% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 26% Big Above Walsingham 46 4% 95% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% Venison Creek 46 4% 96% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% Lower Big 19 3% 92% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% Dedrick Creek 34 2% 95% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% Young/Hay Creeks 80 7% 59% 0% 0% 0% 39% 0% 0% 2% 0% Lynn River 201 14% 54% 3% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 39% Black Creek 37 6% 28% 11% 52% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% Nanticoke Upper 141 21% 84% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 15% Nanticoke Lower 3 1% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 80% 0% Sandusk Creek 9 2% 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 0% 37% 49% 0% Stoney Creek 4 1% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 84% 0% TOTAL 1454 - 65% 11% 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 4% 15%

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-66 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Big Creek Above Kelvin Gauge Subwatershed The Percent Water Demand for the Big Creek Above Kelvin Gauge Subwatershed is 17% under average demand conditions and 50% under maximum monthly demand conditions. The Subwatershed is assigned a Moderate potential for stress under average pumping and a Significant potential for stress under maximum monthly pumping.

Of the 87 water takings located within this Subwatershed, 83 are for agricultural purposes. Of the remaining 4 water takings, 2 are for industrial water cooling, one is for aggregate washing, and the final permit is for aquaculture purposes. Given in Table 3-39 above, a total of 55% of demand depends on average agricultural pumping, 28% of demand comes from one commercial aquaculture taking, 16% of total groundwater demand depends on industrial takings, and 1% of total demand is estimated as livestock watering and rural domestic demand. Only one agricultural permit in this Subwatershed has reported pumping rates available.

There are no municipal groundwater supplies in this Subwatershed.

Big Creek Above Delhi Subwatershed The results of this analysis assign the Big Creek Above Delhi Subwatershed a Percent Water Demand of 10% under average demand conditions and 44% for maximum monthly demand conditions. Based on the Stress Assessment thresholds, this Subwatershed has been identified as having a Moderate potential for stress under both average and maximum monthly demand conditions.

There are 244 water takings located within this Subwatershed, with 238 takings assigned for agricultural, 4 for Aesthetics and 2 for miscellaneous purposes. Table 3-39 shows that 94% of total groundwater demand is dependent on agricultural pumping, 3% is due to recreational demand, and 2% is attributed to estimated livestock watering and rural domestic demand. Only 11 of the takings have reported pumping rates associated with them. The water demand is well distributed between the 244 takings, with no one taking being responsible for more than 3% of the total demand.

There are no municipal groundwater supplies in this Subwatershed.

North Creek Subwatershed The Percent Water Demand for the North Creek Subwatershed is 16% under average demand and 34% for peak monthly demand conditions. The Subwatershed is therefore classified with a Moderate potential for stress under both average and peak monthly conditions.

There are 78 takings located within this Subwatershed, of which 68 are for agricultural purposes. Of the remaining takings, 8 are for aquaculture takings and 2 are for a Campground Water Supply. Shown in Table 3-39, 31% of the total groundwater demand is due to agricultural groundwater demand, 68% comes from the commercial sector comprised of aquaculture permits in this Subwatershed, 1% is attributed to non-municipal supply, and 1% is estimated to represent the livestock watering and rural domestic demand in the North Creek Subwatershed. There are no water takings within this Subwatershed with reported pumping rates. The top 3 takings, in terms of estimated demand, are all aquaculture takings, and comprise over 60% of the average annual demand for this Subwatershed. Additional reported information regarding these takings may lower the Percent Water Demand for this Subwatershed.

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-67 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

There are no municipal groundwater supplies located within North Creek. However, the Delhi municipal system does take surface water from Lehman Reservoir within this Subwatershed. There are large discharges to the surface water system from the groundwater system in North Creek which may be important for maintaining flows to the Lehman Reservoir.

Big Creek Above Minnow Creek Subwatershed The results of the analysis indicate that Big Creek Above Minnow Creek Subwatershed has a Percent Water Demand of 12% under average demand conditions, and 44% under peak monthly demand conditions. Based on the Stress Assessment thresholds, this Subwatershed has been identified as having a Moderate potential for stress under both average and peak demand conditions. Including future projected municipal demands in the future groundwater Stress Assessment scenario, Percent Water Demand under average conditions is 14% and under maximum monthly pumping conditions is 45%. This slight increase to the Percent Water Demand does not cause a change in the stress classifications for the Subwatershed.

Big Creek Above Minnow Creek Subwatershed has 129 water takings located within it, with 126 agricultural takings, 2 water supply takings and a single golf course taking. Table 3-39 shows 72% of total groundwater demand attributed to agricultural takings, 26% attributed to municipal water demand, 1% of total demand due to the golf course irrigation and 1% estimated for livestock watering and rural domestic demand. Of the 129 takings, only 8 of the takings have reported pumping rates associated with them. The two water supply takings represent more than 25% of the average annual demand; these takings already have reported rates associated with them and are therefore highly certain. Beyond the two water supply takings, demand is very well distributed, with no single taking being responsible for more than 4% of the average annual demand.

Municipal supplies within this Subwatershed include the Delhi Supply wells for the Delhi- Courtland Municipal Water System. As outlined in the Technical Rules, the conditions at Delhi meet requirements for a groundwater Tier 3 Water Quantity Risk Assessment.

Lynn River Subwatershed The Percent Water Demand for the Lynn River Subwatershed is 14% under average demand conditions and 40% under peak monthly demand conditions. This value classifies the Subwatershed as having a Moderate potential for stress under both average and peak demands. Including future municipal demands in the groundwater Stress Assessment, the percent groundwater demand for Lynn River Subwatershed is 15% under average conditions and 42% under maximum monthly demand conditions. These do not change the Subwatershed stress classifications for Lynn River.

There are 186 takings located within this Subwatershed, with 172 takings being for agricultural purposes. The remaining takings are split between golf courses, food processing, aggregate washing and water supply. Only 15 of the takings have reported pumping rates associated with them, including all municipal takings. On average, 54% of water demand comes from agricultural water takings, 39% of demand comes from municipal takings, 3% comes from the commercial sector, 2% comes from industrial takings, and 2% is estimated to come from livestock watering and rural domestic demand. Two water supply takings are each responsible for more than 10% of the total annual demand and have reported rates associated with them, making them more reliable than estimated demands.

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-68 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Municipal supplies within this Subwatershed include the groundwater wells for the Simcoe Municipal Water Supply System. The Simcoe well takings account for 39% of the total demand in Lynn River. The conditions at the Town of Simcoe meet the requirements for a groundwater Tier 3 Water Quantity Risk Assessment.

Upper Nanticoke Creek Subwatershed The Upper Nanticoke Creek Subwatershed has a Percent Water Demand under average demand conditions of 21%, and 79% under maximum monthly demand conditions. Based on the Stress Assessment thresholds, this Subwatershed has been classified as having a Moderate potential for stress under average demand conditions, and a Significant potential for stress under maximum monthly demand conditions. Considering future projected municipal demands, future percent groundwater demand under average conditions is 22% and under maximum monthly conditions is 80%. This slight increase in Percent Water Demand does not change the Subwatershed potential stress classification.

There are 181 takings located within Upper Nanticoke Creek, of which, 179 are for agricultural purposes. The Waterford municipal supply takings are the 2 remaining takings. As shown in Table 3-39 above, Upper Nanticoke Subwatershed has 84% of its demand from the agricultural sector, 15% from municipal pumping, and 2% from estimated livestock watering and rural domestic demand. There are 30 takings within the Subwatershed having reported pumping rates associated, including the 2 municipal takings. The estimated demand is well distributed between the takings, with no single taking being responsible for more than 10% of the total annual demand.

The municipal supplies within this Subwatershed include the groundwater wells for the Waterford Municipal Water Supply System. These demands account for 15% of the entire consumptive demand in Upper Nanticoke. The conditions at the Waterford wells meet the requirements for a groundwater Tier 3 Water Quantity Risk Assessment.

Summary of Groundwater Stress Assessment Results Six subwatersheds were identified with either a ‘moderate’ or ‘significant’ potential water quantity stress. Three of these six subwatersheds do not have a municipal drinking water system and therefore, do not meet the requirements to continue with a Tier 3 water quantity risk assessment. The other three subwatersheds that do meet the requirement to advance to a Tier 3 water quantity risk assessment are the Big Creek Above Minnow Creek Subwatershed for the Delhi-Courtland supply (Norfolk County); the Lynn River Subwatershed for the Simcoe supply (Norfolk County); and the Upper Nanticoke Creek Subwatershed for the Waterford supply (Norfolk County).

Ocotber 30, 2015 3-69 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 3-9: Water Quantity Stress Levels by Groundwater Sub-watershed in the Long Point Region Watershed

October 30, 2015 3-70 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

3.8 Uncertainty/Limitations All water budget calculations contain inherent uncertainty due to incomplete data, data inaccuracies, and imperfect estimation and simulation tools. Many of the sources of uncertainty have been documented throughout the Water Budget sections. It is important to consider the regional-scale nature of the analysis and interpretation presented. The methods used and the amount of data available were suitable for regional water budgeting purposes.

Any model developed to represent a natural system is inherently a simplification of that natural system. Part of the reason for this is that the complexities of the physical system can never be known well enough to incorporate all details into a numerical context. In reality, most of the scientific approach involves representing physical conditions observed using approximations of larger-scale functionality; hydraulic conductivity is an example of this. This approximation does not negate the ability of scientists and practitioners to utilize numerical models as tools to help understand and manage natural systems; however, there is a need to recognize the limitations of such tools when interpreting model results.

Every effort was made to minimize uncertainty in the Water Quantity Risk Assessment: data was cross checked with additional sources, models were calibrated to the highest quality of monitoring data available, and an external peer review team was consulted.

3.9 Tier 2 Water Budget & Water Quantity Stress Assessment Peer Review In October 2006, Lake Erie Source Protection Region staff developed a Terms of Reference (LESPR, 2006) to guide the peer review process for the Long Point Region, Catfish Creek and Kettle Creek Tier 2 Water Budget & Water Quantity Stress Assessment. The Terms of Reference was developed in accordance with the provincial guidance document, entitled Peer Review Water Budget Interim Direction, Version 2.0 (DRAFT) (MOE, 2005) (dated August 9, 2005).

The preparation of the Water Budget and Water Quantity Stress Assessment was broken into two phases. Phase 1 involved the collection of background information for the preparation of a Draft Interim Report in November 2007 for peer review. Although the report was initially signed- off by the Peer Review Committee in March 2008 as the Interim Water Budget Report, the report was revised and posted in April 2009 using new information and a revised modeling approach applied in Phase 2.

Phase 2 of the Water Budget and Water Quantity Stress Assessment involved the completion of existing, future and drought scenarios and the identification of significant groundwater recharge areas (SGRAs) in accordance with the Source Protection Technical Rules (MOE, 2009a). The report was revised and ultimately posted in August 2009 based upon final Peer Reviewer input and sign-off. A summary report of the peer review process (Etienne, 2009), including materials used by the Peer Reviewers along with their comments was also posted in August 2009.

3.9.1 Water Budget Peer Review The Peer Review Committee, which was assembled in March 2007, was invited to comment on the Terms of Reference for the project. Upon selection of the consultant for the preparation of the Water Budget report, a kick off meeting was held on May 31, 2007. At this meeting the team considered the uncertainty of the geological conceptual model based on the paucity of deep bedrock data within the study area. It was agreed that the consultant could develop a calibrated

October 30, 2015 3-71 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report model within an acceptable level of confidence for the peer reviewers using the available data and appropriate assumptions.

The Peer Review Committee reconvened in September 2007 to review the initial findings of the consultant and to advise the consultant on their modeling approach. New information gathered from the Ontario Geological Survey (OGS) generated some concerns about the conceptual model, forcing the consultant to rethink some of their initial assumptions. In addition, the consultant identified the significant amount of calibration required to balance potential irrigation demand with observed summer baseflows. As a result of these significant uncertainties, the consultant requested an additional month to conduct groundwater sensitivity runs in the FEFLOW model and to fine tune the irrigation assumptions in the GAWSER model.

The draft Water Budget report was circulated for peer review in November 2007 and the committee met to receive a presentation of the report on November 22, 2007. The Peer Reviewers were asked to submit their initial comments and questions for discussion at a subsequent meeting on December 17, 2007. A comment matrix was prepared and circulated to the peer review team prior to the December 17th meeting. The written comments in the matrix were discussed at this meeting, and responses (leading to actions) were added to the matrix which directed the consultant’s revisions to the draft report.

In January of 2008, the consultant took the consolidated comments from the matrix and developed a strategy for revising the Integrated Water Budget Report. One of the main points raised by the Peer Reviewers throughout Phase 1 was the need to clarify the certainty in the modeling. The revised Integrated Water Budget Report was delivered in March 2008 and circulated to the Peer Reviewers for another round of document review during which the team compared the revisions to their comments in the matrix. The comments received indicated that it would be appropriate for the consultant to proceed with the next phase of work on the Water Quantity Stress Assessment.

3.9.2 Water Quantity Stress Assessment Peer Review The Peer Review Committee reconvened in March 2009 to review the draft Water Quantity Stress Assessment report. The committee met to receive a presentation of the report on March 19, 2009. By this time, the consultant had revisited the FEFLOW and GAWSER models developed in Phase 1 to address a number of the uncertainties raised by the Peer Review Committee. New water use data and revised models were used to bring the Integrated Water Budget report up to date for posting in April 2009.

The Peer Reviewers were asked to submit their initial comments and questions for discussion at a subsequent teleconference on April 7, 2009. As was the case in Phase 1, a comment matrix was prepared and circulated to the team prior to the conference call. The written comments in the matrix were discussed at the teleconference, and responses (leading to actions) were added to the matrix which directed the consultant’s revisions to the draft report.

As another part of the review process, the consultant solicited specific comments from the Peer Reviewers on the preferred approach to SGRA delineation as required by the Technical Rules (MOE, 2009a). The final document was subsequently circulated to the Peer Reviewers for another round of document review during which the team compared the revisions to their comments in the matrix. The Peer Reviewer sign-off correspondence received indicates that the Tier 2 Integrated Water Budget and Water Quantity Stress Assessment reports are scientifically defensible and satisfy the provincial guidelines for water budget documents. For the most part, the Peer Reviewers were satisfied that their comments had been received and addressed in a

October 30, 2015 3-72 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report professional manner by the consultant. As a result, the documents provide clear direction for further municipal Tier 3 Water Quantity Risk Assessments.

In August 2009, the Peer Review of the Long Point Region, Catfish Creek and Kettle Creek Tier 2 Integrated Water Budget and Water Quantity Stress Assessment was considered substantially complete and all reports were posted on the Lake Erie Source Protection website.

3.9.3 Future Work The Peer Review Committee recognized that the Tier 2 work completed serves as a “screening tool” for further municipal water quantity risk assessment work. The peer review was completed within the context of the provincial water budget framework, assessing the completeness and technical accuracy of the documentation. The Peer Reviewers identified the need for the Source Protection Committee to decide upon the need for additional Tier 3 work and how the technical results (i.e. SGRAs) will be applied to the development of source protection policies in the Lake Erie Source Protection Region.

The Stress Assessment report identifies the Lehman Reservoir in Delhi as a municipal surface water supply that meets the requirements to proceed with a Tier 3 Water Quantity Risk Assessment. The report also identifies municipal groundwater sources in Norfolk County (Delhi, Simcoe and Waterford) that meet the requirements for additional Tier 3 work. Work on the Tier 3 Water Quantity Risk Assessment for the Long Point Region began in July 2010. The final reports were presented to the Peer Review Committee in April 2015. A Risk Management Measures Evaluation Process is now underway and once complete the results of the Tier 3 Water Quantity Risk Assessment for the Long Point Region will be included in an Updated Long Point Region Assessment Report.

Comments from the Peer Review Committee also refer to some gaps and reservations that should be addressed in any future water budget work. It is recommended that this correspondence be referenced with respect to continuous improvement of the data sets, the modeling approach and the water quantity assessments.

3.10 Section Summary • A Water Budget is an understanding and accounting of the movement of water and the uses of water over time, on, through and below the surface of the earth. The Water Quantity Stress Assessment was undertaken at a Tier 2 level. Methods used and amount of data available were suitable for regional water budgeting purposes.

• There are six municipal groundwater systems: Simcoe, Tillsonburg, Waterford, Oxford South (Norwich and Otterville/Springford), Dereham Centre and Richmond. There are three municipal Great Lakes intakes serving the communities of Port Rowan, Port Dover, Hagersville, Jarvis and Townsend. There is one combined groundwater and surface water system, Delhi-Courtland, utilizing both groundwater wells and an intake on Lehman Reservoir.

• Water budget components were aggregated to the subwatershed and watershed scale. Surface water components of the water budget were determined using a continuous numerical hydrologic model, while the groundwater components of the water budget were determined using a steady-state numerical groundwater flow model. Water taking components were estimated based on surveys, modeling, and water use inventories.

October 30, 2015 3-73 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

• Recharge estimates were taken from the hydrologic model and applied to the groundwater model to provide a connection between the surface and groundwater numerical models.

• The western subwatersheds have low runoff and high recharge rates through the sand plain region. Water use is high and there is a large amount of groundwater discharge to surface water from the shallow aquifer system. In the till areas, runoff and recharge rates are fairly balanced. In the eastern subwatersheds, the recharge rates are low and runoff is high. Water use is low and there is little discharge to surface water from groundwater.

• The surface water subwatershed stress assessment classifies eight subwatersheds as having a moderate potential for stress under existing conditions (South Otter, Big Creek Above Cement Road, Big Creek Above Delhi, Venison Creek, Dedrick Creek, Lynn River, Nanticoke Upper and Stoney Creek) and two subwatersheds significant potential for stress under existing conditions (North Creek and Young/Hay Creeks).

• The groundwater subwatershed stress assessment classifies four subwatersheds as having a moderate potential for stress under existing conditions (Big Creek Above Delhi, Big Creek Above Minnow Creek, North Creek and Lynn River) and two subwatersheds significant potential for stress under existing conditions (Big Creek Above Kelvin Gauge and Nanticoke Upper).

• Tier 3 assessments are required for three municipal water systems: Delhi-Courtland, Simcoe, and Waterford in Norfolk County.

October 30, 2015 3-74 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

4.0 WATER QUALITY RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1 Aquifer Vulnerability in Long Point Region Watershed Area An aquifer’s susceptibility to contaminants introduced at the ground surface can be evaluated through an aquifer vulnerability assessment: a physically based evaluation of the geologic and hydrogeologic character of the overlying sediments. The resulting vulnerability is highly dependent upon a number of factors which include the geologic structure, the hydraulic character of the sediments, the vertical hydraulic gradient, and the hydraulic connection between the surficial recharge water and the aquifer of interest.

Numerous models are available to evaluate groundwater vulnerability [i.e. Intrinsic Susceptibility Index (ISI), Aquifer Vulnerability Index (AVI), Surface to Well Advective Time (SWAT), Surface to Aquifer Advective Time (SAAT)]. For the majority of the Long Point Region Source Protection Area, the SAAT model was chosen to estimate aquifer vulnerability on the watershed scale (Earthfx, 2008). The modelling to determine groundwater vulnerability is based upon the most current information and vulnerability assessment. As updated information is available previous versions of the mapping and assessment may exist. Therefore, the mapping and analysis presented in this report is based on the most current information available at the time of publishing.

The SAAT method involves estimating the travel time for a particle of water to move vertically from the ground surface to the top of the aquifer that is being pumped. Areas of common travel time are mapped as being less than 5 years (high vulnerability), greater than or equal to 5 and less than 25 years (medium vulnerability), or greater than or equal to 25 years (low vulnerability).

Aquifer vulnerability mapping across the LPRSPA is shown on Map 4-1. North-south trending areas of high and medium vulnerability located throughout the central portion of the watershed generally correspond to the shallow unconfined aquifer of the Norfolk Sand Plain. The western and eastern extents of the watershed are predominantly mapped as low vulnerability. These two areas are generally comprised of the clay-rich Port Stanley Till to the west and the Haldimand Clay Plain to the east, both of which provide protection to the deeper, confined aquifers.

4.1.1 Methodology The basis for the SAAT vulnerability calculation was the Ministry of the Environment Water Well Information System (WWIS). This database was then further built upon by adding information from the Ministry of Transportation’s GEOCRES database. Data were also improved using the following methods:

 Location Quality Assurance (QA) update: Much of the pre-2004 data in the Lake Erie Source Protection Region database had location information that was processed and corrected by the MNR. More recent information, made available by the MOE in August 2006, did not include the MNR location assessment and corrections and, instead, relied on an older location classification system. The different QA classification codes were reconciled and a consistent classification system was developed.  Ground surface elevations assigned to all boreholes: Consistent surface elevations are required for assessing aquifer geometry, water table and potentials in the deeper aquifers. The latest digital elevation model elevation (MNR Version 2.0 DEM) was assigned to the ground surface recorded for each borehole. All elevation related

October 30, 2015 4-1 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

information, including well construction, geology and water level data was then corrected to the new reference elevation. Boreholes with ground elevations based on engineering surveys (QA code 1) were assumed to have better elevation data than the DEM and were not assigned the DEM elevation.  Selection of high quality wells: Wells with an integrated QA code of less than 6 were considered to be of “high quality” and were used in the vulnerability calculations.  Bedrock flags updated: Shallow bedrock wells were handled specially. Although the number and extent of these wells is limited, they are important in some areas. The bedrock flag code in the database was checked against the bedrock lithology material codes for consistency. Other internal consistency checks were also performed to confirm the selection of these wells.  Well screen classifications updated: Correct well screen data is important for identifying the target aquifer. Many wells in the MOE WWIS database have missing or incomplete information on well construction and do not have a well screen zone defined. A series of procedures and QA checks were made to assign screen zones to those wells. The SAAT method estimates aquifer vulnerability in units of time. The travel time has two components: unsaturated zone advective time (UZAT) and the water table to aquifer advective time (WAAT).

The input parameters and data sources for each parameter for the unsaturated zone advective time (UZAT) and water table to aquifer advective time (WAAT) calculations are listed below.

For the unsaturated zone advective time (UZAT) calculation, the following inputs were required:

 Depth to water table; computed by subtracting the interpolated water table surface from the land surface digital elevation model (MNR Version 2.0 DEM),  Mobile moisture content; assigned to each geologic material based on specific yield values obtained from Todd (1980), and  Infiltration rate; assumed to be equal to recharge rates developed by Schroeter & Associates (2006c). The water table to aquifer advective time (WAAT) calculation required the following inputs:

 Aquifer porosity; estimated for each geological material from Todd (1980),  Thickness of the geologic layer; calculated from the borehole logs, and  Vertical hydraulic conductivity; estimated based on the geologic materials listed in the borehole logs.

October 30, 2015 4-2 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 4-1: Aquifer Vulnerability

October 30, 2015 4-3 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Estimated depth to water table was computed by subtracting the interpolated water table surface from land surface elevation. The mobile moisture content of the surface material was used as a surrogate for the average moisture content of the soil under steady-state drainage at the infiltration rate. The value of average moisture content under steady state drainage should lie somewhere between field capacity and porosity for the particular soil. Guidance Module 3 (MOE, 2006b) suggests values for mobile moisture content that can be applied to a map of the quaternary geology. However, it was felt that the mobile moisture content in the unsaturated zone was more likely to be related to the drainable porosity than to field capacity. Accordingly estimates of mobile moisture content were assigned to each geologic material based on representative specific yield and porosity values obtained from Table 2.5 in Todd (1980).

It was assumed that the infiltration rate was equal to the recharge rate determined from maps developed by Schroeter & Associates (2006a, 2006b, 2006c) using the GAWSER model.

If multiple layers of different types of unsaturated materials were present, the travel time through each layer was calculated and then summed over the total depth to get a total travel time.

Finally, the Technical Rules (MOE, 2009a) indicate SAAT values are translated into aquifer vulnerability categories according to the following thresholds:

 <5 years represents high vulnerability  ≥ 5 years, < 25 years represents medium vulnerability  ≥ 25 years represents low vulnerability

Vulnerability for the Erie Spits physiographic region located at the south east portion of the Long Point Region was assigned a high vulnerability based on professional review of the surficial geology layer other resources available for this location. This region is comprised of predominantly sand deposits with a limited elevation above the lake with groundwater levels at or near lake level.

Peer Review The Earthfx (2008) SAAT report was peer reviewed by Chris Neville of S.S. Papadopulos. The review found the Earthfx (2008) report to be in compliance with the Clean Water Act, 2006 Technical Rules. The reviewer’s general impression was that the SAAT evaluation approach described in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the report is consistent with the MOE Technical Rules for Groundwater Vulnerability. In the reviewer’s opinion, the examination of uncertainty in the evaluation is particularly well done. In general, the results of the vulnerability assessment are reasonable.

Given that the peer review comments would not change the overall outcome of the Earthfx (2008) study, no changes were made to the report following the review.

4.1.2 Limitations and Uncertainty Although numerous steps were taken to exclude WWIS data of lower reliability, the uncertainty associated with several of the components of the WWIS (location accuracy, reliability of geologic log, measurement of water level, etc.) represent a significant limitation in the assessment. There is also natural variability in the hydraulic conductivity which is not captured in the analysis.

October 30, 2015 4-4 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

However, given that the SAAT analysis uses the most current methods (under the Clean Water Act, 2006 Technical Rules) and data available, the uncertainty rating at this time can be considered low.

4.2 Highly Vulnerable Aquifers Areas calculated as being of high vulnerability are considered Highly Vulnerable Aquifers (HVAs). Highly Vulnerable Aquifer areas in the Long Point Region Source Protection Area are identified as the red areas on Map 4-2.

4.2.1 Vulnerability Scoring in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers According to the Technical Rules, highly vulnerable aquifer areas outside of the Wellhead Protection Areas are assigned a vulnerability score of 6. The highly vulnerable aquifer areas illustrated on Map 4-2 therefore, receive a vulnerability score of 6.

4.2.2 Managed Lands and Livestock Density for Highly Vulnerable Aquifers This section provides a description of the methodology used to calculate the percent managed land and the livestock density for the HVA areas in the Long Point Region watershed.

The methods to calculate the managed lands and livestock density follow the Technical Bulletin entitled “Proposed Methodology for Calculating Percentage of Managed Lands and Livestock Density for Land Application of Agricultural Source of Material, Non Agricultural Source of Material and Commercial Fertilizers” issued by the Province in September 2009, and following guidance provided in the “Preliminary Technical Memo issued by GRCA for Lake Erie Region technical studies: Managed Lands and Livestock Density” on September 23, 2009.

Managed Lands Area Methodology Managed lands are divided into two categories; agricultural managed lands (AML) and non- agricultural managed lands (NAML). Agricultural managed land includes cropland, fallow and improved pasture land that may receive agricultural source material (ASM). Non-agricultural managed lands include golf courses, residential lawns and other turf that may receive commercial fertilizer or non-agricultural source material (NASM).

Land use classifications for land area are based on data from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC), who provide a parcel layer in GIS format (Table 4-3). Each parcel has a code describing the main land cover classification, including codes for agricultural land, residential, commercial and industrial land. All MPAC farm codes (3-digit numbers starting with 2) were considered in the agricultural managed lands calculation, if they were within or partially within (intersecting) the HVA areas. All other categories were considered in the non- agricultural category to determine the amount of non-agricultural managed lands, if they intersected the HVA areas.

In some cases, additional classification was required where the MPAC data layer did not provide enough information on which to determine the land use on a parcel of land. Using the 2006 ortho-photo (Table 4-3), air photo interpretation was used to determine whether a parcel of land should be classified as agricultural or non-agricultural.

In the managed lands calculations, areas of wetlands, impervious area, wooded areas, water bodies and aggregate license areas were removed from consideration. To account for buildings and other areas that may not receive nutrients, all farm parcels were given a managed lands

October 30, 2015 4-5 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report ratio of 0.9, meaning that 90% of the parcel was subject to ASM and considered agriculturally managed land.

Agricultural Managed Lands Calculation All parcels of land classified as agricultural within the HVA were used in the calculation of agricultural managed lands. For each separate (discontinuous) unit of HVA, the total area of agricultural managed land was summed. Where a parcel of land fell only partially within a HVA area, only that portion contained by the HVA was included in the calculation. This agricultural managed lands area would be summed with the non-agricultural managed lands area to get the total percent managed land in each HVA area.

Non-Agricultural Managed Land Calculation All parcels touching the HVA areas that had a non-agricultural MPAC code or were classified as non-agricultural using air photo interpretation were used in the calculation of non-agricultural managed lands. To account for buildings and other areas that may not receive nutrients, all parcels were given a managed lands ratio as seen in Table 4-1.

The non-residential values in Table 4-1 were generated through aerial photo interpretation. Areas that were deemed to be managed lands in each category were compared to the rest of the area within the parcel to determine an appropriate ratio. The average value for each parcel estimated in each category was rounded to the nearest 5% to give an overall managed land ratio.

The managed land ratio for residential areas is based on impervious cover analysis completed for the Alder Creek Subwatershed Study in the City of Kitchener (Rungis, G., pers. comm.). The percentage of pervious cover used in this study provides a good estimate of the area that may receive commercial fertilizer on residential properties.

For each discontinuous unit of HVA, the total area of non-agricultural managed land within the HVA was summed. Where a parcel of land fell only partially within a HVA area, only that portion contained by the HVA was included in the calculation. The non agricultural managed lands and the agricultural managed lands areas were then summed and divided by the area of the HVA area to get the total percent managed land.

October 30, 2015 4-6 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 4-1: Managed Land Ratios for land use categories

Major Managed Specific Category Category Land Ratio Farm all types of farms 0.9 Driving range/golf centre - stand alone, not part of a regulation golf Golf Course course 0.6 Golf course 0.95 Non-school, i.e. hospitals 0.6 Institutional School (elementary or secondary, including private) 0.65 Residential development land 0.55 Open Space Vacant land condominium (residential)-defined land that is described by a condominium plan 0.55 Cemetery 1 Large office building (generally multi - tenanted, over 7,500 s.f.) 0.45 Local government airport 0.9 Other Place of worship - with a clergy residence 0.55 Place of Worship - without a clergy residence 0.55 Private airport/hangar 0.65 Property in process of redevelopment utilizing existing structure(s) 0.55 Amusement park 0.5 Commercial sport complex 0.45 Exhibition grounds/fair grounds 0.7 Recreational Municipal park (excludes Provincial parks, Federal parks, campgrounds) 0.65 Non-commercial sports complex 0.5 Recreational sport club - non commercial (excludes golf clubs and ski resorts) 0.6 High-density, multi-unit 0.55 Residential Residential-Low Density (standard single dwelling units) 0.45

The calculation of livestock density within HVA areas utilized the calculation of agricultural managed lands to determine the Nutrient Units per acre (NU/ac).

Barn Identification and Nutrient Units

To determine the Nutrient Units, each parcel of land that intersects the HVA areas was assessed using air photo interpretation for the presence of a livestock barn. The size of the barn is used as a surrogate for the number of livestock and the amount of nutrients that could be generated by those livestock on that farm unit. The description in the MPAC farm code was used initially to screen for the livestock parcels in determining the livestock type. Barns on these parcels were inspected for livestock housing areas. Other parcels on agricultural lands were also scanned for the presence of livestock barns using interpretation of the 2006 air photo. Assistance from in-house stewardship staff familiar with agricultural livestock practices increased confidence in the interpretation of housing structures in the imagery. Where housing structures could potentially house livestock but appeared in the 2006 air photo to be empty, the housing structure was included in the livestock density calculation.

October 30, 2015 4-7 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Partial coverage of building footprints was available for the study area, but where data gaps existed, the buildings on parcels having a farm code were digitized based on images seen through air photo interpretation of ortho-imagery from 2006.

Each type of livestock has a unique NU conversion factor, to determine the number of animals that generate 1 NU. For instance, one beef cow produces 1 NU and requires 100 sq.ft. of living space in a barn, so the relationship for beef barns is 100 sq.ft./NU. The ratio assumes that the capacity of each livestock barn is at the maximum to generate or have the potential to generate that amount of nutrients.

Through air photo interpretation, the type of livestock housed in each barn was determined, and the area of the housing area was measured using the ArcMap geometry calculation function. A table provided in the technical memos provided by GRCA (GRCA, 2009) and MOE (MOE, 2009b) summarize the relationship between barn area, livestock type and Nutrient units generated. This table is provided in Table 4-2 below. By multiplying the area of the barn by the NU per area ratio, the total number of NU for the farm unit was determined.

Table 4-2: Barn/Nutrient Unit Relationship Table

Livestock Type sq.ft./NU sq.m/NU Dairy 120 11 Swine 70 7 Beef 100 9 Chickens 267 25 Mixed 140 13 Turkeys 260 24 Horse 275 26 Goat 200 19 Sheep 150 14 Fur 2400 223

Livestock Density Calculation To determine the nutrient units generated only within the HVA areas, NU values for each farm unit were area weighted for the percent of the farm unit land area within the HVA. For the calculation livestock density, all the NU values for all the barns were summed and then divided by the total acreage of agricultural managed land for that particular HVA area, as calculated and detailed in previous sections (Map 4-4).

Input Data The calculations for managed land and livestock density were completed as a desk-top exercise. The input data used to calculate the percent managed land and the livestock density are listed in Table 4-3. Information is given on the source of the data layer, the purpose for using the data and a description of where the data originated.

Verification of the results through field inspection could provide more accurate estimates of the type of livestock and the identification of housing structures; however this was not completed for the HVA areas in the Long Point Region.

October 30, 2015 4-8 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 4-3: Data used for Managed Land and Livestock Density Calculations

Data Input Description Source Purpose Parcels Municipal Property Sub-license from Minimum map unit for (polygon) Assessment Corporation Municipal Property identifying different parcel fabric with primary roll Assessment Corporation classes of property and number (MPAC) under the farm operation types Ontario Parcel Agreement Tax Municipal Property Sub-license from Linked to parcels, assessment Assessment Corporation tax Municipal Property identifies tax-assessed record assessment database by Assessment Corporation land use, and for (partial) primary roll number (MPAC) agricultural properties (table) containing property code and identifies primary farm farm operation code operation, livestock or crop. Wetlands Natural Resources Values Sub-license from Ontario Used to mask for non (polygon) Information System (NRVIS) Ministry of Natural managed land Resources (MNR) Water body Natural Resources Values Sub-license from Ontario Used to mask for non (polygon) Information System (NRVIS) Ministry of Natural managed land Resources (MNR) License Pits and quarries from the Sub-license from Ontario Used to mask for non Aggregate Natural Resources Values Ministry of Natural managed land Areas Information System (NRVIS) Resources (MNR) (polygon) Wooded Southern Ontario Land Sub-license from Ontario Used to mask for non Areas Resource Information System Ministry of Natural managed land (polygon) (SOLRIS) Resources (MNR) Building Building outlines digitized Grand River Conservation Minimum map unit for footprints from digital orthorectified Authority (GRCA) calculating livestock (polygon) aerial photography from density per structure spring 2006 identified as contributing animal nutrient units SGRA/HVA Significant Groundwater Lake Erie Source Reporting unit (polygon) Recharge Area polygon and Protection Area Highly Vulnerable Area

Known Limitations and Data Gaps The property code and farm operation code values used to identify a candidate parcel is a single descriptor assigned by MPAC during the generation of the tax assessment record. It does not necessarily represent the current land use activities on each property. None of the data used as input to the analysis was verified in the field. A quantitative estimate of data accuracy is not known. Therefore the results should be considered as only an approximation.

The input data layers used to identify the non-managed land areas (wetlands, water bodies, wooded areas, etc.) have spatial and content accuracies of varied and unknown degrees. The NRVIS data is intended to represent 1:10,000 scale hardcopy mapping. The data layers were acquired from Land Information Ontario, and represent the best available data for their thematic content at the time of the analysis.

The values of nutrient unit per square metre of livestock type were generated by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (Table 1 of the Nutrient Management Tables of O.

October 30, 2015 4-9 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Reg. 267/03 made under the Nutrient Management Act, 2002). The values are meant to approximate the maximum potential nutrient unit production for the size of the livestock barn structure based on best management practices. The livestock NU calculations were not field verified, therefore, the results should be considered as only an approximation.

The estimation of barn size was also approximate, as air photo interpretation cannot decipher between areas of the barn that house livestock and areas that do not. Also, the ability to determine whether the barn had one storey or two stories of housing areas was impossible through air photo interpretation and all barns were assumed to be single storey. Where there was question on livestock type, the more conservative conversion factor was used. For example, housing structures are similar between cattle and horses, but as beef generate more NU than horses per unit area, the beef conversion factor was used. Verification of the livestock type and size of actual livestock housing area may yield more accurate results.

The ratios for non-agricultural managed lands were done using averages estimated through air photo interpretation. However, each parcel category could show very different percentages of managed land area and should only be used as approximation. Additional information from municipal by-laws on pervious cover requirements may be very useful in refining the estimates.

4.2.3 Percent Impervious Surfaces for Highly Vulnerable Aquifers To determine whether the application of road salt poses a threat to the HVA areas, the percent impervious surface where road salt can be applied per square kilometre in each HVA area was calculated as per Technical Rule 16(11) (MOE, 2009a). The input data used to calculate the percent impervious surfaces per square kilometre are listed in Table 4-4.

Impervious surfaces in HVA areas in Long Point Region watershed constitute less than 8 percent of the total area, as shown in Map 4-5 which represents a low percentage. Based on these results, the application of road salt does not pose a threat to Highly Vulnerable Aquifers in Long Point Region watershed.

Methodology To calculate the percent impervious surfaces, information on land cover classification was used. The Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System (SOLRIS) represents the land surface data, including road and highway transportation routes, as continuous 15x15 metre grid cells with land cover classifications. All the cells that represent highways and other impervious land surfaces used for vehicular traffic were re-coded with a cell value of “1” and all other land cover classifications were given a “0” value, to identify only the road areas.

Using the Spatial Analyst module of ArcGIS software, the total number of road cells was summed for each square kilometre area in all HVA areas. The summed value for each cell in the output equaled the total number of road cells within each 1km x 1km window. The value of summed cells was converted to the square kilometer equivalent to determine the percent impervious road surface per square kilometer. The analysis is the most representative analysis of road density and adheres to the principle of the Technical Rules.

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

October 30, 2015 4-10 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 4-4: Input Data for Impervious Surfaces in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers

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

4.2.4 Drinking Water Threats in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers Table 4-5 indicates the possible levels of threat posed by chemicals, pathogens and dense non- aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) within the Highly Vulnerable Aquifer areas in the Long Point Region watershed, which are illustrated on Map 4-2. The level of threat that an activity poses to a drinking water supply depends on the vulnerability scores within a vulnerable area. Since Highly Vulnerable Aquifer areas receive a vulnerability score of 6, even the most hazardous activities are not classified as significant threats. This is indicated in Table 4-5 by the dash. However, some chemicals and DNAPLs are or would be considered moderate and low drinking water threats in the areas illustrated in red on Map 4-2.

Table 4-5 also includes a reference code (e.g. 17(CSGRAHVA6M)) that refers to tables that list all of the threats and associated circumstances that are or would be moderate and low drinking water threats in Highly Vulnerable Aquifer areas. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has provided these tables to the Source Protection Committee for ease of communicating all possible threats in vulnerable areas. Each alphanumeric code refers to a specific table that has been posted on www.sourcewater.ca. The MOE tables can be used along with Map 4-2 and Table 4-5 to help the public determine where certain activities are or would be significant, moderate and low drinking water threats.

Table 4-5: Identification of Drinking Water Quality Threats in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers (HVA)

Threat Classification and Provincial Table Reference Vulnerability Threat Type Code Score in HVA Significant Moderate Low Chemical Threats 6 - 17(CSGRAHVA6M) 18(CSGRAHVA6L) Dense Non-Aqueous 6 - 17(CSGRAHVA6M) 18(CSGRAHVA6L) Phase Liquids (DNAPLs) Pathogens 6 - - -

At the time of this report, a drinking water threats analysis is not necessary for Highly Vulnerable Aquifers, since no significant threats can occur in a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer with a vulnerability

October 30, 2015 4-11 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report score of 6. Additionally, no conditions resulting from past activities have been identified in the Highly Vulnerable Aquifer areas in the Long Point Region watershed.

4.2.5 Drinking Water Issues in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers No Issues have been identified in the Highly Vulnerable Aquifers to date. Public Health Units are undertaking risk assessments of all small drinking water systems, and may, through that process, identify possible Issues for an updated Assessment Report.

October 30, 2015 4-12 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 4-2: Highly Vulnerable Aquifers

October 30, 2015 4-13 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 4-3: Percent Managed Lands in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers

October 30, 2015 4-14 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 4-4: Livestock Density in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers

October 30, 2015 4-15 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 4-5: Impervious Surface Related to Road Salt in Highly Vulnerable Aquifers

October 30, 2015 4-16 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

4.3 Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas A Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (SGRA) is defined as a specific type of vulnerable area which has a hydrologic connection to a surface body of water or aquifer that is a source for a municipal drinking water system. SGRAs are protected under the Clean Water Act, 2006. The role of significant groundwater recharge areas is to support the protection of drinking water across the broader landscape. Significant groundwater recharge areas were delineated using the water budget tools described in Section 3. Groundwater recharge was estimated using the hydrologic model. The hydrologic model results provide an estimate of groundwater recharge based on Hydrological Response Units (HRUs), which are designed to reflect soil mapping, surficial geology and land cover, and climatic conditions over the period 1980 to 2004. Threshold values were calculated as set out in the Technical Rules, and areas with annual average recharge above those values were labeled as significant. Threshold values for significant groundwater recharge areas were defined by taking 115 per cent of the annual average recharge for the related groundwater recharge area. For the Long Point Region Source Water Protection Area, the “related groundwater recharge area” was taken as the watershed. The average annual groundwater recharge rate for the Long Point Region is 224 mm/year. The threshold, calculated as 115 per cent of the average annual rate, is 257 mm/year. After estimating significant groundwater recharge areas, small, isolated areas (<1 km2) were removed to create mapping that focuses the delineated significant groundwater recharge areas to larger geologic and physiographic features that are considered more representative of mapped Quaternary geology features.

Map 4-6 shows the significant groundwater recharge areas mapped based on the calculated threshold and with isolated polygons of less than 1 km2 removed. All of the significant groundwater recharge areas mapped within the Long Point Region Source Protection Area are considered hydrologically connected to groundwater sources used for drinking water because of the extensive cover of domestic overburden wells in the study area (Map 3-5).

Delineation of significant groundwater recharge areas is limited by the processes used by the hydrologic model to estimate recharge, the mapping used to create hydrologic response units, and the climate data available. The hydrologic model is a simplification of natural processes. Recharge is based on water that infiltrates through two soil layers and is not lost to runoff or evapotranspiration. This recharge may include interflow as well as true recharge to the aquifer system. The mapping used to create hydrologic response units is landscape based and only represents a point in time. Land cover mapping may change significantly over a short time period and this may not be represented in the land cover mapping used. Finally, only two climate stations were used for the hydrologic model. Although over 20 years of data were used to calculate the average annual recharge rate, this rate does not represent changes to the climate due to climate change nor focus on the importance of seasonal and annual variability.

4.3.1 Vulnerability Scoring Within Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas Vulnerability scoring within the significant groundwater recharge areas was completed by intersecting the aquifer vulnerability mapping with the significant groundwater recharge areas. Significant groundwater recharge areas that have high intrinsic vulnerability (coincident with highly vulnerable aquifers) were given a score of 6. Significant groundwater recharge areas that have a moderate and low intrinsic vulnerability were given vulnerability scores of 4 and 2

October 30, 2015 4-17 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report respectively. Map 4-7 shows the vulnerability scoring within the significant groundwater recharge areas.

4.3.2 Managed Lands and Livestock Density within Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas Percent managed lands and livestock density within SGRAs were calculated using the same methodology and data sources as described in Section 4.2.2 for HVA areas. Since Percent Managed Land and Livestock Density need only be calculated for areas where the application of agricultural source material, non-agricultural source material and commercial fertilizer can be a threat to drinking water supplies (i.e. vulnerability score greater than or equal to 6), the calculation for Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas is a subset of the calculation for HVA.

Map 4-8 and Map 4-9 show that in the SGRAs in the Long Point Region watershed, the managed lands percentage is between 40 and 80% (moderate); while the livestock density is less than 0.5 nutrient units per acre (low).

4.3.3 Calculation of Impervious Surfaces for Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas To determine whether the application of road salt poses a threat to SGRAs in the Long Point Region watershed, the percent impervious surface where road salt can be applied per square kilometre in each SGRA was calculated in accordance with Technical Rule 16(11) (MOE, 2009a). The input data used to calculate the percent impervious surfaces per square kilometre are listed in Table 4-6.

Impervious surfaces in SGRAs in Long Point Region watershed constitute less than 8 percent of the total area, representing a low percentage. Based on these results, and as illustrated on Map 4-10, the application of road salt does not pose a threat to SGRAs.

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

Using the Spatial Analyst module of ArcGIS software, the total number of road cells was summed for each square kilometre area in all SGRAs. The summed value for each cell in the output equaled the total number of road cells within each 1km x 1km window. The value of summed cells was converted to the square kilometer equivalent to determine the percent impervious road surface per square kilometer. The analysis is the most representative analysis of road density and adheres to the principle of the Technical Rules.

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

October 30, 2015 4-18 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Table 4-6: Input Data for Impervious Surfaces in Highly Vulnerable Significant Recharge Areas

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

4.3.4 Drinking Water Threats within Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas Table 4-7 indicates the possible levels of threat posed by chemicals, pathogens and dense non- aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) within the Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas in the Long Point Region watershed, which are illustrated on Map 4-7. The level of threat that an activity poses to a drinking water supply depends on the vulnerability scores within a vulnerable area. Since Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas receive a vulnerability score of 2, 4 or 6, even the most hazardous activities are not classified as significant threats based on the described scoring method. This is indicated in Table 4-7 by the dash. However, some chemicals and DNAPLs are or would be considered moderate and low drinking water threats in the areas illustrated in yellow and green on Map 4-7.

Table 4-7 also includes a reference code (e.g. 17(CSGRAHVA6M)) that refers to tables that list all of the threats and associated circumstances that are or would be moderate and low drinking water threats in Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment has provided these tables to the Source Protection Committee for ease of communicating all possible threats in vulnerable areas. Each alphanumeric code refers to a specific table that has been posted on www.sourcewater.ca. The MOE tables can be used along with Map 4-7 and Table 4-7 to help the public determine where certain activities are or would be significant, moderate and low drinking water threats.

Table 4-7: Identification of Drinking Water Quality Threats in Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (SGRA)

Vulnerability Threat Classification and Provincial Table Reference Code Threat Type Score in SGRA Significant Moderate Low 6 - 17 (CSGRAHVA6M) 18 (CSGRAHVA6L) Chemical 2 – 4 - - - Dense Non- Aqueous Phase 2 – 6 - 17 (CSGRAHVA6M) 18 (CSGRAHVA6L) Liquids (DNAPLs) Pathogen 2 – 6 - - -

October 30, 2015 4-19 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

At the time of this report, a drinking water threats analysis is not required within the Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas, since no significant threats can occur in a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area with a vulnerability score of 6 or lower. Additionally, no conditions resulting from past activities have been identified in the Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas in the Long Point Region watershed.

4.3.5 Drinking Water Issues within Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas No Issues have been identified in the Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas to date. Public Health Units are undertaking risk assessments of all small drinking water systems, and may, through that process identify possible Issues for a future Assessment Report.

October 30, 2015 4-20 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 4-6: Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas

October 30, 2015 4-21 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 4-7: Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas with Vulnerability Scoring

October 30, 2015 4-22 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 4-8: Percent Managed Lands in Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas

October 30, 2015 4-23 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 4-9: Livestock Density in Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas

October 30, 2015 4-24 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

Map 4-10: Impervious Surface Related to Road Salt in Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas

October 30, 2015 4-25 Long Point Region SPA Approved Assessment Report

This page left blank intentionally.

October 30, 2015 4-26