EXCELLENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING XCG File #1-1074-03-01 SERVICES February 23, 2010

FINAL REPORT

TIER 1 WATER BUDGET

AND WATER QUANTITY STRESS ASSESSMENT

Prepared for:

CATARAQUI REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

P.O. Box 160

1641 Perth Road Glenburnie, Ontario, K0H 1S0

Prepared by: XCG CONSULTANTS LTD. XCG Consultants Ltd. 6 Cataraqui Street 6 Cataraqui Street Woolen Mill, West Wing Woolen Mill, West Wing Suite 105 Kingston, ON K7K 1Z7 Suite 105

Tel: (613) 542-5888 Kingston, Ontario K7K 1Z7 Fax: (613) 542-0844 [email protected]

FR110740301_100223.docx

Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Study Area ...... 1 1.3 Study Approach ...... 1 1.4 Report Organization ...... 2 1.5 Qualification ...... 2 2. OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING REPORT ...... 4 2.1 Cataraqui Source Protection Area ...... 4 2.2 Physical Land Characteristics ...... 4 2.2.1 Physiography ...... 4 2.2.2 Soils of the CSPA ...... 5 2.2.3 Land Cover/Use ...... 6 2.3 Conceptual Water Budget ...... 6 2.3.1 Objectives and Methodology ...... 6 2.3.2 Results ...... 8 2.4 Water Demand and Potential Stress ...... 8 2.4.1 Water Use ...... 8 2.4.2 Potential Stress ...... 9 3. Water Budgets ...... 10 3.1 Overview ...... 10 3.2 Long-Term Annual Water Budgets for Gauged Subwatersheds ...... 12 3.2.1 The Water Budget Equation ...... 12 3.2.2 Sources of Data for Water Budget Terms ...... 12 3.2.3 Example Annual Water Budget for Millhaven Creek ...... 14 3.2.4 Summary of Results ...... 14 3.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budgets for Gauged Subwatersheds ...... 16 3.3.1 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Wilton Creek ...... 19 3.3.2 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Millhaven Creek ...... 21 3.3.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Collins Creek ...... 23 3.3.4 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Little Cataraqui Creek ...... 25 3.3.5 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River ...... 27 3.3.6 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Lyndhurst Creek ...... 29 3.3.7 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Lyn Creek ...... 31 3.3.8 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Buells Creek ...... 33 3.4 General Discussion for Gauged Subwatersheds ...... 35 3.5 Water Budgets for Ungauged Subwatersheds ...... 35 3.5.1 Long-Term Water Budget for Sydenham Lake ...... 35 3.6 Uncertainty in Water Budget Components ...... 38

FR110740301_100223.docx ii Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS

4. SUPPLY AND RESERVE ...... 40 4.1 Surface Water ...... 40 4.1.1 Gauged Subwatersheds ...... 40 4.1.2 Ungauged Subwatersheds ...... 40 4.2 Groundwater Assessment...... 40 4.2.1 General Notes on Recharge ...... 41 4.3 Groundwater Supply for Subwatersheds ...... 42 4.3.1 Previous Estimates of Recharge for Subwatersheds ...... 42 4.3.2 Recharge Estimates for Gauged Subwatersheds ...... 44 4.3.3 Recharge Estimates for Ungauged Subwatersheds ...... 45 4.4 Groundwater Supply for Municipal Supplies ...... 46 4.4.1 Cana Subdivision Summary ...... 46 4.4.2 Lansdowne Summary ...... 47 4.4.3 Miller Manor Summary ...... 47 5. DEMAND ...... 50 5.1 Consumptive Use Factors ...... 50 5.2 Seasonal Use ...... 50 5.3 Permitted Takings ...... 51 5.4 Non-Permitted Use...... 52 5.4.1 Non-Serviced Residential Demand ...... 52 5.4.2 Agricultural Demand ...... 52 5.5 Scaling up Demand for Future Conditions ...... 53 6. STRESS ...... 54 6.1 Surface Water ...... 54 6.2 Groundwater ...... 55 6.3 Final Stress Level Assignment...... 56 6.4 Stress and Uncertainty Summary ...... 56 6.4.1 Surface Water ...... 56 6.4.2 Groundwater ...... 61 7. DATA GAPS/LIMITATIONS ...... 65 7.1 Gaps in Demand ...... 65 7.2 Gaps in (Supply – Reserve) for Surface Water ...... 65 7.3 Gaps in (Supply – Reserve) for Groundwater ...... 65 8. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 67 8.1 Summary ...... 67 8.2 Conclusions: Water Budget ...... 67 8.3 Conclusions: Stress for Subwatersheds ...... 68 8.4 Recommendations ...... 69 9. REFERENCES ...... 70

FR110740301_100223.docx iii Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDICES Appendix A Long-Term Water Budgets for Gananoque River Subwatersheds Appendix B Long-Term Water budgets for Cataraqui River Subwatersheds Appendix C Long-Term Water budgets for Subwatersheds Draining to the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River Appendix D PTTW Summary Appendix E Stress Analysis for Gauged, Semi-gauged and Ungauged Subwatersheds Appendix F Risk Assessment Workbook

FR110740301_100223.docx iv Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Cataraqui Source Protection Area ...... 3 Figure 3.1 Regional Hydrologic Cycle (After Viessman and Lewis, 1996) ...... 11 Figure 3.2 CSPA Long-Term Annual Water Budgets ...... 15 Figure 3.3 Monthly Distribution of Precipitation (P) ...... 16 Figure 3.4 Monthly Distribution of Evapotranspiration (ET) ...... 17 Figure 3.5 Monthly Distribution of Streamflow (Q) ...... 17 Figure 3.6 Wilton Creek Subwatershed ...... 19 Figure 3.7 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Wilton Creek Subwatershed ...... 20 Figure 3.8 Millhaven Creek Subwatershed ...... 21 Figure 3.9 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget Millhaven Creek ...... 22 Figure 3.10 Collins Creek Subwatershed ...... 23 Figure 3.11 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Collins Creek ...... 24 Figure 3.12 Little Cataraqui Creek Subwatershed ...... 25 Figure 3.13 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Little Cataraqui Creek ...... 26 Figure 3.14 Cataraqui River Subwatershed ...... 27 Figure 3.15 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River ...... 28 Figure 3.16 Lyndhurst Creek Subwatershed ...... 29 Figure 3.17 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Lyndhurst Creek ...... 30 Figure 3.18 Lyn Creek Subwatershed ...... 31 Figure 3.19 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Lyn Creek ...... 32 Figure 3.20 Buells Creek Subwatershed ...... 33 Figure 3.21 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Buells Creek ...... 34 Figure 3.22 Sydenham Lake Subwatershed ...... 36 Figure 3.23 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Sydenham Lake Subwatershed ...... 37 Figure 4.1 Cana Subwatershed and SRA/MCZ ...... 48 Figure 4.2 Lansdowne Subwatershed and SRA\MCZ ...... 49 Figure 6.1 Surface Water Stress Subwatersheds ...... 60 Figure A.1 Gananoque River System ...... 74 Figure A.2 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Delta Dam ..... 75 Figure A.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Outlet Dam .... 76 Figure A.4 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Marble Rock Dam ...... 77

FR110740301_100223.docx iv Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment LIST OF FIGURES

Figure A.5 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Gananoque Dam ...... 78 Figure B.1 Cataraqui River System ...... 81 Figure B.2 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River above Kingston Mills .. 82 Figure B.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River above Jones Falls ...... 83 Figure B.4 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River above Bedford Mills .... 84

FR110740301_100223.docx v Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Land Use in the CSPA ...... 6 Table 2.2 Conceptual Water Budget Methodology and Summary Results ...... 7 Table 3.1 Example Evapotranspiration for Millhaven Creek (02HM006) ...... 14 Table 3.2 CSPA Long-Term Annual Water Budgets (in mm) ...... 15 Table 3.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Wilton Creek Subwatershed ...... 20 Table 3.4 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Millhaven Creek ...... 22 Table 3.5 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Collins Creek ...... 24 Table 3.6 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Little Cataraqui Creek ...... 26 Table 3.7 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River (Chaffeys Locks) ...... 28 Table 3.8 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Lyndhurst Creek ...... 30 Table 3.9 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Lyn Creek ...... 32 Table 3.10 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Buells Creek ...... 34 Table 3.11 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Sydenham Lake Subwatershed ...... 37 Table 3.12 Uncertainty in Water Budget Components ...... 38 Table 4.1 Recharge Information for Gauged Subwatersheds ...... 43 Table 4.2 Recharge Estimates for Gauged Subwatersheds ...... 44 Table 4.3 Recharge Estimates for Ungauged Subwatersheds ...... 46 Table 5.1 Project Population: CSPA ...... 53 Table 6.1 Surface Water Stress Thresholds ...... 54 Table 6.2 Sydenham Lake Subwatershed Surface Water Stress Assessment ...... 55 Table 6.3 Groundwater Stress Thresholds (Current Conditions) ...... 55 Table 6.4 Collins Creek Subwatershed Groundwater Stress Assessment ...... 56 Table 6.5 Surface Water Stress Summary ...... 58 Table 6.6 Justification of Low Uncertainty for Gauged Subwatersheds with Moderate or Significant Stress Designation ...... 59 Table 6.7 Groundwater Stress Summary ...... 62 Table 6.8 Justification of Low Uncertainty for Gauged Subwatersheds with Moderate or Significant Stress Designation ...... 63

Table A.1 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Delta Dam ..... 75 Table A.2 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Outlet Dam .... 76 Table A.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Marble Rock Dam ...... 77

FR110740301_100223.docx v Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment LIST OF TABLES

Table A.4 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Gananoque Dam ...... 78

Table B.1 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River above Kingston Mills .. 82 Table B.2 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River above Jones Falls ...... 83 Table B.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River above Bedford Mills .... 84

Table C.1 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Bay of Quinte Subwatersheds ...... 88 Table C.2 Long Term Monthly Water Budget for Lake Ontario Subwatersheds ...... 89 Table C.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for St. Lawrence Subwatersheds ...... 90

Table D.1 PTTW Summary ...... 92 Table D.2 PTTW Summary for Takings Outside of Water Budget Coverage ...... 103

Table E.1 Surface Water Stress Wilton Creek Subwatershed ...... 105 Table E.2 Groundwater Stress Wilton Creek Subwatershed ...... 105 Table E.3 Surface Water Stress Millhaven Creek Subwatershed ...... 105 Table E.4 Groundwater Stress Millhaven Creek Subwatershed ...... 106 Table E.5 Surface Water Stress Collins Creek Subwatershed ...... 106 Table E.6 Groundwater Stress Collins Creek Subwatershed ...... 106 Table E.7 Surface Water Stress Little Cataraqui Subwatershed ...... 107 Table E.8 Groundwater Stress Little Cataraqui Creek Subwatershed ...... 107 Table E.9 Surface Water Stress Cataraqui River Subwatershed ...... 107 Table E.10 Groundwater Stress Cataraqui River Subwatershed ...... 108 Table E.11 Surface Water Stress Lyndhurst Creek Subwatershed ...... 108 Table E.12 Groundwater Stress Lyndhurst Creek Subwatershed ...... 108 Table E.13 Surface Water Stress Lyn Creek Subwatershed ...... 109 Table E.14 Groundwater Stress Lyn Creek Subwatershed ...... 109 Table E.15 Surface Water Stress Buells Creek Subwatershed ...... 109 Table E.16 Groundwater Stress Buells Creek Subwatershed ...... 110 Table E.17 Surface Water Stress Sydenham Lake ...... 110 Table E.18 Groundwater Stress Sydenham Lake Subwatershed...... 110 Table E.19 Surface Water Stress Gananoque River above Delta Dam Subwatershed ...... 111 Table E.20 Groundwater Stress Gananoque River above Delta Dam Subwatershed ...... 111

FR110740301_100223.docx vi Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment LIST OF TABLES

Table E.21 Surface Water Stress Gananoque River above Outlet Dam Subwatershed ...... 111 Table E.22 Groundwater Stress Gananoque River above Outlet Dam Subwatershed ...... 112 Table E.23 Surface Water Stress Gananoque River above Marble Rock Dam Subwatershed ...... 112 Table E.24 Groundwater Stress Gananoque River above Marble Rock Dam Subwatershed 112 Table E.25 Surface Water Stress Gananoque River above Gananoque Dam Subwatershed 113 Table E.26 Groundwater Stress Gananoque River above Gananoque Dam Subwatershed .. 113 Table E.27 Surface Water Stress Cataraqui River above Bedford Mills Dam Subwatershed ...... 113 Table E.28 Groundwater Stress Cataraqui River above Bedford Mills Dam Subwatershed 114 Table E.29 Surface Water Stress Cataraqui River above Jones Falls Dam Subwatershed ... 114 Table E.30 Groundwater Stress Cataraqui River above Jones Falls Dam Subwatershed ..... 114 Table E.31 Surface Water Stress Cataraqui River above Kingston Mills Dam Subwatershed ...... 115 Table E.32 Groundwater Stress Cataraqui River above Kingston Mills Dam Subwatershed115 Table E.33 Surface Water Stress Cana Subwatershed ...... 115 Table E.34 Groundwater Stress Cana Subwatershed ...... 116 Table E.35 Surface Water Stress Bay of Quinte Ungauged Subwatershed ...... 116 Table E.36 Groundwater Stress Bay of Quinte Ungauged Subwatershed ...... 116 Table E.37 Surface Water Stress Lake Ontario Ungauged Subwatershed ...... 117 Table E.38 Groundwater Stress Lake Ontario Ungauged Subwatershed ...... 117 Table E.39 Surface Water Stress St. Lawrence River Ungauged Subwatershed ...... 117 Table E.40 Groundwater Stress St. Lawrence River Ungauged Subwatershed ...... 118 Table E.41 Surface Water Stress Lansdowne Subwatershed ...... 118 Table E.42 Groundwater Stress Lansdowne Subwatershed ...... 118

FR110740301_100223.docx vii Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This collaborative project was carried out by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority and the Water Resources Division of XCG Consultants Ltd.

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Sean Watt of CRCA was the overall project director. Erin Oogarah, Travis York and Titia Praamsma provided support in geomatics and hydrogeology respectively.

XCG Consultants Ltd. Gillian-Dagg Foster was the project manager for XCG. Colin Clarke, Ed Watt and Mike Hulley (XCG) conducted the study in association with Sean Watt (CRCA).

Members of the PEER Review Committee and the Source Water Protection Staff of related eastern Ontario conservation authorities provided invaluable assistance through their review comments and sharing of experiences. Their contributions are gratefully acknowledged.

The Peer Review Committee – 2008 Bryan Sears, MNR-Kingston Darin Burr, Dillon Consulting Bill Hogg, Reach Consulting Michel Kearney, City of Ottawa Laura Landriault, MNR Sarah MacHardy, MNR-Kemptville Michel Robin, University of Ottawa

Source Water Protection Staff Mark Boone, Quinte Conservation Amy Dickens, Quinte Conservation Bryon Keene, Quinte Conservation Keith Taylor, Quinte Conservation

Manon Lalonde, Rideau-Mississippi Kristina Kamichaitis, Rideau-Mississippi Sobhalatha Kunjikutty, Rideau-Mississippi Sean Stirling, Rideau-Mississippi Brian Stratton, Rideau-Mississippi

Clyde Hammond, Trent Conservation Coalition

FR110740301_100223.docx viii Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment INTRODUCTION

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background In January 2008, XCG Consultants Ltd. was retained by the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) to provide professional engineering services in connection with the preparation of a Tier 1 water budget report for the Cataraqui Source Protection Area (CSPA). Preparation of the report was a collaborative effort involving professional staff with the CRCA and with XCG. The overall project objective was to determine a water budget and stress assessment for the CSPA. The methodologies used in the analysis follow those provided by the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE, 2007) in the document Draft Guidance Module for Water Budget and Water Quantity Risk Assessment, referred to throughout this report as “Guidance Module 7”. The relevant sections for a Tier 1 water budget study are the General Guidance Module 7, Appendix A (Water Budget Essentials), and Appendix D (PTTW Demand Assessment). This report has been written to meet the Assessment Report Technical Rules (MOE, 2009). 1.2 Study Area The CSPA extends from the Bay of Quinte in the west to Brockville in the east and from Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River in the south to Westport in the north (see Figure 1.1). The CSPA drainage area of 3,570 km2 includes eight gauged subwatersheds (Wilton Creek, Millhaven Creek, Collins Creek, Little Cataraqui Creek, Cataraqui River, Lyndhurst Creek, Lyn Creek and Buells Creek), two semi- gauged subwatersheds (Cataraqui River system and Gananoque River system), and a number of ungauged subwatersheds that drain into the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Most of the municipalities in the CSPA draw water from Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. Within the CSPA, there is one surface water municipal intake, located in Sydenham and three municipal groundwater intakes- Lansdowne, Cana Subdivision and Miller Manor. 1.3 Study Approach The study encompasses four major tasks, as summarized below: 1. estimation of water budgets, 2. estimation of surface water stress by subwatershed, 3. estimation of groundwater stress by subwatershed, and 4. evaluation of uncertainty. Each of these major tasks involves a number of sub-tasks. For example, Task 2, the development of surface water stress by subwatershed, involves the following sub- tasks: a) estimation of existing monthly surface water supply and reserve on a subwatershed basis (defined in Guidance Module 7 as the monthly median and 10th percentile monthly flows),

FR110740301_100223.docx 1 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment INTRODUCTION

b) estimation of consumptive monthly surface water demands (permitted and non-permitted) for existing and future conditions (as specified in Guidance Module 7), and c) calculation of existing and future subwatershed stress (as % water demand), and comparison to thresholds. As far as possible, the approach used in the study has been to make use of existing data sources, particularly Water Survey of Canada (WSC) flow data records, for developing water budgets and calculating water supply and reserve. Where these data are not available, modelling tools have been used to develop surface water and groundwater statistics (e.g. regional streamflow model for surface water and groundwater models for groundwater supply). 1.4 Report Organization This report includes the methodology and results of all components of the study work plan: • overview of conceptual report, • water budgets for all gauged and ungauged subwatersheds within the study area (Task 1), • surface water supply and reserve calculations for all gauged and ungauged subwatersheds within the study area (Task 2a), • surface water demand estimation by subwatershed (Task 2b), • surface water stress estimation by subwatershed (Task 2c), • groundwater supply and reserve calculations (Task 3a), • groundwater demand by subwatershed (Task 3b), • groundwater stress estimation by subwatershed (Task 3c), and • evaluation of uncertainty (Task 4). 1.5 Qualification This document was completed following Guidance Module 7, with one exception. After completion of the draft report and review by the Peer Review Committee, and discussion with MNR officials on the subject of recreational wetlands and reservoirs on the Trent system, the CSPA staff decided to assign a value for the consumptive coefficient of zero for all takings concerning recreational wetlands and reservoirs. This methodology is consistent with that adopted by Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Area and the Trent Conservation Coalition.

FR110740301_100223.docx 2 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.1 Cataraqui Source Protection Area

FR110740301_100223.docx 3 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING REPORT

2. OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING REPORT 2.1 Cataraqui Source Protection Area The Cataraqui Source Protection Area is located in eastern Ontario; it has a drainage area of 3,570 km2 and includes: • gauged subwatersheds (Wilton Creek, Millhaven Creek, Collins Creek, Little Cataraqui Creek, Cataraqui River, Lyndhurst Creek, Lyn Creek and Buells Creek), • semi-gauged subwatersheds (Cataraqui River system and Gananoque River system), and • a number of ungauged subwatersheds that drain into the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The subwatersheds are classified as either natural flow or regulated. Regulation is generally for either navigation or power production. The Cataraqui River (navigation) and Gananoque River (power production) systems are extensively regulated with 20 and eight water control structures, respectively. Millhaven Creek (low flow augmentation) has four control structures while Lyn and Buells Creeks have one and three, respectively. Municipalities in the region include the City of Kingston, the City of Brockville, the Town of Gananoque, and a number of villages and hamlets. The population of the CSPA is about 200,000. There are 12 municipal water supplies in the region; eight draw water from Lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence River. The Sydenham water supply draws from Sydenham Lake, which is located in the headwaters of the Millhaven Creek subwatershed. There are three municipal well systems in the CSPA, they are located at Lansdowne (Lansdowne subwatershed), Cana Subdivision (Cana subwatershed) and Miller Manor (within one of the St. Lawrence ungauged subwatersheds). Finally, there is one federal water supply which services the Joyceville and Pittsburgh Institutions located in the River Styx in the larger Cataraqui River System. The Water Well Information System (WWIS) identified approximately 30,000 groundwater withdrawal locations for a mixture of residential, agricultural, commercial/industrial and institutional uses. Other surface withdrawals are for recreational/conservation and agricultural purposes. 2.2 Physical Land Characteristics 2.2.1 Physiography Chapman and Putnam (1984) identify four separate physiographic regions in the CSPA: Smiths Falls Limestone Plain, Leeds Knobs and Flats, Algonquin Highlands and Napanee Limestone Plain. • The Smiths Falls Limestone Plain, 609 km2 (17 %) in area, follows the northeastern region of the CSPA to Upper Rideau Lake where it meets a small till plain in the Westport-Newboro area. The limestone plain contains several bogs and marshes. It is characterized by generally shallow soil overlying mainly

FR110740301_100223.docx 4 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING REPORT

limestone or dolostone rock. Many parts of the area are poorly drained as evident by the occurrence of bogs, and deeper soils are present in some areas. • The Leeds Knobs and Flats region, 1,080 km2 (30 %) in area, lies in Leeds and Frontenac counties north of the St. Lawrence River and the Thousand Islands (between Gananoque and Brockville and extending north to Crosby). Rock ridges protruding through relatively thick soils characterize this region. The soils consist of clay that was deposited during flooding of the area by the former glacial Lake Iroquois. The resulting land texture is bare rock protruding through relatively level terrain. • The Algonquin Highlands, 740 km2 (21 %) in area, comprise the elevated land in the western side of Rideau Lakes Township, and the eastern portion of South Frontenac Township. This region is characterized by shallow sandy or stony soils and a relatively rugged topography. Bedrock outcrops throughout the region forming numerous localized topographic highs. Numerous large lakes such as Newboro Lake, Opinicon Lake and Sand Lake formed in the irregular depressions in the Precambrian bedrock. • The Napanee Limestone Plain, 1,130 km2 (32 %) in area, is similar in composition to the Smith Falls plain. It encompasses the western side of the City of Kingston, the southwestern corner of South Frontenac Township, and Loyalist Township as well as the Town of Greater Napanee. It is characterized by very shallow soils, and some alvars, although deeper glacial till does occur in some stream valleys, there are also some shallow depressions of stratified clay. The bedrock geology of the CSPA can be split into two major classes, Palaeozoic and Precambrian: Palaeozoic in the southwest portion with some in the northwest and Precambrian in the remainder. The dividing line runs approximately in a northwest to southeast direction from Hartington to the eastern tip of Howe Island. Overburden thickness is generally less than one metre across the CSPA, with exposed bedrock visible in some areas on the limestone plain and the Precambrian shield. The exceptions to this are river and creek valleys where thicker overburden occurs. Localized accumulations of overburden also occur in the east end of the City of Kingston, the west end of the Town of Greater Napanee south of Hay Bay, northwest of Elgin, southeast of Athens, near Mallorytown, and northwest of Lansdowne. Karst and fractured bedrock are common features in the limestone plain. Fractures in the limestone bedrock have been observed to be generally oriented in a northeast to southwest direction. They control the drainage in the regional watersheds, guiding the general southwest flow pattern. 2.2.2 Soils of the CSPA The Interim Watershed Plan (CRCA, 1983) describes the soils in the Kingston to Brockville corridor as generally shallow and tending to be acidic. The major soil types are Lansdowne and Napanee clay, as well as Farmington loam. The southern portions of the CSPA (near Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River) are predominantly clay, while those areas further north are predominantly loam and sandy loam combinations.

FR110740301_100223.docx 5 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING REPORT

The dominant soil types over the CSPA are loam (30 %), sandy loam (29 %) and clay (24 %). Silty loam and muck cover each about 3 % with clay loam, rock outcrop, peat, and marsh each covering about 1 %. Water covers about 8 % and urban and bottom land combined account for 0.5 %. 2.2.3 Land Cover/Use The Provincial Land Cover 28 geospatial data were used to characterize the entire watershed; several classes were grouped together for ease of display as shown in Table 2.1. The northern portion of the CSPA contains the majority of the water, swamp and forest cover. Table 2.1 Land Use in the CSPA Land Cover28 Grouping CSPA Land Cover Grouping Portion of CSPA (%)

Water Water 9.2 Bedrock Bedrock 1.0 Mudflats Other 2.3 Forest – Dense Deciduous Forest – Dense Coniferous Forest 22.6 Forest Depletion – burns Forest Depletion – cuts Marsh – Intertidal Marsh – Inland Swamp - Deciduous Swamp 20.4 Swamp – Coniferous Fen – pen Settlement and Developed Land Settlement 1.6 Pasture and Abandoned Fields Agriculture 42.8 Cropland

2.3 Conceptual Water Budget 2.3.1 Objectives and Methodology The five general objectives of the conceptual water budget study were as follows: • quantify the parameters of the water budget equation, • investigate the potential water budget impacts from proposed land use, water use, or changes in climate, • set the temporal and spatial scales for the Tier 1calculations, • divide the Cataraqui Source Protection Region into logical study areas to be evaluated at Tier 1, and • determine the most appropriate model or models to be used in Tier 1. In spatial terms, the Conceptual Water Budget covered the entire CSPA as one entity. In temporal terms, the budget was developed on a long-term annual basis.

FR110740301_100223.docx 6 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING REPORT

The final adopted methodology is summarized in Table 2.2. Details of the analysis supporting each component of the water budget are given in the final conceptual report (CRCA, 2007). It should be noted that more detail of the water budget equation and descriptions of all water budget components are provided in Section 3. Table 2.2 Conceptual Water Budget Methodology and Summary Results Water Budget Source/Calculation Component CSPA Value Component WATER BUDGET CALCULATION Mean Annual Precipitation Long-term estimate for 30 year period (P) (1971 to 2000) from Natural Resources P 953 (mm/yr) Canada, Great Lakes Forestry Study (McKenney et al.,2006) Mean Annual Thornthwaite and Mather Method (1955) Evapotranspiration (ET) ET 595 (mm/yr) Turc Method (1961) ET 554 Mean Annual Recharge R = Water surplus x Infiltration coefficient, (R) which is influenced by land cover, topography and surficial geology. A R 147 (mm/yr) modified factor to suit CSPA accounts for two types of bedrock. Mean Annual Runoff (Q) Streamflow and area from WSC Q 453 (mm/yr) hydrometric stations WATER BUDGET COMPARISONS Mean Annual Compared calculated ET (average) with Derived ET 500 Evapotranspiration (ET) derived ET, where derived ET = P – Q Difference 13 % (mm/yr) Mean Annual Recharge Compared MOE recharge estimate with Recharge 181 (R) recharge estimate from USGS Baseflow Method (Neff et al., 2005b). Difference (-21 %) (mm/yr) Residual Residual = P – ET – Q using Thornthwaite Residual -95 (mm/yr) ET estimate

FR110740301_100223.docx 7 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING REPORT

2.3.2 Results The estimated values for the inputs and outputs of the long-term annual water budget and the estimated long-term annual recharge are given in Table 2.2. Also provided in this table are water budget comparisons: a) comparison of results from two methods for estimating evapotranspiration b) comparison of results from two methods for estimating recharge, and c) the value of the residual term. 2.4 Water Demand and Potential Stress 2.4.1 Water Use Permits to Take Water There are close to 250 current and 150 expired Permits to Take Water (PTTW) across the CSPA (as of September 2005 with partial updates to 2008, the most recent list provided). These vary from small one-time takings to test natural gas pipelines for leaks, to long-term municipal takings, and include both surface water and groundwater takings. The estimated total annual volume of water currently being withdrawn across the CSPA is almost 32.7 x 107 m3. However, 88 % of that is taken from Lake Ontario (82 %) and the St. Lawrence River (6 %), and is not necessarily directly related to this water budget and hence, outside the scope of this water budgeting exercise. Of the remaining 12 %, 3.4 % is taken from inland surface water sources, and 8.4 % (2.7 x 107 m3) is taken from groundwater sources. Municipal Water Supplies There are 12 municipal water supplies in the region; eight remove water from Lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence River, one supply draws from an inland lake (Sydenham), with the remaining three being groundwater supplies (Lansdowne, Cana Subdivision and Miller Manor). In 2000, the municipal supply for Odessa was transferred from Millhaven Creek to Lake Ontario (Amherstview). In addition, the Federal Penitentiary at Joyceville (Pittsburgh/Joyceville Institution) has its own water supply system drawing from the River Styx on the Cataraqui River. From a conceptual water budget perspective, quantification of the municipal takings from Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence is not necessarily a factor and hence, beyond the scope of the Assessment Report. However, some of this water will be used for irrigation (lawns, gardens) and will infiltrate and move to groundwater. Much of this water will be near shorelines, and will have minimal impact on general CSPA groundwater levels. Water Wells There are almost 30,000 wells across the CSPA (MOE, 2006). These are a mixture of residential, agricultural, commercial/industrial, and institutional uses, as well as abandoned wells. Industrial Water Takings Industrial water takings are generally located along the Lake Ontario/St. Lawrence shoreline, and take directly from the surface source, or are provided water from a municipal supply. It is unlikely that this demand category will have a substantial water taking for the stress analysis.

FR110740301_100223.docx 8 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment OVERVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDING REPORT

Commercial Water Takings Most commercial water takings are from municipal services. However, there are many permitted users that have their own private water supplies. Withdrawals from these locations will be highly variable, and actual use volume numbers are not available. Agricultural Takings There are four agricultural operations in the CSPA that are large enough to require a PTTW. However, data is available from MNR (de Löe, 2002) estimating the general agricultural water use on a quaternary watershed basis. There are also a number of water wells with an irrigation or stock designation; however withdrawal volumes are not available for these wells. There is also no information in the MNR database whether the water use originates with surface or groundwater. 2.4.2 Potential Stress Although there is no requirement in Guidance Module 7 to apply the % water demand equation in the Conceptual understanding; calculations were completed as part of a learning exercise. Potential stress (i.e. % Water Demand) was estimated on a long- term annual basis as demand/supply (no reserve). For surface water, potential stress was 1.3 % and for groundwater it was 11 %. When individual watersheds and low supply conditions are considered, stress values maybe higher or lower depending on how they compare to the overall average. For example, it is known that some streams (i.e. Wilton Creek) and private wells go dry in periods of dry weather; this generally occurs in August and September. In the Tier 1 work, a monthly time scale, and individual subwatershed spatial scale would help identify those areas where stresses may be expected to occur. This more detailed examination could also quantitatively confirm the anecdotal information on dry areas that has been gathered by the CRCA. However, care must be taken to differentiate between supply water levels decreasing due to decreasing well efficiency (i.e. plugging, bio-fouling, precipitation-sedimentation) and actual groundwater level changes in the supply aquifer.

FR110740301_100223.docx 9 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

3. WATER BUDGETS 3.1 Overview The Water Budget Equation The water budget applies to a control volume defined by a plan area (subwatershed area) corresponding to the watershed defined upstream of a point on the stream. • The boundaries of the plan area are the surface divide. The top and bottom surfaces of the control volume are this plan area. • The sides of the control volume are defined by these boundaries projected vertically down from the surface to an elevation where there are no transfers of subsurface water to or from the stream. The water budget is the equation of continuity in integral form for this control volume, that is, input (I) minus output (O) equals change in storage. In finite difference form, the equation is (I – O) = ∆S/∆t, where ∆t denotes the time interval over which the water budget is evaluated. Note that the terms can be expressed in volume units (e.g. m3) or in equivalent depths over the area of the watershed (e.g. mm). The equation can be expanded as follows: [3.1] P + Gnet = ET + Q + Dnet + Wnet + ∆S

Here P denotes precipitation, an input to the system,

Gnet denotes net groundwater in, an input to the system, ET denotes evapotranspiration, an output from the system, Q denotes net streamflow out, an output from the system,

Dnet denotes net diversions out, an output from the system,

Wnet denotes the net of withdrawals and returns, an output from the system, and ∆S denotes change in storage, where storage includes above surface, surface and subsurface components. Figure 3.1 (Viessman and Lewis, 1996), shows the control volume and control surfaces for the case of no diversions and no withdrawals or returns. In this figure some symbols differ from those used in eq. [3.1]. Relations between eq. [3.1] symbols and Figure 3.1 symbols are:

• Gnet = G1 – G2

• ET = Es + Ts + Eg + Tg • Q = R2 – R1 • ∆S = ∆ (Ss + Sg )

Dnet and Wnet are not displayed on the figure; I (infiltration) and Rg are internal fluxes not calculated in the water budget.

FR110740301_100223.docx 10 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

Figure 3.1 Regional Hydrologic Cycle (After Viessman and Lewis, 1996) Long-Term Annual Water Budgets For source water protection work, two values of ∆t are used, ∆t = one year and ∆t = one month; these correspond to annual and monthly water budgets. Consider the case of a long-term annual water budget. A long term is defined as one sufficiently long to accurately determine a mean value, typically 25 to 30 years. For such a time period, it is assumed that the positive and negative values of ∆S will tend to cancel out and hence the sum of the annual values of ∆S will be negligible compared to the sum of the annual values of Q or ET. Accordingly, the term is deleted from the water budget equation. In many cases, three further simplifications are made. 1. The basin of interest is a headwater basin, that is, there is no streamflow into the basin. Hence, the Q term is the streamflow out of the basin. 2. There are no diversions into or out of the basin. Hence the Dnet term is zero and can be deleted from the equation.

FR110740301_100223.docx 11 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

3. The net withdrawals are small and of the order of the uncertainty in the other terms. Hence, the Wnet term (in the water budget) is assumed to be negligible and is deleted from the equation. 3.2 Long-Term Annual Water Budgets for Gauged Subwatersheds 3.2.1 The Water Budget Equation

Consider the case of a headwater basin, where there are no diversions (Dnet = 0) and negligible withdrawals and returns (Wnet = 0). This is the case for many of the CSPA subwatersheds. The general water budget equation for this case is eq. 3.2. [3.2] P + Gnet = ET + Q + ∆S,

Here, the bold symbols indicate that they are the true long-term average values. Further consider for this case the long-term annual water budget (e.g. 30 years). Here ∆S is very small compared to the other terms and can be ignored. The water budget equation is then eq. 3.3. [3.3] P + Gnet = ET + Q.

Except in very simple cases, values for P, etc. cannot be estimated with zero uncertainty. Hence, as a check on the estimated values, it is useful to rearrange the equation to show estimated values and include a residual term, “Residual” as shown in eq. 3.4. [3.4] P + Gnet - ET – Q = Residual

Here P, Gnet, ET and Q are the “estimated” long-term, average annual values. The “Residual” term includes the differences between true and estimated values of precipitation, net groundwater in, evapotranspiration, streamflow and the uncertainty in assuming change in storage is zero. 3.2.2 Sources of Data for Water Budget Terms Implicit in the concept of the long-term water budget is the assumption that all terms in the water budget (see eq. 3.3) are stationary, that is, they are free of trends or shifts. This implies that the mean for each variable is constant through time. In order to obtain the most reliable estimate of the mean, the longest and strongest time series should be used for estimation, even if, the time series differs from variable to variable. Precipitation The mean annual precipitation (P) was taken from the Natural Resource Canada (NRCan) database for the period 1971 to 2000 (the most recent data). The 1961-1990 dataset indicates a somewhat lower mean value, thereby illustrating the uncertainty in the sample estimate, even for a sample size of the 30. This uncertainty contributes to the magnitude of the residual term (see eq. 3.4).

FR110740301_100223.docx 12 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

The climate surfaces referenced in this database were developed by Mr. Bill Hogg of Environment Canada and Mr. Dan McKenney of the Great Lakes Forest Research Centre (Hogg, 2008). The technique used thin plate smoothing splines to interpolate climate station data. All of the climate data in the Environment Canada archives were included in the analysis. The technique used all data in the area of analysis to include effects due to elevation in the spatial interpolation. The most recent version also included effects due to distance from major water bodies like the Great Lakes. In addition, the technique helped identify spatial inconsistencies in the archive data which led to corrections to the archived data. The technique employs the same approach for both normal temperature and precipitation and individual months and years. Conservation authorities to the west and northeast of the CSPA have also used the NRCan data; this provides consistency of climate analyses throughout eastern Ontario. Net Groundwater Inflow In the absence of contrary information, long-term mean annual Gnet was taken as zero. Evapotranspiration Long-term mean annual evapotranspiration (ET) was estimated using the AgCanada database (Penman’s method), for the period 1961 to 1990 (the most recent Penman data). This database is organized by ecodistrict; the entire study area falls within five ecodistricts. For each ecodistrict, potential evapotranspiration and water deficit are tabulated on a monthly basis. In addition to the uncertainty resulting from sampling error, there is approximately equal uncertainty resulting from model error (method of calculation [i.e. Penman, Thornthwaite, etc.]). Actual evapotranspiration is the difference between potential evapotranspiration and water deficit. Water deficit is given for various values of water holding capacity. The values for ET given in Table 3.1 are based on water-covered area and a value of soil water holding capacity of 58 mm. Soil Water Holding Capacity (SWHC) was calculated as described in the CSPA Conceptual Water Budget (CRCA, 2007). Streamflow Long-term mean annual streamflow (Q) was taken from the Water Survey of Canada (WSC) database for the available period of record to 2007, which is tabulated in CRCA (2007). The variation in the period of record results in variable sampling error and hence, uncertainty. Subwatershed area was taken as the WSC value unless it could be shown to be in error. In this study, it has been assumed that the time series of annual streamflow and monthly streamflow are second-order stationary; that is they are free of trends or shifts. This implies that the statistical parameters of the series, such as the mean and variance, remain constant through time (see Maidment, 1993). There are parametric and non-parametric tests for identifying non-stationarity, but these require a long period of record (generally more than 25 years). Moreover, application to regulated basins is usually not helpful for two reasons: i) non-stationarity may be due to changes in regulation policy over the years, most of which are not in the public

FR110740301_100223.docx 13 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

domain, and ii) the future may not be the same as the past because the current regulation policy is not guaranteed into perpetuity. There are no obvious signs of non-stationarity in the streamflow data. A detailed investigation of non-stationarity was deemed to be beyond the scope of this Tier 1 study.

Table 3.1 Example Evapotranspiration for Millhaven Creek (02HM006) Month Base ET1 Lake ET on Land3 Evaporation on Total ET5 Evaporation2 Water4 (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 0 0 0 0 0 Feb 0 0 0 0 0 Mar 14 14 11 2 14 Apr 61 61 52 10 61 May 95 112 80 18 98 Jun 94 129 79 21 99 Jul 77 140 65 22 87 Aug 76 115 64 18 82 Sep 65 72 55 12 66 Oct 30 43 25 7 32 Nov 9 9 7 1 9 Dec 0 0 0 0 0 Annual 521 694 437 111 548 Notes: 1. Base ET is taken from Penman Estimate at SWHC = 58 mm 2. Lake Evaporation is taken from Ottawa CDA climate normals 3. ET on land assuming 84 % of drainage area is land; as calculated by CRCA 4. Evaporation on water assuming 16 % of drainage is covered by water as calculated by CRCA 5. Sum of ET on Land + Evaporation on Water Residual The long-term mean annual residual was calculated from the water budget equation as shown in the following example for Millhaven Creek. 3.2.3 Example Annual Water Budget for Millhaven Creek The estimated long-term average annual values are as follows: P = 957 mm (NRCan)

Gnet = 0 mm ET = 548 mm (AgCanada data, Penman’s method with soil water holding capacity = 100 mm) Q = 419 mm (WSC) This leaves a residual of 957 – 0 - 548 – 419 = -10 mm, which is well within the range of uncertainty in the estimates of P, ET, Gnet and Q. 3.2.4 Summary of Results Table 3.2 and Figure 3.2 display the long-term annual water budgets for all of the gauged subwatersheds in the CSPA. In all cases, components of the water budget are presented in equivalent depth (mm) over the subwatershed area. As discussed in Section 3.2 the residual term represents the uncertainty in the individual terms of the water budget. On average, the residual is expected to be

FR110740301_100223.docx 14 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS negative because of negative bias in the precipitation estimate. Variation from subwatershed to subwatershed reflects uncertainties in streamflow caused by overestimates of flow (e.g. Collins Creek), underestimates of drainage area (e.g. Little Cataraqui Creek) and short periods of record (e.g. Lyndhurst Creek).

Table 3.2 CSPA Long-Term Annual Water Budgets (in mm)

Subwatershed Station # P ET Gnet Q Residual (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Wilton Creek 02HM004 952 539 0 420 -7 Millhaven Creek 02HM006 957 548 0 419 -10 Collins Creek 02HM005 961 544 0 509 -92 Little Cataraqui Creek 02HM009 966 530 0 522 -86 Cataraqui River 02MA002 929 577 0 413 -60 Lyndhurst Creek 02MA001 934 572 0 441 -79 Lyn Creek 02MB006 957 577 0 415 -35 Buells Creek 02MB010 958 579 0 412 -33

1200

1000

800 P ET 600 Q

Depth (mm) GNET 400

200

0

6 04 02 009 0 M A B010 2H 2MB006 02HM0 02HM00 02HM005 0 02M 02MA001 0 02M

Figure 3.2 CSPA Long-Term Annual Water Budgets

FR110740301_100223.docx 15 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

3.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budgets for Gauged Subwatersheds Now consider the long-term monthly water budget. Here, ∆S is not negligible and cannot be ignored. The water budget equation is given by eq. [3.5].

P + G = ET + Q + ∆S net [3.5]

Here P, Gnet, ET, Q and ∆S are the long-term average monthly values. Except in special cases, change in storage cannot be estimated and must be determined as the difference between inputs and outputs. Accordingly, in the long-term average monthly case, the term ∆S represents the difference in storage and the residual. Figures 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 show the monthly distribution of the long-term annual monthly values of precipitation, evapotranspiration and streamflow. In all cases, components of the water budget are presented in equivalent depth (mm) over the subwatershed area. Inspection of Figure 3.3 reveals that there is very little difference in the monthly distribution of precipitation, as might be expected over such a relatively small geographical area. Inspection of Figure 3.4 reveals that there are small differences in the subwatershed values of evapotranspiration for June, July and August. These differences can be attributed to differences in SWHC and lake area.

120

100

02HM004 80 02HM006 02HM005 02HM009 60 02MA002

Depth (mm) Depth 02MA001 02MB006 40 02MB010

20

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

Figure 3.3 Monthly Distribution of Precipitation (P)

FR110740301_100223.docx 16 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

120

100

02HM004 80 02HM006 02HM005 02HM009 60 02MA002

Depth (mm) Depth 02MA001

40 02MB006 02MB010

20

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec .

Figure 3.4 Monthly Distribution of Evapotranspiration (ET)

120

100

02HM004 80 02HM006 02HM005 02HM009 60 02MA002

Depth (mm) Depth 02MA001 02MB006 40 02MB010

20

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

Figure 3.5 Monthly Distribution of Streamflow (Q)

FR110740301_100223.docx 17 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

Inspection of Figure 3.5 reveals that in contrast to P and ET, there are large differences in the monthly values of streamflow. These differences are due to the following factors: • degree of regulation, • degree of urbanization, and • surficial geology. In addition, the values for Collins Creek (02HM005) are believed to be biased on the high side. The long-term mean annual runoff for this subwatershed is about 25 % higher than the corresponding values for two nearby subwatersheds, Wilton Creek and Millhaven Creek. The possibility of a high Gnet term was evaluated (using geologic and topographic information as well as information from neighbouring subwatersheds); at this time, there is no evidence to imply a large net groundwater in term.

FR110740301_100223.docx 18 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

3.3.1 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Wilton Creek Figure 3.6 shows the plan area of the Wilton Creek subwatershed.

Figure 3.6 Wilton Creek Subwatershed

FR110740301_100223.docx 19 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

The Wilton Creek long-term monthly water budget is presented in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.7.

Table 3.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Wilton Creek Subwatershed

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 83 0 0 41 42 Feb 63 0 0 38 25 Mar 74 14 0 95 -34 Apr 76 61 0 81 -66 May 77 96 0 28 -47 Jun 76 98 0 14 -37 Jul 68 86 0 4 -21 Aug 80 80 0 3 -3 Sep 93 66 0 8 20 Oct 81 30 0 16 35 Nov 94 9 0 41 44 Dec 87 0 0 51 36 Annual 952 539 0 420

120

100

80

60

40 P ET 20 Q dS Depth (mm) 0 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -20

-40

-60

-80

Figure 3.7 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Wilton Creek Subwatershed

FR110740301_100223.docx 20 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

3.3.2 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Millhaven Creek Figure 3.8 shows the plan area of the Millhaven Creek subwatershed.

Figure 3.8 Millhaven Creek Subwatershed

FR110740301_100223.docx 21 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

The Millhaven Creek long-term monthly water budget is presented in Table 3.4 and Figure 3.9.

Table 3.4 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Millhaven Creek

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 75 0 0 44 31 Feb 60 0 0 41 19 Mar 71 14 0 81 -23 Apr 77 61 0 81 -65 May 76 98 0 28 -50 Jun 77 99 0 14 -36 Jul 81 87 0 6 -12 Aug 86 82 0 5 -1 Sep 99 66 0 13 20 Oct 82 32 0 19 31 Nov 88 9 0 36 43 Dec 85 0 0 52 33 Annual 957 548 0 419

120

100

80

60

40 P ET 20 Q dS Depth (mm) Depth 0 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -20

-40

-60

-80

Figure 3.9 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget Millhaven Creek

FR110740301_100223.docx 22 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

3.3.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Collins Creek Figure 3.10 shows the plan area of the Collins Creek subwatershed.

Figure 3.10 Collins Creek Subwatershed

FR110740301_100223.docx 23 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

The Collins Creek long-term monthly water budget is presented in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.11.

Table 3.5 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Collins Creek

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 83 0 0 48 35 Feb 63 0 0 40 23 Mar 74 14 0 107 -47 Apr 77 61 0 112 -96 May 77 96 0 37 -56 Jun 76 99 0 15 -38 Jul 69 87 0 5 -23 Aug 81 81 0 4 -4 Sep 95 66 0 11 18 Oct 83 31 0 21 31 Nov 95 9 0 48 38 Dec 88 0 0 61 27 Annual 961 544 0 509

150

100

50 P ET 0 Q Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec dS Depth (mm) G -50

-100

-150

Figure 3.11 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Collins Creek

FR110740301_100223.docx 24 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

3.3.4 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Little Cataraqui Creek Figure 3.12 shows the plan area of the Little Cataraqui Creek subwatershed.

Figure 3.12 Little Cataraqui Creek Subwatershed

FR110740301_100223.docx 25 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

Table 3.6 and Figure 3.13 show the long-term monthly water budget for Little Cataraqui Creek.

Table 3.6 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Little Cataraqui Creek

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 84 0 0 50 34 Feb 64 0 0 35 29 Mar 74 14 0 76 -15 Apr 77 61 0 69 -54 May 77 95 0 32 -50 Jun 75 96 0 24 -45 Jul 68 82 0 22 -36 Aug 82 78 0 28 -24 Sep 95 65 0 30 -1 Oct 84 30 0 43 12 Nov 97 9 0 59 29 Dec 89 0 0 53 36 Annual 966 530 0 522

120

100

80

60

40 P ET 20 Q dS Depth (mm) Depth 0 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -20

-40

-60

-80

Figure 3.13 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Little Cataraqui Creek

FR110740301_100223.docx 26 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

3.3.5 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River Figure 3.14 shows the plan area of the Cataraqui River subwatershed.

Figure 3.14 Cataraqui River Subwatershed

FR110740301_100223.docx 27 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

The Cataraqui River long-term monthly water budget is presented in Table 3.7 and Figure 3.15.

Table 3.7 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River (Chaffeys Locks)

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 77 0 0 48 29 Feb 60 0 0 55 5 Mar 71 14 0 47 11 Apr 74 61 0 53 -40 May 76 100 0 43 -66 Jun 76 106 0 22 -51 Jul 72 99 0 13 -40 Aug 80 88 0 13 -21 Sep 93 67 0 28 -2 Oct 79 33 0 38 8 Nov 87 9 0 25 53 Dec 84 0 0 30 54 Annual 929 577 0 413

120

100

80

60

40 P ET 20 Q dS Depth (mm) Depth 0 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -20

-40

-60

-80

Figure 3.15 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River

FR110740301_100223.docx 28 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

3.3.6 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Lyndhurst Creek Figure 3.16 shows the plan area of the Lyndhurst Creek subwatershed.

Figure 3.16 Lyndhurst Creek Subwatershed

FR110740301_100223.docx 29 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

The Lyndhurst Creek long-term monthly water budget is presented in Table 3.8 and Figure 3.17.

Table 3.8 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Lyndhurst Creek

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 74 0 0 37 37 Feb 60 0 0 31 29 Mar 70 14 0 107 -51 Apr 74 61 0 112 -99 May 75 98 0 43 -66 Jun 75 105 0 12 -42 Jul 76 99 0 5 -29 Aug 83 87 0 4 -8 Sep 95 66 0 6 23 Oct 81 32 0 17 32 Nov 86 9 0 26 51 Dec 85 0 0 41 44 Annual 934 572 0 441

150

100

50 P ET 0 Q Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec dS Depth (mm) Depth G -50

-100

-150

Figure 3.17 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Lyndhurst Creek

FR110740301_100223.docx 30 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

3.3.7 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Lyn Creek Figure 3.18 shows the plan area of the Lyn Creek subwatershed.

Figure 3.18 Lyn Creek Subwatershed

FR110740301_100223.docx 31 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

The Lyn Creek long-term monthly water budget is presented in Table 3.9 and Figure 3.19.

Table 3.9 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Lyn Creek

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 75 0 0 38 37 Feb 60 0 0 36 24 Mar 71 14 0 94 -37 Apr 77 61 0 101 -86 May 76 97 0 29 -51 Jun 77 107 0 12 -42 Jul 81 102 0 4 -25 Aug 86 88 0 3 -5 Sep 99 66 0 5 28 Oct 82 32 0 18 32 Nov 88 9 0 37 43 Dec 85 0 0 40 45 Annual 957 577 0 415

150

100

50 P ET Q dS Depth (mm) Depth 0 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

-50

-100

Figure 3.19 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Lyn Creek

FR110740301_100223.docx 32 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

3.3.8 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Buells Creek Figure 3.20 shows the plan area of the Buells Creek subwatershed.

Figure 3.20 Buells Creek Subwatershed

FR110740301_100223.docx 33 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

The Buells Creek long-term monthly water budget is presented in Table 3.10 and Figure 3.21.

Table 3.10 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Buells Creek

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 75 0 0 41 34 Feb 60 0 0 32 28 Mar 72 14 0 68 -10 Apr 75 61 0 85 -71 May 75 98 0 30 -53 Jun 78 107 0 17 -46 Jul 84 102 0 8 -26 Aug 87 89 0 6 -8 Sep 99 66 0 17 15 Oct 81 32 0 28 21 Nov 87 9 0 41 37 Dec 85 0 0 40 45 Annual 958 579 0 412

120

100

80

60

40 P ET 20 Q dS Depth (mm) Depth 0 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -20

-40

-60

-80

Figure 3.21 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Buells Creek

FR110740301_100223.docx 34 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

3.4 General Discussion for Gauged Subwatersheds • Monthly budgets have been developed for all gauged basins as per Guidance Module 7. • Inspection of Figures 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 as well as the tables and figures in section 3.3 reveals small differences in the monthly distribution of precipitation and evapotranspiration, and larger differences in monthly streamflow particularly in spring and summer, which is due to degree of regulation, surficial geology and total precipitation. 3.5 Water Budgets for Ungauged Subwatersheds As described above, a long-term record of gauged streamflow is an important input for the development of water budgets. Therefore, for all subwatersheds within the CSPA where gauged flows are available, these have been used to calculate water budgets, as described in the previous sections. For ungauged subwatersheds, streamflow must be estimated through other means (e.g. regional streamflow model; indicator basin). In this report, ungauged subwatersheds are classified in four categories: 1. Sydenham Lake, an ungauged subwatershed upstream of a municipal intake, 2. subwatersheds within the Gananoque River system, 3. subwatersheds within the Cataraqui River system, 4. subwatersheds, other than those in categories 2 and 3, that drain into the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence River. The long-term water budget for Sydenham Lake is presented in the following section. The long-term water budgets for categories 2, 3 and 4 are presented in the appendices A, B and C, respectively. 3.5.1 Long-Term Water Budget for Sydenham Lake The surface water subwatershed containing the Sydenham Lake surface water intake requires a water budget and water quantity stress assessment. The Technical Rules (MOE, 2009) do not allow for the evaluation of storage and therefore an estimate of Sydenham Lake inflows is required. As was done for the gauged subwatersheds, long-term mean annual precipitation was taken from the Natural Resource Canada (NRCan) database for the period 1971 to 2000 and long-term mean annual evapotranspiration (ET) was taken from the AgCanada database (Penman’s method) and modified with lake evaporation. Wilton Creek was used as an indicator basin to represent inflows into Sydenham Lake. This approach was applied in the past for the Millhaven Creek Low Flow Study (Dillon, 1991). To check the validity of the approach, Sydenham Lake inflows, based on Wilton Creek data, were routed through Sydenham Lake using lake level and log setting data collected by CRCA. The resultant outflows were comparable to flow at the downstream Millhaven Creek gauge (02HM006).

FR110740301_100223.docx 35 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

Figure 3.22 shows the plan area of the Sydenham Lake subwatershed.

Figure 3.22 Sydenham Lake Subwatershed

FR110740301_100223.docx 36 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

The Sydenham Lake long-term monthly water budget is presented in Table 3.11 and Figure 3.23.

Table 3.11 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Sydenham Lake Subwatershed

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 81 0 0 41 40 Feb 62 0 0 38 24 Mar 73 14 0 95 -35 Apr 75 61 0 81 -67 May 76 99 0 28 -51 Jun 76 103 0 14 -42 Jul 70 94 0 4 -28 Aug 81 86 0 3 -8 Sep 94 67 0 8 19 Oct 81 33 0 16 32 Nov 92 9 0 41 42 Dec 87 0 0 51 36 Annual 948 566 0 420

120

100

80

60

40 P ET 20 Q dS Depth (mm) Depth 0 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -20

-40

-60

-80

Figure 3.23 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Sydenham Lake Subwatershed

FR110740301_100223.docx 37 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

3.6 Uncertainty in Water Budget Components As indicated above, the values given for the individual components of the water budget are estimates. The difference between an estimated value and the true value is termed the uncertainty (the proper technical term for closeness to the real value is “accuracy”). There is more than one method that can be used to estimate any given component and generally the uncertainty varies from method to method. 3.6.1 Uncertainty in Long-Term Annual Water Budget Components It should be noted that this uncertainty section is not required according to the Technical Rules. Rather it was provided as additional information that may be useful to the reader. Table 3.12 provides a summary of the sources of various estimation methods of the components (used or considered in this study) listed in the long-term annual water budget table (Table 3.2). In addition, a qualitative estimate of the uncertainty for each method is given. In this application, qualitative uncertainty is an assessed integer value from 1 to 5, where 1 corresponds to low uncertainty, 3 to average uncertainty, and 5 to high uncertainty.

Table 3.12 Uncertainty in Water Budget Components

Component Estimation Method Uncertainty Sources Score

Precipitation Sampling error, gauge Gridded from station values 2 P bias

Evapotranspiration Gridded from Penman model Sampling error, gauge estimates using station values of P bias, model error, 2 ET and temperature parameter error

Sampling error, 1 1. Measured long-term WSC occasional rating curve hydrometric station bias Streamflow

Q 2. Measured – short-term WSC Sampling error, hydrometric station occasional rating curve 2 bias and sampling error

Net Groundwater In Assumed to be zero Estimation error 5 Gnet

For annual water budgets for gauged subwatersheds, comparison of the component values for several subwatersheds in a region and calculation of the Residual term provide checks on the component and overall uncertainty in the following ways.

FR110740301_100223.docx 38 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment WATER BUDGETS

• The precipitation value should not vary dramatically from neighbouring subwatersheds. • For similar values of lake and swamp area, the evapotranspiration value should not vary dramatically from neighbouring watersheds; assuming a similar SWHC. • For areas where the net groundwater in value is small percentage (<5%) of streamflow, the streamflow value should not vary dramatically from neighbouring watersheds. • The net groundwater in value for a subwatershed is generally small unless an anomaly in surficial geology occurs across the subwatershed. This value becomes more sensitive as the subwatershed area decreases. The residual value might be expected to be generally negative because of a negative bias in precipitation measurements. For example, consider the case where the bias is - 5 % and the true value of the mean annual precipitation (MAP) is 1,000 mm. The estimated value of MAP would then be 950 mm and the value of the residual would be -50 mm if the values for all other components were equal to their true values. 3.6.2 Uncertainty in Long-Term Monthly Water Budget Components For the purposes of water budgets, as the averaging time step decreases (annual to monthly) the uncertainty increases. The additional uncertainty arises because the annual parameters are distributed across the 12 months of the year. Increases in uncertainty for each of the water budget components are briefly described below. • P - Higher uncertainty during the winter due to snow (increases score from 2 – 3). • ET - Higher uncertainty due to the monthly time step (increases score from 2 - 3). • Q - For WSC hydrometric stations and other measured flows, higher uncertainty in winter and spring flows due to ice (increases score from 1 - 2). - For simulated flows higher uncertainty would be expected due to monthly time step (increases score from 2 - 3).

• Gnet- Higher uncertainty due to unknown monthly distribution (score 5).

FR110740301_100223.docx 39 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment SUPPLY AND RESERVE

4. SUPPLY AND RESERVE According to Guidance Module 7, A significant part of the framework for the Water Quantity Risk Assessment is based on the concept of % water demand. The water quantity stress of a subwatershed is inferred by examining the ratio of the consumptive demand (water taking) to the water source (available water). A water reserve is also considered in the calculation. Therefore, a representation of available water was required, for both surface water and groundwater, on a monthly basis. The following sections describe how the available water was determined for the CSPA (supply and reserve). 4.1 Surface Water For estimating water supply and reserves for surface water sources, two statistics are calculated from monthly streamflow data. • Water supply is represented by the monthly median flow (the flow or depth expected 50 % of the time). • For Tier 1 stress assessments, Guidance Module 7 recommends that a minimum water reserve is represented by the 10th percentile flow (the flow or depth that will be exceeded, on average, 90 % of the time). In the % water demand calculation, the reserve was subtracted from the supply to determine a conservative estimate of the total available surface water. 4.1.1 Gauged Subwatersheds Within the CSPA, there are eight subwatersheds (listed in Table 3.2) that have streamflow records of sufficient period of record to directly calculate monthly supply and reserve. The resulting monthly supply and reserve calculations, as well as the difference (supply – reserve) are provided in full in Appendix E. 4.1.2 Ungauged Subwatersheds Monthly values of supply (50th percentile) and reserve (10th percentile) for ungauged subwatersheds were determined using two methods: i) review and interpretation of reports for semi-gauged subwatersheds (subwatersheds with structure information) and ii) application of representative subwatersheds for ungauged areas (no information available). 4.2 Groundwater Assessment According to Guidance Module 7, the amount of water available to supply a subwatershed’s groundwater users is to be estimated as a summation of groundwater recharge (QR) and lateral groundwater flow (GIN) into the subwatershed. For Tier 1 analysis, aquifer storage is not considered and the subwatershed’s groundwater supply terms are therefore considered to be constant on an average annual basis. For monthly groundwater supply, Guidance Module 7 specifies that annual numbers be simply divided by 12.

FR110740301_100223.docx 40

Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment SUPPLY AND RESERVE

As for surface water, a reserve is also considered for groundwater. Guidance Module 7 suggests that 10 % of the total groundwater supply is maintained as a reserve. In the % water demand calculation, the reserve is subtracted from the supply to determine a conservative estimate of the total available groundwater. The following discussion provides an overview of the methodology and results for the groundwater supply assessment for the CSPA. The proposed approach utilizes a variety of information sources and methodologies to derive approximate groundwater supply estimates. The components of work include: 1. estimation of annual groundwater supply and net groundwater inflow for each subwatershed based on a variety of information sources: • a number of previous baseflow investigations for watersheds within the study area completed by agencies in the US and Canada, • the results of an updated water budget analysis, and • professional judgment; 2. estimation of groundwater supply for each gauged subwatershed, each ungauged subwatershed, and each municipal groundwater supply system. 4.2.1 General Notes on Recharge “Groundwater recharge can be defined as the entry into the saturated zone of water made available at the water table surface, together with the flow away from the water table within the saturated zone” (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Alternatively, according to Neff et al. (2005b), recharge is defined as “precipitation that infiltrates the land surface, moves downward through the unsaturated, and enters the water table.” Recharge is an internal flux in the control volume selected for water budget analyses applied to a subwatershed. Another internal flux is infiltration, defined in Maidment (1993) as “...the process of water entry into the soil from rainfall, snowmelt, or irrigation”. Using these definitions of recharge and infiltration, the difference between the two is plant transpiration, which is already accounted for in evapotranspiration. The key parameter to use therefore is recharge of the phreatic aquifer as defined above. Traditionally, these internal fluxes are not included in a water budget analysis; similarly, watershed storage is not separated into its three components: i) above surface storage in the form of snow and ice, ii) surface storage in lakes, reservoirs, etc. and iii) subsurface storage in the unsaturated and saturated zones. However, for the purposes of source water protection studies, specifically, as one part of the groundwater supply term in stress analysis, recharge must be estimated for each subwatershed on an average annual basis (e.g. mm/year). For this reason, recharge was addressed in a section separate from the water budget and before addressing reliability of groundwater supply. Recharge differs from the fluxes into and out of the control volume discussed in the water budget section, as outlined below. • First and foremost, in general, recharge cannot be measured over a catchment in the way that precipitation and streamflow can be measured (see Neff et al., FR110740301_100223.docx 41

Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment SUPPLY AND RESERVE

2005b). Hence, there is no large historical database on which to extract information on a subwatershed basis. • As is the case for precipitation, evapotranspiration and streamflow, recharge varies within the year and from year to year (see Neff et al., 2005b). Accordingly, there is a large uncertainty in a long-term average estimated from a few years of data. • Recharge often varies dramatically across a subwatershed (see Freeze and Cherry, 1979; Neff et al., 2005b); even when point estimates are available, there is a large uncertainty in the average value for the subwatershed. It should be noted that although runoff potential also varies across a watershed (see Viessman and Lewis, 1996), the streamflow measured at the basin outlet incorporates this variation. • As a result of these considerations, the uncertainty associated with the estimated value of long-term average annual recharge for any subwatershed is much larger (uncertainty score 5) than that associated with precipitation or streamflow or even evapotranspiration (see Table 3.12). 4.3 Groundwater Supply for Subwatersheds The methodology used for determining groundwater supply followed Guidance Module 7. The following qualifications apply to the estimates of groundwater recharge presented in this section. 1. The values given are long-term average annual values. 2. The values for gauged subwatersheds represent groundwater recharge to shallow aquifers, which are defined as generally less than 100 feet (30 m) deep. 3. The value for any subwatershed represents the watershed-average value for that subwatershed. The appropriate value for a withdrawal point elsewhere in the watershed may differ from this average value because of differences in surficial geology. 4. The final value given for each gauged subwatershed was determined by reviewing a number of independent estimates. 4.3.1 Previous Estimates of Recharge for Subwatersheds Table 4.1 provides information on baseflow available at the beginning of this study from four sources: i) a report prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with Canada’s National Water Research Institute (Neff et al., 2005a), ii) a second report also prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with Canada’s National Water Research Institute (Neff et al., 2005b), iii) a report prepared by Environment Canada (Moin and Shaw, 1986), and iv) MOEE (1995) estimates completed by CRCA. Long-term average recharge estimates are presented in two ways: i) long-term annual recharge in mm/year, and ii) a baseflow index (BFI) which, when multiplied by mean annual runoff (mean annual streamflow in mm units), gives long-term annual recharge. The long-term recharge estimates given by all of these baseflow separation studies are based on the assumption that long-term baseflow is equal to long-term groundwater recharge (see Neff et al., 2005b). This is not the case

FR110740301_100223.docx 42

Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment SUPPLY AND RESERVE in some instances. In particular, it is extremely difficult to distinguish between streamflow generated by withdrawals from groundwater storage and streamflow generated by small continuous withdrawals from surface storage (see Neff et al., 2005b).

Table 4.1 Recharge Information for Gauged Subwatersheds Main USGS 2005 BFIB RechargeC Station # Station BFID MOEEE A Drainage Name Name Divide (mm) 02HM004 Wilton Creek 0.37 0.39 Millhaven 02HM006 0.63 0.36 Creek 2HM Napanee 0.47 251 02HM005 Collins Creek 0.49 0.39 Little 02HM009 Cataraqui N/A 0.36 Creek Cataraqui 02MA002 0.65 0.38 River 2MA Cataraqui 0.45 279 Lyndhurst 02MA001 0.35 0.44 Creek Upper St. 02MB006 Lyn Creek 0.39 0.46 2MB Lawrence- 0.43 267 Thousand Islands 02MB010 Buells Creek N/A 0.49 Notes: A: Name assigned to drainage area by "Base Flow in the Great Lakes Basin" (Neff et al., 2005a) B: Base Flow Index value as per "Base Flow in the Great Lakes Basin" (Neff et al., 2005a) C: Groundwater Recharge as per "Estimation of Shallow Ground-water Recharge in the Great Lakes Basin" (USGS, 2005b). Note: All values converted from inches to millimeters by multiplying by 25.4 D: Base Flow Index value as per "Regional Flood Frequency Analysis for Ontario Streams Volume 2." (Moin and Shaw, 1986) E: BFI estimated using Hydrogeological Technical Information Requirements for Land Development Applications (MOEE, 1995) The information in the left side of Table 4.1 applies to major drainage divides or tertiary watersheds (e.g. 2 HM – Napanee). The BFI values (column 3) and recharge values (column 4) are watershed average values given by a calibrated model that uses surficial geology categories and the proportion of surface water features to predict station BFI values. Values of BFI were derived using the UK Institute of Hydrology method of hydrograph separation, with allowance for surface water features. Values of recharge were derived using the PART method of hydrograph separation, with allowance for surface water features. The information in the right side of Table 4.1 applies to subwatersheds. Except where otherwise noted, BFI values in column 7 were published 20 years ago and were derived using the UK Institute of Hydrology method of hydrograph separation, with no correction made for surface features. The BFI values in column 8 were calculated by CRCA using the MOEE (1995) method.

FR110740301_100223.docx 43

Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment SUPPLY AND RESERVE

It should be noted that significant regulation (noted in several areas of the CSPA), as opposed to large uncontrolled surface storage, tends to make hydrograph separation methods very poor indicators of recharge. The algorithms used to separate baseflow cannot distinguish between gradual recessions resulting from groundwater contributions to streamflow and those resulting from slow releases from storage as a result of regulation. 4.3.2 Recharge Estimates for Gauged Subwatersheds In addition to the existing information presented in Table 4.1 above, two further estimates were available for the Tier 1 study. Table 4.2 provides, for gauged subwatersheds, mean annual runoff and a comparison of long-term average recharge to shallow aquifer values using i) various sources given in Table 4.1 and ii) the XCG selected value. Also indicated (in column 2) are those subwatersheds where there are constraints to using a BFI-based method or where a recharge estimate is not required because the station is a downstream station.

Table 4.2 Recharge Estimates for Gauged Subwatersheds Station # Station Mean Long Term Mean Annual Recharge Name Annual D A USGS USGS UKIH MOEE CRCA/XCG Runoff B C E (2005a) (2005b) (mm) (1995) Selection (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

02HM004 Wilton Creek 420 197 251 155 164 155 Millhaven 02HM006 Creek 419 197 251 264 151 150 (regulated) Collins 02HM005 509 239 251 249 199 200 Creek* Little 02HM009 Cataraqui 522 248 251 N/A 188 190 Creek* Cataraqui 02MA002 River 413 185 279 268 157 155 (regulated) Lyndhurst 02MA001 Creek 441 198 279 154 194 195 (regulated) 02MB006 Lyn Creek 415 181 267 162 191 165 Buells Creek 02MB010 412 178 267 N/A 202 200 (regulated) Notes: A: Mean Annual Runoff (MAR) based on Hydrometric Record as of 2007 B: Base Flow Index value as per "Base Flow in the Great Lakes Basin" (Neff et al., 2005a) x MAR C: Groundwater Recharge as per "Estimation of Shallow Ground-water Recharge in the Great Lakes Basin" (Neff et al., 2005b). Note: All values converted from inches to millimeters by multiplying by 25.4 D: United Kingdom Institute of Hydrology (UKIH) base flow separation method x MAR. The BFI used is that given by Moin and Shaw (1986) E: Recharge Estimate using Hydrogeological Technical Information Requirements for Land Development Applications (MOEE, 1995) = MOEE BFI x MAR *: MAR higher than expected see discussion.

FR110740301_100223.docx 44

Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment SUPPLY AND RESERVE

Inspection of Table 4.2 reveals the following. • Neff et al. (2005b) values are generally higher than other BFI-based values because the method of baseflow separation used (PART method) generally yields higher values. • For natural flow subwatersheds, o Wilton Creek: The UKIH and MOEE (1995) values are much lower than USGS (2005a, b) values. The primary reason is the fact that tertiary watershed value on which the latter is based is derived using values for larger regulated subwatersheds. o Collins Creek: The UKIH value is inflated due to the high MAR value, which is likely biased upward. o Lyn Creek: The UKIH value is much lower than USGS (2005a, b) values and is similar to the Lyndhurst Creek value. o Little Cataraqui Creek: This subwatershed is urbanized. The drainage area is based on topography but does not accurately reflect the total contributing storm sewershed. As a result the mean annual runoff may not be accurate. • For regulated subwatersheds, o Millhaven Creek and Cataraqui River: The UKIH values are generally higher than USGS (2005a) values because no correction was made for the effects of surface storage on recession. o Lyndhurst Creek: The UKIH value is much lower than USGS (2005a, b) values. o Buells Creek: The upper portion of this subwatershed is regulated and the downstream is urbanized. The recharge values reflect the “upstream” area. The XCG recommended values are generally conservative, and are based on the following considerations. 1. In general, the lowest estimate was used. 2. Where there is significant regulation or where there is appreciable groundwater flow in or out of the basin, BFI-based estimates were not used, in accordance with the guidelines document. 3. For those subwatersheds where a BFI-based estimate could not be used because of significant regulation, the MOEE (1995) estimate was used. 4.3.3 Recharge Estimates for Ungauged Subwatersheds Recharge estimates for ungauged subwatersheds are provided in Table 4.3. In addition to the recommended CRCA\XCG values, this table provides the information on which these recommended values were based: a. the USGS watershed-average recharge value from Table 4.2; b. professional judgement based on relevant information; c. the estimated mean annual runoff (MAR) from the current study; d. the resulting BFI-based recharge (i.e. BFI x MAR); and e. the resulting MOEE (1995) BFI-based recharge.

FR110740301_100223.docx 45

Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment SUPPLY AND RESERVE

The XCG recommended values are based on the following considerations. 1. BFI-based estimates are used unless there is significant regulation. 2. Otherwise, MOEE (1995) estimates are used.

Table 4.3 Recharge Estimates for Ungauged Subwatersheds

Major Recharge BFI MOEE CRCA/XCG Subwatershed A MAR B Drainage BFIB Recharge Recharge Selection Name (mm) System (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) 02 HM Sydenham Lake 251 0.37 420 155 155 155 Delta Dam 441 198 198 200 Outlet Dam 420 189 193 195 02 MA 279 0.45 Marble Rock Dam 430 194 189 190 Gananoque Dam 430 194 189 190 Bedford Mills 463 208 157 155 02 MA Jones Falls 279 0.45 398 179 155 155 Kingston Mills 340 153 133 130 02 HM Bay of Quinte 251 0.37 420 155 176 155 02 HM, 02MA Lake Ontario 251, 279 0.37 420 155 155 155 02 MA, 02 MB St. Lawrence River 279, 267 0.39 415 162 166 160 Notes: A: Groundwater Recharge as per "Estimation of Shallow Ground-water Recharge in the Great Lakes Basin" (Neff et al., 2005b). Note: All values converted from inches to millimeters by multiplying by 25.4 B: CRCA/XCG representative Recharge value 4.4 Groundwater Supply for Municipal Supplies There are three municipal groundwater drinking water systems located in the CSPA. They are Cana Subdivision, Town of Lansdowne and Miller Manor (see Figure 1.1). The general approach for estimation of subwatershed water supply for subwatershed containing municipal supply wells was to apply available groundwater models in combination with interpretation of background information to quantify the approximate upstream groundwater flux and recharge to the aquifer. Where appropriate, estimated uncertainty would be defined and if deemed large relative to the supply estimate, a more comprehensive Tier 2 assessment would be recommended. The goal was however, to exploit available models and information to the extent possible to determine a reliable estimate of groundwater supply. The groundwater supply is the product of two terms: 1) average recharge per unit area and 2) the area of the subwatershed. 4.4.1 Cana Subdivision Summary • Well depth is approximately 15 m. • The well was reported to be constructed through approximately 4.5-6 m of clay followed by 6 – 9 m of sand (Trow, 2007). • Recharge was taken as the minimum value of the range (100 mm) reported for the former Pittsburgh Township by OMM (1996).

FR110740301_100223.docx 46

Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment SUPPLY AND RESERVE

• The surface subwatershed area for Cana was taken as 116 km2. Note: The Maximum Capture Zone (MCZ) was estimated as 1.4 km2 with a Significant Recharge Area of the Maximum Capture Zone (SRA/MCZ) area of 0.46 km2. See Figure 4.1. 4.4.2 Lansdowne Summary • Well depths are approximately 50 m. • The wells are reported to be constructed through approximately 2-2.5 m of clay followed by 16 – 17 m of sandstone, and terminated in granite. (Malroz, 2007) • Recharge was taken as 50 mm for the Precambrian aquifer (Malroz, 2007). • The surface subwatershed area for Lansdowne was taken as 15 km2. Note: The MCZ was estimated at 15.6 km2 with an SRA/MCZ area of 1.37 km2. See Figure 4.2. 4.4.3 Miller Manor Summary • Currently, there are no available data for this municipal system. • This system is within the ungauged St. Lawrence subwatershed. • Actual takings were not available for this system. • Supply was estimated using the standard subwatershed method.

FR110740301_100223.docx 47

Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment SUPPLY AND RESERVE

Figure 4.1 Cana Subwatershed and SRA/MCZ

FR110740301_100223.docx 48

Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment SUPPLY AND RESERVE

Figure 4.2 Lansdowne Subwatershed and SRA\MCZ

FR110740301_100223.docx 49 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment DEMAND

5. DEMAND As described in the previous section, water quantity stress is calculated as a ratio of consumptive demand (water taking) to the available water source, defined as supply less reserve. Therefore, equally important as the estimation of supply and reserve described in Section 4, is the estimation of both surface water and groundwater demand. Guidance Module 7 defines water demand as “water taken as a result of an anthropogenic activity”. For the purposes of the stress assessment, both existing and future demands must be considered. In this study, demand was classified as either a) permitted demand or b) non- permitted demand. Non-permitted demand was further classified as non-serviced residential demand and agricultural demand Demand was calculated using information from four sources: • the Permit to Take Water (PTTW) database, • municipal drinking water taking records maintained by the municipalities, • private wells – Water Wells Information System (WWIS) of MOE (2006), and • the Agricultural Census database (de Löe 2002). 5.1 Consumptive Use Factors The intent of the stress assessment is to consider only consumptive use of the water. For commercial uses such as water bottlers, the takings are 100 % consumptive. However, for most other types of takings, the use is not 100 % consumptive. Consider, for example, a municipal water supply; water is withdrawn from the source, but returned after treatment in a municipal sewage treatment facility. The MOE has provided default consumptive use factors in Appendix D of Guidance Module 7 for the various categories of takings in the PTTW database. For example, a consumptive use factor of 0.2 is to be applied to municipal water supplies. Every taking needs to be considered carefully prior to selection of an appropriate consumptive use factor. For example, a community may take water from a communal groundwater supply well, but discharge treated water to a surface water source. In this case, the consumptive use factor in terms of groundwater would be essentially 100 %, as the water is not returned to the same source from which it was taken. All permitted taking amounts, sources and consumptive factors are tabulated in Appendix D. For unpermitted agricultural demand, a consumptive factor or 0.8 was applied (rounded up from the 0.78 suggested by de Löe (2002)). 5.2 Seasonal Use Seasonal use is important when estimating demand. Many permit holders, such as golf course operators, do not require water at the same rate throughout all months of the year. For these cases, default monthly demand adjustments have been provided in the Guidance. These are provided as a series of monthly values, set to either zero, or one.

FR110740301_100223.docx 50 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment DEMAND

The total yearly permitted taking must be divided by the number of months of takings to more accurately estimate monthly demand. In some cases the monthly adjustments could not be applied because the specified number of days of the permitted taking was less than the number of days covered by the monthly adjustment. When this occurred, a modified monthly distribution was applied (i.e. a 60-day permit for golf course irrigation would have the permitted demand spread over July and August). 5.3 Permitted Takings All water takings exceeding 50,000 L/day are required to obtain a PTTW from MOE. The database provides information on the location, source, use category, and use volume for water withdrawals that exceed 50,000 L/day. Domestic, direct livestock/irrigation and emergency (firefighting) uses are not required to have a permit. The following items should be kept in mind when using this database. • The database is not current. The majority of the data are updated to Sept. 2005; the Cataraqui and Gananoque River watersheds are updated to Feb. 2008. • Not included in the database are those uses that require a permit, but do not have one. • The quantities in the database are generally presented as maximum permitted takings, and therefore generally overestimate the actual usage. • In a few cases, actual pumping rates are recorded and can be used for existing demand. While MOE requires submission of actual water use for all permits, the actual takings were not available for incorporation into this study. • Permitted takings are partitioned into ground and surface water sources. In some cases, a permit is issued which is classified as both ground and surface water. The methodology adopted for the CSPA included the following steps. • Expired permits were dealt with as follows: o When the use may have continued, the permit was included. o When the use was likely to have ceased, the permit was removed. • The permits were allocated to subwatersheds based on their location information. • The permit sources were then divided into surface water and groundwater. Some permits are listed as both surface and groundwater. For these cases, professional judgment was exercised. The source was allocated to either surface or groundwater, based on the use category or the source. For instance, if the source was a pond, it was allocated to surface water; if the use was quarry de-watering, it was allocated to groundwater. • Permitted demands were multiplied by the appropriate consumptive and seasonal use factors. o Recreational Wetlands and Reservoirs had a consumptive coefficient of zero applied as described earlier. • When the use was likely to have ceased, the permit was removed. • Where actual pumping rates are available, these were used for the estimate of existing demand.

FR110740301_100223.docx 51 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment DEMAND

5.4 Non-Permitted Use 5.4.1 Non-Serviced Residential Demand It was assumed that non-permitted domestic use was entirely from groundwater sources. Non-permitted groundwater demand by subwatershed was done as follows. • The total number of domestic wells (20,000) and their locations were determined using the WWIS database. • This information was used to determine the total number of wells in each subwatershed. • The daily per capita water withdrawn per well was taken as 175 L/person/day; the same value was used for the CSPA Conceptual Water Budget (CRCA, 2007). Note this value is less than that given by Guidance Module 7 (335 L/person/day). The Guidance Module 7 value was derived from municipal system use, which typically overestimates private well use. • An average of 3.3 persons/well was assumed. This value was used in the Conceptual Water Budget and is based on population and number of wells in rural areas. This number is very similar to numbers used to the west and northeast of the CSPA (Quinte and Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Regions). • The monthly water demand was calculated as the product of daily per capita water use, 3.3 persons/well and the number of days in a month. • The monthly volumes for June, July and August were doubled to account for lawn and garden watering, and other outdoor activities (Note: the end value is essentially the same as the 335 L/person/day). 5.4.2 Agricultural Demand Agricultural demand was estimated using the work done by de Löe (2002), as referenced in Guidance Module 7. The de Löe database comes as a GIS shapefile, which contains information by quaternary watershed of all estimated agricultural takings. Annual volumes are presented for nine categories: livestock use, field crop use, fruit crop use, vegetable crop use, specialty crop use, total use, seasonal irrigation use, annual irrigation use, and summer irrigation use. The de Löe data were used to determine the subwatershed values. As this database contains all agricultural takings, any permitted agricultural takings within a subwatershed were subtracted from this total to determine the non-permitted takings. Livestock Use Demands: Annual demands were taken directly from the subwatershed database, as allocated by subwatershed. These annual demands were distributed by month using the following methodology. • Livestock Use demand per month was allocated to surface or groundwater based on the following assumptions: o the majority of livestock in the CSPA are cattle (OMAFRA, 2007), o water use is split 50-50 between beef cattle and dairy cattle, o all dairy cattle water use is from groundwater (dairy cattle are largely kept in the barnyard area for the full year), and

FR110740301_100223.docx 52 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment DEMAND

o beef cattle water use is from groundwater from November to April, and from surface water May to October since they are put out to pasture over the summer months. Crop Use Demands: Annual crop use was taken as the difference between total demands and livestock demands. These annual demands were distributed by month using the following methodology. • Crop water use over the summer was taken as the annual irrigation use value and was distributed across June, July and August, as per de Löe (2002). • Any positive difference between the total annual value and the sum of annual Livestock Use plus summer Crop Use was then allocated across the other nine months of the year. Crop Use irrigation water is assumed to come from surface water sources on the basis that • not many crops are irrigated in the CSPA, and • those that are typically use surface water sources. 5.5 Scaling up Demand for Future Conditions To scale up demand for the future scenario, population projections for 2031 (see Table 5.1), available from the Ontario Ministry of Finance by county, were used to estimate future populations for each subwatershed. From this, municipal water use and the unpermitted domestic water demand was scaled up. Unpermitted agricultural and permitted demands (excluding municipal supplies) were not increased. Population estimates were not conducted for areas taking water from Lake Ontario.

Table 5.1 Project Population: CSPA CENSUS DIVISION 2004 Population 2031 Population % change (COUNTY) (thousands) (thousands) 2004-2031 Frontenac 147.7 184.2 24.7 Leeds/Grenville 102.5 117.0 13.9 Lennox/Addington 41.8 48.0 14.8 Total 292 349.2 19.6

FR110740301_100223.docx 53 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment STRESS

6. STRESS The ultimate goal of the Tier 1 Water budget and Stress Assessment is to calculate % water demand by subwatershed. This % water demand is then compared to stress thresholds, which vary according to whether the assessment is being completed for ground or surface water. For both ground and surface water, the % Water Demand is calculated as [6.1] % Water Demand = 100 x [QDEMAND / (QSUPPLY - QRESERVE)]

In the case of gauged subwatersheds, the recorded streamflow (QRECORD) already include the effects of upstream demands. As the upstream demands are included, the results yielded by the standard stress equation may be overly conservative. Discussions with OMNR yielded a more appropriate approach for these gauged cases and the percent water demand for gauged subwatershed was calculated as shown below.

% Water Demand = 100 x [Q DEMAND / ((Q RECORD + Q DEMAND ) - Q RESERVE )] [6.2]

6.1 Surface Water For surface water, the calculation is done on a monthly basis. The maximum monthly % water demand is then determined. This is expected to almost exclusively fall within the late summer or early fall months (August – September). The maximum monthly % water demand is compared to the following thresholds given in Table 6.1 to determine the assignment of subwatershed or intake stress.

Table 6.1 Surface Water Stress Thresholds

Stress Level Assignment Maximum Monthly % Water Demand

Low < 20%

Moderate 20% - 50%

Significant > 50%

An example of surface water stress for the Sydenham Lake subwatershed is provided below (see Table 6.2). A complete set of results, for all subwatersheds, is provided in Appendix E.

FR110740301_100223.docx 54 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment STRESS

Table 6.2 Sydenham Lake Subwatershed Surface Water Stress Assessment Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 30 8 21 0.7 0.8 3 4 Feb 31 7 24 0.6 0.8 3 3 Mar 101 38 63 0.7 0.8 1 1 Apr 81 32 49 0.7 0.8 1 2 May 23 7 16 0.7 0.8 4 5 Jun 7 2 5 0.7 0.8 13 16 Jul 2 0.4 2 0.7 0.9 42 50 Aug 0.9 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.9 101 122 Sep 1.4 0.3 1.1 0.7 0.8 62 74 Oct 7 2 5 0.7 0.8 13 16 Nov 36 8 28 0.7 0.8 2 3 Dec 45 16 29 0.7 0.8 2 3

6.2 Groundwater For groundwater, the calculation is completed on an average annual basis and a monthly basis. The annual average and maximum monthly % water demand numbers are compared to the thresholds given in Table 6.3 to determine the assignment of subwatershed or intake stress.

Table 6.3 Groundwater Stress Thresholds (Current Conditions)

Stress Level Assignment Average Annual Maximum Monthly

Low 0 – 10 % 0 – 25 %

Moderate > 10 %, <= 25 % > 25 %, <= 50 %

Significant > 25 % > 50 %

FR110740301_100223.docx 55 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment STRESS

A groundwater stress test case is provided below for the Collins Creek subwatershed (see Table 6.4).

Table 6.4 Collins Creek Subwatershed Groundwater Stress Assessment Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply Current Future Current Future 3 3 3 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 88,500 8,900 79,600 8930 8960 11 11 Feb 88,500 8,900 79,600 8930 8960 11 11 Mar 88,500 8,900 79,600 8930 8960 11 11 Apr 88,500 8,900 79,600 8930 8960 11 11 May 88,500 8,900 79,600 8870 8910 11 11 Jun 88,500 8,900 79,600 13700 13800 17 17 Jul 88,500 8,900 79,600 13700 13800 17 17 Aug 88,500 8,900 79,600 13700 13800 17 17 Sep 88,500 8,900 79,600 13600 13600 17 17 Oct 88,500 8,900 79,600 8870 8910 11 11 Nov 88,500 8,900 79,600 8930 8960 11 11 Dec 88,500 8,900 79,600 8930 8960 11 11 Annual 88,500 8,900 79,600 10500 10550 13 13

Within the Collins Creek subwatershed, there are no municipal groundwater takings. However, there are several other large takings within the subwatershed. The subwatershed shows “Low” stress on a monthly basis and a “Moderate” stress on an annual basis. 6.3 Final Stress Level Assignment The final stress level is assigned using the combination of the result of the percent water demand equation and other criteria set out in Part III.3 of the Technical Rules. Of particular importance is the elevation of a “Low” stress to a “Moderate” stress. The technical rules state that if the computed stress is “Low” and the percent water demand is within two percent of the threshold the final stress level assignment is “Moderate” if a sensitivity analysis on the input data suggests that the stress could be “Moderate”. For the purposes of this report the results of the sensitivity analysis are reported as a high or low uncertainty (with high suggesting a “Moderate” stress). 6.4 Stress and Uncertainty Summary The results of the sensitivity analyses described above provided the data necessary to assign an uncertainty category for each subwatershed. 6.4.1 Surface Water Table 6.5 provides a summary of critical stress and associated uncertainty (the risk assessment workbook is in Appendix F). Stressed subwatersheds are also identified in Figure 6.1. Subwatersheds can be divided into four categories:

FR110740301_100223.docx 56 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment STRESS

1. “Significant” or “Moderate” stress and low uncertainty Subwatersheds in this category include Wilton, Millhaven, Collins, Little Cataraqui, Lyn, Buells and Sydenham Lake. For each of these cases, there are historical observations that confirm the stress designation (see Table 6.6). 2. “Low” stress and low uncertainty Subwatersheds in this category include Cataraqui, Lyndhurst, all semi-gauged Gananoque and Cataraqui River subwatersheds, Cana and Lansdowne. For each of these cases, the demand is small relative to supply. The percent water demand calculation for the gauged Cataraqui showed significant stress. The gauge station has a short period of record (5 yrs). Due to the highly regulated nature of the system the median and the 10th percentile are nearly identical (approximately 9 mm in July). Based on this there is ample water available. 3. “Significant” or “Moderate” stress and high uncertainty Subwatersheds in this category include ungauged Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario, and St. Lawrence River. Demand is not small relative to supply however, there is significant uncertainty in both supply and demand. 4. “Low” stress and high uncertainty There are no subwatersheds in this category.

FR110740301_100223.docx 57 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment STRESS

Table 6.5 Surface Water Stress Summary Critical Stress

Class Subwatershed Current Future Future Uncertainty % Current Stress % Stress Rating Demand Category Demand Category Wilton 7 Moderate 7 Moderate low** Millhaven* 19 Moderate 21 Moderate low** Collins 26 Moderate 26 Moderate low** Little Cataraqui 1 Moderate 1 Moderate low** Gauged Cataraqui* 65 Low 65 Low low** Lyndhurst 7 Low 7 Low low Lyn 70 Significant 70 Significant low** Buells 45 Moderate 45 Moderate low** Above Delta 1 Low 1 Low low Semi- Above Outlet 3 Low 3 Low low gauged Above Marble 5 Low 5 Low low Gananoque Rock River Above 18 Low 18 Low low Gananoque Above Bedford 0.1 Low 0.1 Low low Mills Semi- gauged Above Jones Falls 0.5 Low 0.5 Low low Cataraqui Above Kingston 8 Low 8 Low low River Mills* Cana 1 Low 1 Low low Bay of Quinte 164 Significant 164 Significant high Lake Ontario 130 Significant 130 Significant high Ungauged St. Lawrence 40 Moderate 40 Moderate high

Lansdowne 1 Low 1 Low low Sydenham Lake* 101 Significant 122 Significant low* * Subwatershed includes a surface water supply Notes: ** See Table 6.6 for explanation of low uncertainty for Moderate and Significant Stress gauged subwatersheds

FR110740301_100223.docx 58 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment STRESS

Table 6.6 Justification of Low Uncertainty for Gauged Subwatersheds with Moderate or Significant Stress Designation Subwatershed Historical Observation

• From 1965 – 2003 the annual extreme identifies two years with 0.000 Wilton m3/s as the minimum flow. Each minimum flow condition lasted longer than one week. 3 Millhaven • From 1968 – 2003 the annual extreme identified one year 0.000 m /s as the minimum flow. This flow lasted five days. • August monthly average flow = 0.000 m3/s for 1978. Collins • From 1970 – 2003 the annual extreme identifies ten years with 0.000 m3/s as the minimum flow. • The period of record for this station is short and spotty during the Little Cataraqui summer months. However, there have been numerous physical observations of the creek going dry. 3 Lyn • From 1970 – 2007 the monthly average flow has been 0.000 m /s seven times. Buells • August monthly average flow = 0.000 m3/s for 2001. • Inflows into Sydenham Lake were assumed to be equal to Wilton Creek. From 1965 – 2003 the annual extreme identifies two years with 0.000 3 Sydenham Lake* m /s as the minimum flow. Each minimum flow condition lasted longer than one week. • Water levels recorded at the Sydenham Lake Dam show lake levels dropping over the summer period (when dam is fully closed). Note * The Sydenham Lake subwatershed is a part of the Millhaven Creek subwatershed (see Figure 3.22). This subwatershed contains the Sydenham Municipal Drinking Water System

FR110740301_100223.docx 59 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment STRESS

Figure 6.1 Surface Water Stress Subwatersheds

FR110740301_100223.docx 60 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment STRESS

6.4.2 Groundwater Table 6.7 provides a summary of critical stress and associated uncertainty (the risk assessment workbook is in Appendix F). Stressed subwatersheds are also identified in Figure 6.3. Subwatersheds can be divided into four categories: 1. “Significant” or “Moderate” stress and low uncertainty There is one subwatershed in this category, Lansdowne. For this case, there are historical observations that confirm the stress designation (see Table 6.8). 2. “Significant” or “Moderate” stress and high uncertainty Subwatersheds in this category include Collins, Gananoque River above Delta, ungauged Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario. Demand is not small relative to supply however, there is significant uncertainty in both supply and demand. 3. “Low” stress and low uncertainty All remaining subwatersheds fall into this category. For each of these cases, the demand is small relative to supply.

FR110740301_100223.docx 61 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment STRESS

Table 6.7 Groundwater Stress Summary % Water Demand & Critical Stress Levels Current Conditions Future Conditions Sub- Uncertainty Class Max Max watershed Annual Annual Rating Max Month Max Month Annual Stress Annual Stress Month Stress Month Stress Level Level Level Level

Wilton 0.6 0.4 Low Low 0.7 0.6 Low Low low

Millhaven 1.1 0.9 Low Low 1.2 0.9 Low Low low Collins 17 13 Low Moderate 17 13 Low Moderate low Little 0.2 0.2 Low Low 0.3 0.2 Low Low low Gauged Cataraqui Cataraqui 0.2 0.2 Low Low 0.3 0.2 Low Low low Lyndhurst 7 7 Low Low 7 7 Low Low low Lyn 6 4 Low Low 6 4 Low Low low Buells 0.5 0.4 Low Low 0.6 0.5 Low Low low

Above Delta 18 18 Low Moderate 18 18 Low Moderate high Above Outlet 0.5 0.5 Low Low 0.6 0.5 Low Low low Semi-gauged Above Marble Gananoque 7 5 Low Low 7 5 Low Low low Rock River Above 6 4 Low Low 6 4 Low Low low Gananoque

Above 0.2 0.2 Low Low 0.2 0.2 Low Low low Bedford Mills Above Jones Semi-gauged 0.2 0.2 Low Low 0.3 0.2 Low Low low Falls Cataraqui Above River Kingston 0.7 0.6 Low Low 0.8 0.6 Low Low low Mills Canaŧ 7 3 Low Low 8 4 Low Low low

Bay of Quinte 13 13 Low Moderate 13 13 Low Moderate high Significan Moderat Lake Ontario 26 26 Moderate 26 26 Significant high t e Ungauged St. Lawrence 6 6 Low Low 6 6 Low Low low

Lansdowneŧ 15 12 Low Moderate 18 14 Low Moderate low* Sydenham 0.7 0.5 Low Low 0.7 0.5 Low Low low Lake * See Table 6. for explanation of low uncertainty for Moderate and Significant Stress gauged subwatersheds. Notes: ŧ Cana and Lansdowne are located within the larger Cataraqui and Ungauged St. Lawrence River watersheds respectively: see Figures 4.1 and 4.2.

FR110740301_100223.docx 62 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment STRESS

Table 6.8 Justification of Low Uncertainty for Gauged Subwatersheds with Moderate or Significant Stress Designation Subwatershed Historical Observation

Lansdowne • A subjective interpretation of historical observations indicates a decreasing trend in groundwater levels at the well (see Figure 6.2).

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 10

11

12

13

Depth to Groundwater (m) Groundwater to Depth 14

Average Annual Depth to Groundwater 15

Figure 6.2 Lansdowne Groundwater Levels

FR110740301_100223.docx 63 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment STRESS

Figure 6.3 Groundwater Stress Subwatersheds

FR110740301_100223.docx 64 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment DATA GAPS/LIMITATIONS

7. DATA GAPS/LIMITATIONS This discussion is restricted to significant data and knowledge gaps, defined herein as those that affect the subwatershed stress classification (i.e. from low to moderate or high, or vice-versa). These significant data and knowledge gaps can be categorized as those that influence the estimates of i) Demand or ii) (Supply – Reserve). 7.1 Gaps in Demand • The PTTW database may contain out of date permits. • New permits may have been issued, but have not been entered into the database. • Actual demand values are not generally available, even though there is a legislated requirement to maintain and submit daily water taking records. • Estimated values for non-permitted demand are guesses at best. • The consumptive-use factors are not based on physical principles and can lead to unrealistic values of demand for some cases (e.g. reservoir filling, Recreational Wetlands). • Estimates of ecological demand are not explicitly included. • Demand monthly distributions do not adequately describe taking. 7.2 Gaps in (Supply – Reserve) for Surface Water • The Supply estimate and the Reserve estimate are based on median conditions and hence the calculated stress applies to a median year. However, to state that there is low stress in a median year does not imply low stress for all conditions. • Supply and Reserve estimates for some gauged areas are highly uncertain because of the short period of record. • Supply and Reserve estimates for future conditions for ungauged areas are uncertain because of the lack of tested and validated methodologies for their estimation, either a validated regional streamflow model or a validated monthly simulation model. • Supply and Reserve estimates for future conditions for ungauged, regulated areas are highly uncertain because of no guarantee of regulation policy for 25 years ahead. • For some basins the Reserve is equal to zero, thereby resulting in a larger (Supply – Reserve) term. • 10th percentile as a Reserve may not be associated to any “true” minimum sustainable flow. • There are several possible future supplies within the CSPA. They are not dealt with in any detail in this report. However, it should be noted that there is currently no gauging data near any of the proposed withdrawal locations. 7.3 Gaps in (Supply – Reserve) for Groundwater • The monthly Supply estimate is based on annual conditions and hence the calculated stress really applies to an average year. However, to state that there is low stress in an average year does not imply low stress for all conditions. The monthly Supply is set equal to the annual value divided by 12. This assumption

FR110740301_100223.docx 65 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment DATA GAPS/LIMITATIONS

simplifies the complex system of groundwater storage and seasonal variability in recharge. M. Robin (2008) has noted that: “The work done in the Raisin - South Nation shows that applying annual conditions at the monthly scale is not a valid approach. It fails to show stress conditions at various times of the year (especially mid-summer) and the use of the subwatershed scale fails to show areas of chronic stress within the subwatershed.” • The water budget approach focuses on the input (recharge) into the system rather than groundwater levels (the state of the system). Accordingly, potentially valuable information sources were not included in the assessment (i.e. pumping tests, sustainable yield evaluation, well characteristics, etc...). • A surface subwatershed was used to define the contributing area for recharge for all subwatersheds; i.e. the boundaries of the groundwater basin are not always coincident with surface subwatershed boundaries. • In general, there are no measurements of the two components of groundwater Supply (recharge and groundwater in). This results in high uncertainty. • There are very few long-term measurements of groundwater/aquifer levels.

FR110740301_100223.docx 66 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Summary 1. Long-term annual and monthly water budgets have been developed for the following sub-areas, which comprise the entire Cataraqui Source Protection Area: • eight gauged subwatersheds: Wilton Creek, Millhaven Creek, Collins Creek, Little Cataraqui Creek, Cataraqui River, Lyndhurst Creek, Lyn Creek and Buells Creek; • one semi-gauged subwatershed, Sydenham Lake (located in the Millhaven Creek subwatershed); • four semi-gauged subwatersheds in the Gananoque River system (above Delta Dam, above Outlet Dam, above Marble Rock Dam and above Gananoque Dam); • three semi-gauged subwatersheds in the Cataraqui River system (above Bedford Mills, above Jones Falls and above Kingston Mills); and • the collective of all ungauged subwatersheds that drain into each of the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River; • ungauged Cana and Lansdowne subwatersheds. 2. Stress analyses, on a monthly basis for surface sources and on both an annual and a monthly basis for groundwater supplies, have been developed for the same sub- areas listed in 1 above. 3. Uncertainty in % water demand for both surface and groundwater sources has been evaluated and either a high or low value of uncertainty has been determined for each subwatershed. 4. Data gaps and limitations, defined as those that affect the watershed stress evaluation, have been identified and summarized for three categories: • gaps in the estimation of demand, • gaps in the estimation of supply-reserve for surface water sources, and • gaps in the estimation of supply-reserve for groundwater sources. 8.2 Conclusions: Water Budget 1. The long-term annual water budgets for the eight gauged subwatersheds in the CSPA are quite similar; values for those cases that are assumed to be reliable are as follows: • estimated precipitation is about 930-970 mm, • estimated evapotranspiration is about 530-580 mm, • estimated streamflow is about 410-440 mm, and

• Gnet was assumed to be zero. 2. The uncertainties in the various terms of the long-term annual water budget are reflected in the magnitude of the residual term, which ranges from -7 to - 92 mm; the larger negative values are for subwatersheds where the uncertainty in the streamflow term is large, due either to a short record length or a possible bias in the rating curve. The fact that all residual values are negative is believed to be due to a negative bias in the value of station precipitation.

FR110740301_100223.docx 67 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3. The long-term monthly water budgets for the eight gauged subwatersheds in the CSPA can be characterized as follows. • The monthly distribution of precipitation is virtually identical for all subwatersheds. • The monthly distribution of evapotranspiration is quite similar for all subwatersheds. The small differences in evapotranspiration for June, July and August can be attributed to differences in SWHC and lake area. • The large differences in the monthly values of streamflow are due to differences in regulation, urbanization, and surficial geology. The values for Collins Creek (02 HM 005) are believed to be biased on the high side. • The monthly variation in storage, indicated by the ΔS term, is characterized by additions to storage from September through February and withdrawals from storage for the remainder of the year. 4. The uncertainties in the terms in the monthly water budget are larger that the uncertainties in the corresponding terms of the annual water budget. 8.3 Conclusions: Stress for Subwatersheds 1. All gauged subwatersheds (except Cataraqui and Lyndhurst), all ungauged subwatersheds except Cana and Lansdowne, and the Sydenham Lake subwatershed have a “Moderate” or “Significant” stress level for surface water. 2. These subwatersheds described in 1 can be rated as: • low uncertainty: Wilton, Millhaven, Collins, Little Cataraqui, Lyn, Buells and Sydenham Lake. All of these subwatersheds had historical observations that confirmed the stress category. • high uncertainty: All ungauged subwatersheds. The ungauged subwatersheds have uncertainty mainly in supply (due to representative subwatershed selection; however, most creeks in the area do go dry). 3. Only five subwatersheds have “Moderate” or “Significant” stress level for groundwater: Collins, Above Delta, Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario and Lansdowne. 4. The subwatersheds described in 3 can be rated as: • low uncertainty: Lansdowne due to historical observations that confirmed the stress. • high uncertainty: The remaining four due to uncertainty in demand.

FR110740301_100223.docx 68 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.4 Recommendations 1. A Tier 2 study should be conducted for the Sydenham Lake subwatershed. 2. A Tier 2 study should be conducted for the Lansdowne subwatershed. 3. Further studies should be conducted to confirm the validity of the consumptive use factors recommended in the guidelines for “Dewatering – Pits and Quarries”, “Miscellaneous – Wildlife Conservation”, “Industrial Power Production”, and “Recreational – Recreational Wetlands”. 4. Gauging should be re-instituted at discontinued gauge locations and held to WSC standards. 5. A study should be conducted to identify future municipal drinking water supply locations across the CSPA region. To determine if there is adequate supply, a monitoring program should be setup to obtain water level and discharge data at each site.

FR110740301_100223.docx 69 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment REFERENCES

9. REFERENCES Acres. 1977. Study of the operation of the Rideau-Cataraqui system. A report prepared for Parks Canada, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Smiths Falls, ON. Acres International Limited. 1994. Rideau canal water management study. A report prepared for Canadian Heritage Parks Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. CCL. 1982. Gananoque watershed management study, interim report, year two. Cumming- Cockburn & Associates Limited and The Lathem Group Inc. A report prepared for the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, Glenburnie, ON. Chapman and Putnam. 1984. The physiography of southern Ontario, third edition. Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, ON. CRCA. 1983. Interim watershed plan. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, Glenburnie, ON. CRCA. 2007. Source water protection water budget conceptual report. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, Glenburnie, ON. de Löe, R. (2002). Agricultural water use in Ontario by watershed; estimates for 2001. Report prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, ON, 14 p. Dillon. 1991. Millhaven Creek low flow study. A report prepared for the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, Glenburnie, ON. Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. J. D. Lee. 1968. Hydrological report on the Gananoque river watershed. Report prepared for the Lands and Surveys Branch and the Conservation Authorities Branch, Department of Energy and Resources Management, Toronto, ON. Hogg, W. 2008. Personal communication. Maidment, D.R. (ed.). 1993. Handbook of hydrology. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. Malroz. 2007. Lansdowne wellhead protection study supplement. Report prepared for the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority by Malroz Engineering Incorporated, Kingston, ON. McKenney, D.W., P. Papadopal, K. Campbell, K. Lawrence and M. Hutchinson. 2006. Spatial Models of Canada and North America-wide 1971/2000 minimum and maximum temperature, total precipitation and derived bioclimatic variables. Frontline Forestry Research Applications: Technical Note 106. Canadian Forestry Service, Sault Ste. Marie, ON.

FR110740301_100223.docx 70 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment REFERENCES

MOE. 2006. Water well information system database. Ontario Ministry of Environment, Toronto, ON. MOE. 2007. Assessment report: guidance module 7. Water budget and water quantity risk assessment. Ontario Ministry of Environment, Toronto, ON. MOEE. 1995. Hydrogeological technical information requirements for land development applications. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, Toronto, ON. Moin, S.M.A. and M.A. Shaw. 1986. Regional flood frequency analysis for Ontario streams. Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada, Burlington, ON. Neff, B.P., Piggott, A.R. and L.M. Fuller. 2005a. Base flow in the Great Lakes Basin. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5284, 20 p. Neff, B.P., Day S.M., Piggott, A.R. and R.A. Sheets. 2005b. Estimation of shallow ground-water recharge in the Great Lakes Basin. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5217, 23 p. OMAFRA. 2007. Number of cattle by county, 2007. Ontario Ministry of Agricultural, Food & Affairs, http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/livestock/ctycattle07.htm, Toronto, ON. OMM. 1996. Township of Pittsburgh hydrogeological study. Report prepared for the Township of Pittsburgh by Oliver, Mangione, McCalla & Associates, Limited, Nepean, ON. Robin, M. 2008. Personal communication. Thornthwaite, C.W. and J.R. Mather. 1955. Instructions and tables for computing potential evapotranspiration and the water balance. Drexel Institute of Technology, Laboratory of Climatology. Centreton, NJ. Trow. 2007. Western region groundwater study, volume IV, Cana subdivision wellhead protection study. Report prepared for the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority by Malroz Engineering Incorporated, Kingston, ON. Turc, L. 1961. Estimation of irrigation water requirements, potential evapotranspiration: a simple climatic formula evolved up to date. Annals of Agronomy, 12: 13-14. Viessman, W. Jr. and G.L. Lewis. 1996. Introduction to hydrology fourth edition. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York, NY.

FR110740301_100223.docx 71 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A LONG-TERM WATER BUDGETS FOR GANANOQUE RIVER SUBWATERSHEDS

FR110740301_091027.docx 72 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX A

The Gananoque River is a large basin in the CRCA which has no long-term continuous WSC gauging station. There are historic WSC streamflow data (1971- 1978, 2005-2007) at one location, Lyndhurst Creek at Lyndhurst (02 MA 001 – recently put back online). There are eight control structures within the system; available data include log settings, turbine flows, and water levels. These data are in various formats and in general not available in digital format; hence, they are of little use for present purposes. It is suggested that these data be digitized in order that they can be used to develop an effective water quantity control strategy. It is also suggested that the monitoring techniques at these structures be modernized. The system is extensively regulated. The degree of regulation varies widely throughout. Some information on storage is available (CCL, 1982); it was used in the development of water budgets for four locations on the Gananoque River: above Delta Dam, above Outlet Dam, above Marble Rock Dam and above Gananoque Dam. As was done for the gauged subwatersheds, long-term mean annual precipitation was taken from the Natural Resource Canada (NRCan) database for the period 1971 to 2000 and long-term mean annual evapotranspiration (ET) was taken from the AgCanada database (Penman’s method) and modified with lake evaporation. Streamflow for the subwatersheds was determined as follows: • streamflow (in millimetres) for Gananoque River above Delta Dam was assumed to equal the Lyndhurst Creek at Lyndhurst WSC gauge (in millimetres); • streamflow for Gananoque River above Gananoque Dam was estimated using monthly streamflow from J.D. Lee (1968) and modified using Moin & Shaw (1986); • streamflow (in millimetres) for Gananoque River above Marble Rock Dam was assumed to equal the Gananoque River above Gananoque Dam streamflow (in millimetres); and • streamflow for Gananoque River above Outlet Dam was back-calculated using the above data and setting all other ungauged areas streamflow (in millimetres) to the Lyndhurst Creek at Lyndhurst WSC gauge. Figure A.1 shows the plan area of the Gananoque River system. The long-term monthly water budgets for the four subwatersheds are presented in Tables A.1-A.4 and Figures A.2-A.5.

FR110740301_091027.docx 73 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX A

Figure A.1 Gananoque River System

FR110740301_091027.docx 74 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX A

Table A.1 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Delta Dam

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 74 0 0 37 37 Feb 60 0 0 31 29 Mar 71 14 0 107 -50 Apr 74 61 0 112 -99 May 75 98 0 43 -66 Jun 76 107 0 12 -43 Jul 77 104 0 5 -32 Aug 84 89 0 4 -9 Sep 95 66 0 6 23 Oct 81 32 0 17 32 Nov 86 9 0 26 51 Dec 85 0 0 41 44 Annual 938 580 0 441

150

100

50 P ET 0 Q Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec dS Depth (mm) G -50

-100

-150

Figure A.2 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Delta Dam

FR110740301_091027.docx 75 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX A

Table A.2 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Outlet Dam

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 75 0 0 23 52 Feb 60 0 0 34 26 Mar 71 14 0 95 -38 Apr 75 61 0 117 -104 May 76 98 0 64 -86 Jun 76 107 0 16 -48 Jul 78 102 0 7 -32 Aug 85 89 0 12 -16 Sep 97 67 0 22 9 Oct 82 32 0 4 46 Nov 88 9 0 4 75 Dec 86 0 0 21 65 Annual 949 580 0 420

150

100

50 P ET 0 Q Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec dS Depth (mm) Depth G -50

-100

-150

Figure A.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Outlet Dam

FR110740301_091027.docx 76 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX A

Table A.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Marble Rock Dam

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 75 0 0 32 43 Feb 60 0 0 32 28 Mar 71 14 0 102 -45 Apr 75 61 0 113 -99 May 76 98 0 50 -73 Jun 75 107 0 13 -46 Jul 76 103 0 6 -33 Aug 84 89 0 7 -12 Sep 97 67 0 11 19 Oct 82 32 0 12 37 Nov 89 9 0 18 62 Dec 86 0 0 34 52 Annual 946 581 0 430

150

100

50 P ET 0 Q Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec dS Depth (mm) Depth G -50

-100

-150

Figure A.4 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Marble Rock Dam

FR110740301_091027.docx 77 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX A

Table A.4 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Gananoque Dam

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 76 0 0 32 44 Feb 61 0 0 32 29 Mar 71 14 0 102 -45 Apr 75 61 0 113 -99 May 77 98 0 50 -71 Jun 75 107 0 13 -45 Jul 75 102 0 6 -34 Aug 84 89 0 7 -12 Sep 97 67 0 11 19 Oct 82 32 0 12 37 Nov 90 9 0 18 63 Dec 86 0 0 34 52 Annual 949 580 0 430

150

100

50 P ET 0 Q Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec dS Depth (mm) Depth G -50

-100

-150

Figure A.5 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Gananoque River Above Gananoque Dam

FR110740301_091027.docx 78 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B LONG-TERM WATER BUDGETS FOR CATARAQUI RIVER SUBWATERSHEDS*

NOTE: * Cana subwatershed is fully contained in the Cataraqui River above Kingston Mills Subwatershed The Joyceville I water supply is located in the Cataraqui River above Kingston Mills Subwatershed

FR110740301_091027.docx 79 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX B

The Cataraqui River is a large basin in the CSPA, which has no current WSC gauging station. There are historic WSC streamflow data (1978-1997) at one location, Cataraqui River at Chaffeys Locks (02 MA 002). There are 20 control structures within the system; available data include log settings, turbine flows, and water levels. These data are in various formats and in general not available in digital format; hence, they are of little use for present purposes. It is suggested that these data be digitized in order that they can be used to develop an effective water quantity control strategy. It is also suggested that the monitoring techniques at these structures be modernized. The system is extensively regulated. The degree of regulation varies widely throughout. Some information on storage is available (Acres, 1977 and Acres International Limited, 1994); it was used to develop water budgets for three locations on the Cataraqui River: above Bedford Mills, above Jones Falls and above Kingston Mills. As was done for the gauged subwatersheds, long-term mean annual precipitation was taken from the Natural Resource Canada (NRCan) database for the period 1971 to 2000 and long-term mean annual evapotranspiration (ET) was taken from the AgCanada database (Penman’s method) and modified with lake evaporation. Streamflow for the subwatersheds was determined as follows: • streamflow for Cataraqui River above Kingston Mills was taken from Acres International Limited (1994); and • streamflow for Cataraqui River above Jones Falls was estimated using data from Acres International Limited (1994); • streamflow for Cataraqui River above Bedford Mills was back-calculated using streamflow from Chaffeys Locks, storage and level for Newboro Lake (Acres International Limited, 1994) and local inflows simulated using data for Salmon River at Shannonville (a subwatershed of similar size and same climatic-geologic region). Figure B.1 shows the plan area of the Cataraqui River system. The long-term monthly water budgets for the Cataraqui subwatersheds are presented in Tables B.1 – B.3 and Figures B.2 – B.4.

FR110740301_091027.docx 80 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX B

Figure B.1 Cataraqui River System

FR110740301_091027.docx 81 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX B

Table B.1 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River above Kingston Mills

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 77 0 0 42 35 Feb 60 0 0 46 14 Mar 71 14 0 49 8 Apr 74 61 0 25 -12 May 76 99 0 29 -52 Jun 76 106 0 19 -49 Jul 72 99 0 11 -38 Aug 80 88 0 15 -24 Sep 93 67 0 19 6 Oct 79 33 0 22 24 Nov 87 9 0 24 55 Dec 84 0 0 38 45 Annual 929 577 0 340

120

100

80

60

40 P ET 20 Q dS Depth (mm) Depth 0 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -20

-40

-60

-80

Figure B.2 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River above Kingston Mills

FR110740301_091027.docx 82 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX B

Table B.2 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River above Jones Falls

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 77 0 0 36 41 Feb 60 0 0 32 28 Mar 71 14 0 41 16 Apr 74 61 0 45 -32 May 76 100 0 32 -56 Jun 76 106 0 28 -58 Jul 72 100 0 29 -56 Aug 81 89 0 29 -37 Sep 93 67 0 28 -2 Oct 80 34 0 31 15 Nov 88 9 0 32 47 Dec 84 0 0 36 48 Annual 932 579 0 398

120

100

80

60

40 P ET 20 Q dS Depth (mm) Depth 0 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -20

-40

-60

-80

Figure B.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River above Jones Falls

FR110740301_091027.docx 83 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX B

Table B.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River above Bedford Mills

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Jan 78 0 0 45 33 Feb 60 0 0 79 -19 Mar 72 14 0 42 17 Apr 74 61 0 26 -13 May 76 100 0 59 -83 Jun 76 105 0 27 -55 Jul 71 96 0 21 -46 Aug 80 87 0 24 -32 Sep 93 67 0 57 -31 Oct 79 34 0 52 -6 Nov 88 9 0 20 59 Dec 85 0 0 11 74 Annual 932 573 0 463

150

100

50 P ET Q dS Depth (mm) 0 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

-50

-100

Figure B.4 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Cataraqui River above Bedford Mills

FR110740301_091027.docx 84 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C LONG-TERM WATER BUDGETS FOR SUBWATERSHEDS DRAINING TO THE BAY OF QUINTE, LAKE ONTARIO AND THE ST. LAWRENCE RIVER*

Note: * Lansdowne subwatershed is fully contained within the ungauged St. Lawrence subwatersheds

FR110740301_091027.docx 85 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX C

A number of subwatersheds that drain to the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River are not gauged. As was done for the gauged subwatersheds, long-term mean annual precipitation was taken from the Natural Resource Canada (NRCan) database for the period 1971 to 2000 and long-term mean annual evapotranspiration (ET) was taken from the AgCanada database (Penman’s method) and modified with lake evaporation. Streamflow for the subwatersheds was determined as follows. • Streamflow for the Bay of Quinte subwatersheds was taken to be that of Wilton Creek. • Streamflow for the Lake Ontario subwatersheds was taken to be that of Wilton Creek. • Streamflow for the St. Lawrence River subwatersheds was taken to be that of Lyn Creek. Figure C.1 shows the plan area of all the ungauged areas draining into the Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River. The long-term monthly water budgets for these areas are presented in Tables C.1 – C.3 and Figures C.2 – C.4.

FR110740301_091027.docx 86 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX C

Figure C.1 Bay of Quinte, Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence Ungauged Subwatersheds

FR110740301_091027.docx 87 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX C

Table C.1 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Bay of Quinte Subwatersheds

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 77 0 0 41 36 Feb 63 0 0 38 25 Mar 72 14 0 95 -36 Apr 73 61 0 81 -69 May 75 96 0 28 -49 Jun 68 104 0 14 -51 Jul 65 98 0 4 -37 Aug 73 85 0 3 -16 Sep 82 66 0 8 8 Oct 75 30 0 16 29 Nov 87 9 0 41 37 Dec 82 0 0 51 31 Annual 892 564 0 420

120

100

80

60

40 P ET 20 Q dS Depth (mm) Depth 0 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -20

-40

-60

-80

Figure C.2 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Bay of Quinte Subwatersheds

FR110740301_091027.docx 88 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX C

Table C.2 Long Term Monthly Water Budget for Lake Ontario Subwatersheds

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 78 0 0 41 37 Feb 64 0 0 38 26 Mar 72 14 0 95 -36 Apr 75 61 0 81 -67 May 76 96 0 28 -48 Jun 69 101 0 14 -47 Jul 66 92 0 4 -30 Aug 75 83 0 3 -11 Sep 84 66 0 8 10 Oct 78 31 0 16 31 Nov 89 9 0 41 39 Dec 83 0 0 51 32 Annual 909 553 0 420

120

100

80

60

40 P ET 20 Q dS Depth (mm) Depth 0 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec -20

-40

-60

-80

Figure C.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for Lake Ontario Subwatersheds

FR110740301_091027.docx 89 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX C

Table C.3 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for St. Lawrence Subwatersheds

Month P ET Gnet Q ΔS (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Jan 75 0 0 38 37 Feb 61 0 0 36 25 Mar 69 14 0 94 -39 Apr 75 61 0 101 -88 May 76 96 0 29 -49 Jun 70 104 0 12 -46 Jul 71 98 0 4 -30 Aug 78 85 0 3 -10 Sep 86 66 0 5 15 Oct 78 30 0 18 30 Nov 88 9 0 37 43 Dec 81 0 0 40 41 Annual 908 563 0 415

150

100

50 P ET Q dS Depth (mm) Depth 0 G Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

-50

-100

Figure C.4 Long-Term Monthly Water Budget for St. Lawrence Subwatersheds

FR110740301_091027.docx 90 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D PTTW SUMMARY

FR110740301_091027.docx 91 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX D

Table D.1 PTTW Summary Permit # Withdrawal Source Sector Sub-Sector Consumptive Net Taking Days Subwatershed Source vs. Factor (m3/year) Active Release *

03-P-4063 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Wilton Creek 03-P-4063 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Wilton Creek 03-P-4063 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Wilton Creek 4840-629P57 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Wilton Creek 4840-629P57 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Wilton Creek 4840-629P57 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Wilton Creek 4840-629P57 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Wilton Creek 4840-629P57 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Wilton Creek 4840-629P57 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Wilton Creek 4840-629P57 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Wilton Creek 88-P-4029 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 150 Wilton Creek 97-P-4060 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Wilton Creek 03-P-4091 G/S G Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 71,482 365 Millhaven Creek 89-P-4065 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 31,830 14 Millhaven Creek 04-P-4041 S/G S Water Supply Municipal 0.2 470,850 365 Sydenham Lake 88-P-4028 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 150 Sydenham Lake 95-P-4042 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Sydenham Lake 03-P-4043 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Collins Creek 64-P-0004 G/S G Commercial Other - Commercial 1 116,150 365 Collins Creek 81-P-4043 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 273 Collins Creek 87-P-4105 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 273 Collins Creek 87-P-4117 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 273 Collins Creek 89-P-4093 S/S S Agricultural Other - Agricultural 0.8 64,939 120 Collins Creek 90-P-4079 S/S S Recreational Fish Ponds 0.25 82,966 365 Collins Creek 91-P-4025 G/S G Dewatering Pits and Quarries 0.25 995,574 365 Collins Creek 91-P-4025 G/S G Dewatering Pits and Quarries 0.25 248,894 365 Collins Creek

FR110740301_091027.docx 92 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX D

Permit # Withdrawal Source Sector Sub-Sector Consumptive Net Taking Days Subwatershed Source vs. Factor (m3/year) Active Release *

94-P-4065 G/S G Commercial Other - Commercial 1 1,792,033 0 Collins Creek 97-P-4019 G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 175,680 180 Collins Creek 97-P-4019 G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 31,903 180 Collins Creek 97-P-4019 G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 11,946 365 Collins Creek 97-P-4019 G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 175,680 180 Collins Creek 97-P-4019 G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 175,680 180 Collins Creek 97-P-4019 G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 335 365 Collins Creek 3556-6EVLAD S/S S Institutional Other - Institutional 0.25 109,500 365 Above Kingston Mills 7825-62DJ2Y S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 01-P-4048 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 01-P-4048 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 01-P-4048 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 01-P-4048 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 01-P-4048 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 01-P-4048 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 01-P-4048 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 02-P-4027 S/S S Water Supply Campgrounds 0.2 1,391 150 Above Kingston Mills 02-P-4027 G/S G Water Supply Campgrounds 0.2 5,982 182 Above Kingston Mills 02-P-4027 G/S G Water Supply Campgrounds 0.2 9,738 182 Above Kingston Mills 02-P-4027 G/S G Water Supply Campgrounds 0.2 11,824 182 Above Kingston Mills 02-P-4027 G/S G Water Supply Campgrounds 0.2 9,042 182 Above Kingston Mills 01-P-4019 S/S S Water Supply Communal 0.2 87,600 365 Above Kingston Mills 01-P-4055 G/S G Water Supply Communal 0.2 47,558 365 Above Kingston Mills 01-P-4055 G/S G Water Supply Communal 0.2 52,566 365 Above Kingston Mills 93-P-4047 G/S G Water Supply Municipal 0.2 41,482 365 Above Kingston Mills 5570-6BPHP3 S/S S Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 0.8 89,280 120 Above Kingston Mills 92-P-4058 S/S S Commercial Other - Commercial 1 248,894 0 Above Kingston Mills

FR110740301_091027.docx 93 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX D

Permit # Withdrawal Source Sector Sub-Sector Consumptive Net Taking Days Subwatershed Source vs. Factor (m3/year) Active Release *

84-P-4018 S/S S Construction Other - Construction 1 1,666,079 0 Above Kingston Mills 90-P-4006 G/S G Institutional Other - Institutional 0.25 82,965 60 Above Kingston Mills 7303-6E3HXC S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 7324-6E3J3R S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 7656-6E3KMQ S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 5010-6EMQ8U S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 0828-6EJMRN S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 00-P-4027 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 4688-6F3JJY S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 7502-6ENNND S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 3460-6BZPNN S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Kingston Mills 92-P-4089 S/S S Recreational Other - Recreational 0.1 41,482 365 Above Kingston Mills 01-P-4051 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Cataraqui River 83-P-4023 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 150 Cataraqui River 7757-6EJK5A S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Cataraqui River 88-P-4031 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 150 Cataraqui River 8206-6EJMH8 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Cataraqui River 97-P-4110 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 186,062 365 Cataraqui River 97-P-4110 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 62,021 365 Cataraqui River 97-P-4110 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 99,233 365 Cataraqui River 97-P-4110 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 74,425 365 Cataraqui River 97-P-4110 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 49,617 365 Cataraqui River 97-P-4110 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 41,347 365 Cataraqui River 97-P-4110 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 24,188 365 Cataraqui River 4785-6CFJJ8 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Bedford Mills 03-P-4048 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Above Gananoque Dam 03-P-4048 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Above Gananoque Dam

FR110740301_091027.docx 94 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX D

Permit # Withdrawal Source Sector Sub-Sector Consumptive Net Taking Days Subwatershed Source vs. Factor (m3/year) Active Release *

03-P-4048 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Above Gananoque Dam 03-P-4048 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Above Gananoque Dam 03-P-4059 G/S G Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Above Gananoque Dam 80-P-4009 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 150 Above Gananoque Dam 2223-6ERR58 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Gananoque Dam 88-P-4013 S/S S Remediation Other - Remediation 0.25 0 0 Above Gananoque Dam 92-P-4037 G/S G Agricultural Market Gardens / Flowers 0.9 12,176 365 Above Gananoque Dam 93-P-4026 S/S S Industrial Pipeline Testing 0.25 1,576,800 20 Above Gananoque Dam 97-P-4066 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Above Gananoque Dam 97-P-4082 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Gananoque Dam 7845-6EMRFT S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Gananoque Dam 02-P-4051 G/S G Industrial Aggregate Washing 0.25 1,574,606 270 Above Marble Dam 02-P-4051 G/S G Industrial Aggregate Washing 0.25 218,540 270 Above Marble Dam 02-P-4051 G/S G Industrial Aggregate Washing 0.25 1,574,606 270 Above Marble Dam 8084-6EJNDY S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Marble Dam 4762-6F4GXX S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Marble Dam 4762-6F4GXX S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Marble Dam 98-P-4071 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Marble Dam 99-P-4020 S/S S Miscellaneous Other - Miscellaneous 0.1 456,707 365 Above Marble Dam 2014-6EVQCX S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lyndhurst Creek 92-P-4087 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 150 Lyndhurst Creek 2841-6E2L86 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lyndhurst Creek 0586-6E2LFZ S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lyndhurst Creek 5074-6CALBK S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lyndhurst Creek 86-P-4031 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 273 Lyndhurst Creek 95-P-4058 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lyndhurst Creek 98-P-4083 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 18,635 85 Lyndhurst Creek

FR110740301_091027.docx 95 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX D

Permit # Withdrawal Source Sector Sub-Sector Consumptive Net Taking Days Subwatershed Source vs. Factor (m3/year) Active Release *

98-P-4083 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 46,587 50 Lyndhurst Creek 95-P-4014 G/S G Remediation Groundwater 0.5 105,120 365 Lyndhurst Creek 01-P-4050 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lyndhurst Creek 01-P-4050 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lyndhurst Creek 01-P-4050 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lyndhurst Creek 01-P-4050 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lyndhurst Creek 0167-6F3HG7 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lyndhurst Creek 6354-6E2JBM S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lyndhurst Creek 95-P-4065 G/S G Remediation Groundwater 0.5 105,120 365 Lyndhurst Creek 2446-6EHLC2 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Delta Dam 3082-6BMN2T S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Delta Dam 4125-6A3QDT G/S G Dewatering Other - Dewatering 0.25 2,867,253 365 Above Delta Dam 8855-6EMQPA S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Outlet Dam 89-P-4021 S/S S Commercial Other - Commercial 1 165,929 0 Above Outlet Dam 89-P-4021 S/S S Commercial Other - Commercial 1 82,965 0 Above Outlet Dam 90-P-4011 G/S G Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 48,572 365 Above Outlet Dam 91-P-4042 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Outlet Dam 91-P-4043 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Outlet Dam 91-P-4044 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Outlet Dam 5011-6EJLCT S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Outlet Dam 2284-6F3NCD S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Outlet Dam 97-P-4056 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Outlet Dam 2724-6F3NJ3 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Outlet Dam 8542-6KRMWW G/S G Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 48,572 365 Above Outlet Dam 1678-6CVPCD S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Above Outlet Dam 89-P-4017c S/S S Commercial Other - Commercial 1 1,665,860 0 Lyn Creek 02-P-4009 G/S G Agricultural Other - Agricultural 0.8 2,217 265 Lyn Creek

FR110740301_091027.docx 96 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX D

Permit # Withdrawal Source Sector Sub-Sector Consumptive Net Taking Days Subwatershed Source vs. Factor (m3/year) Active Release *

02-P-4009 G/S G Agricultural Other - Agricultural 0.8 3,007 265 Lyn Creek 02-P-4009 G/S G Agricultural Other - Agricultural 0.8 368 365 Lyn Creek 02-P-4009 G/S G Agricultural Other - Agricultural 0.8 748 365 Lyn Creek 02-P-4042 G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 55,461 210 Lyn Creek 02-P-4042 G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 22,184 210 Lyn Creek 02-P-4042 G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 22,184 210 Lyn Creek 02-P-4042 G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 22,184 210 Lyn Creek 03-p-4031 G/S G Dewatering Construction 0.25 0 0 Lyn Creek 67-P-0519 G/S G Commercial Other - Commercial 1 124,447 365 Lyn Creek 89-P-4016 S/S S Commercial Other - Commercial 1 331,865 0 Lyn Creek 89-P-4026 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 13,815 0 Lyn Creek 89-P-4026 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 13,815 0 Lyn Creek 98-P-4051 G/S G Remediation Groundwater 0.5 88,407 365 Lyn Creek 98-P-4051 G/S G Remediation Groundwater 0.5 88,407 365 Lyn Creek 98-P-4051 G/S G Remediation Groundwater 0.5 88,407 365 Lyn Creek 85-P-4063 S/S S Remediation Other - Remediation 0.25 1,095,000 365 Buells Creek 66-P-0347 S/S S Miscellaneous Other - Miscellaneous 1 0 0 Buells Creek 94-P-4039 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 150 Buells Creek 02-P-4060 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4060 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4060 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4060 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4060 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4060 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4060 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4060 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4060 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged

FR110740301_091027.docx 97 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX D

Permit # Withdrawal Source Sector Sub-Sector Consumptive Net Taking Days Subwatershed Source vs. Factor (m3/year) Active Release *

02-P-4060 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 80-P-4005 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 150 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 80-P-4011 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 273 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 80-P-4017 S/S S Miscellaneous Other - Miscellaneous 1 248,894 0 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 86-P-4030 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 273 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4063 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4063 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4063 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4063 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4063 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4063 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4063 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4063 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 64-P-0136 G/S G Commercial Other - Commercial 1 0 0 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 03-P-4066 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 03-P-4066 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 03-P-4066 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 03-P-4066 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 03-P-4066 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 00-P-4019 S/S S Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 0.8 487,040 24 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 00-P-4019 S/S S Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 0.8 325 240 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 00-P-4045 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 139,762 108 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 81-P-4004 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 273 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 82-P-4025 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 273 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 1100-5ZMKKE G/S G Dewatering Pits and Quarries 0.25 105,120 270 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 73-P-0083C G/S G Dewatering Pits and Quarries 0.25 5,017,693 365 Bay of Quinte Ungauged 02-P-4016 G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 15,860 180 Lake Ontario Ungauged

FR110740301_091027.docx 98 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX D

Permit # Withdrawal Source Sector Sub-Sector Consumptive Net Taking Days Subwatershed Source vs. Factor (m3/year) Active Release *

02-P-4016 G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 6,324 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 02-P-4016 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 28,694 120 Lake Ontario Ungauged 83-P-4014 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 273 Lake Ontario Ungauged 90-P-4050 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 155,291 120 Lake Ontario Ungauged 91-P-4021 G/S G Dewatering Pits and Quarries 0.25 3,784,320 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 03-P-4037 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 Lake Ontario Ungauged 81-P-4011 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 6,637 200 Lake Ontario Ungauged 81-P-4011 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 3,319 200 Lake Ontario Ungauged 81-P-4011 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 3,319 200 Lake Ontario Ungauged 87-P-4008 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 273 Lake Ontario Ungauged 88-P-4022 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 273 Lake Ontario Ungauged 91-P-4057 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 280 Lake Ontario Ungauged 99-P-4021 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 465,874 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 99-P-4021 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 335,429 300 Lake Ontario Ungauged 00-P-4004 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 85-P-4028 G/S G Dewatering Pits and Quarries 0.25 1,433,627 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 98-P-4100 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 92-P-4079 G/S G Water Supply Municipal 0.2 49,779 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 98-P-4100 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 98-P-4100 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 98-P-4100 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 98-P-4100 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 98-P-4100 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 00-P-4107 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 65,587 180 Lake Ontario Ungauged 00-P-4060 G/S G Dewatering Pits and Quarries 0.25 3,784,320 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 97-P-4109 G/S G Remediation Groundwater 0.5 262,800 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 97-P-4109 G/S G Remediation Groundwater 0.5 365,000 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged

FR110740301_091027.docx 99 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX D

Permit # Withdrawal Source Sector Sub-Sector Consumptive Net Taking Days Subwatershed Source vs. Factor (m3/year) Active Release *

97-P-4109 G/S G Remediation Groundwater 0.5 445,300 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 97-P-4109 G/S G Remediation Groundwater 0.5 262,800 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 97-P-4132 G/S G Remediation Groundwater 0.5 365,000 365 Lake Ontario Ungauged 90-P-4077 S/S S Commercial Aquaculture 0.1 415 200 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 90-P-4077 S/S S Commercial Aquaculture 0.1 1,659 50 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 88-P-4084 G/S G Water Supply Municipal 0.2 262800 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 88-P-4084 G/S G Water Supply Municipal 0.2 262800 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 90-P-4017 G/S G Dewatering Pits and Quarries 0.25 1,433,627 50 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 89-P-4023 S/S S Commercial Other - Commercial 1 82,965 0 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 82-P-4020 G/S G Dewatering Pits and Quarries 0.25 358,407 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 88-P-4092 G/S G Dewatering Pits and Quarries 0.25 5,475 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 89-P-4018 S/S S Commercial Other - Commercial 1 165,932 0 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 92-P-4015 G/S G Miscellaneous Other - Miscellaneous 1 367,920 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 92-P-4035 G/S G Dewatering Pits and Quarries 0.25 497,787 30 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 67-P-0518 G/S G Commercial Other - Commercial 1 116,150 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 67-P-0519 G/S G Commercial Other - Commercial 1 124,447 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 92-P-4032 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 150 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 97-P-4062 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 86-P-4065 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 273 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 86-P-4068 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 150 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 01-P-4045 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 01-P-4044 S/S S Recreational Wetlands 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 90-P-4077 S/S S Commercial Aquaculture 0.1 415 200 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 90-P-4077 S/S S Commercial Aquaculture 0.1 1,659 50 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 92-P-4083 S/S S Recreational Other - Recreational 0.1 2,033 0 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 3432-6E2GYM S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 3432-6E2GYM S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged

FR110740301_091027.docx 100 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX D

Permit # Withdrawal Source Sector Sub-Sector Consumptive Net Taking Days Subwatershed Source vs. Factor (m3/year) Active Release *

3432-6E2GYM S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 3432-6E2GYM S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 3432-6E2GYM S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 3432-6E2GYM S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 3432-6E2GYM S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 90-P-4072 S/S S Recreational Aesthetics 0.25 31,006 0 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 89-P-4029 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 8,097 0 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 89-P-4029 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 7,965 0 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 5306-6ZNRYB S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 30,375 73 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 5306-6ZNRYB G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 114 10 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 5306-6ZNRYB G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 590 190 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 8585-6NJQ3U G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 4,792 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 8585-6NJQ3U S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 167,715 10 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 8585-6NJQ3U G/S G Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 71,878 214 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 8585-6NJQ3U S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 139,762 214 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 8246-6YZPTD G/S G Dewatering Construction 0.3 157,680 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged Construction 8246-6YZPTD G/S G Dewatering Construction 0.3 262,800 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged Construction 8246-6YZPTD G/S G Dewatering Construction 0.3 262,800 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged Construction 8246-6YZPTD G/S G Dewatering Construction 0.3 210,240 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged Construction 00-P-4026 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 27,952 135 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 00-P-4098 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 41,929 180 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 00-P-4098 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 93,175 180 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 02-P-4013 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 02-P-4013 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 02-P-4013 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged

FR110740301_091027.docx 101 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX D

Permit # Withdrawal Source Sector Sub-Sector Consumptive Net Taking Days Subwatershed Source vs. Factor (m3/year) Active Release *

02-P-4013 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 02-P-4013 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 365 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 86-P-4032 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 273 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 87-P-4024 G/S G Industrial Other - Industrial 0.25 78,849 260 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 89-P-4067 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 150 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 96-P-4097 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 0 St. Lawrence River Ungauged 96-P-4116 S/S S Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 0 0 275 St. Lawrence River Ungauged * Withdrawal Source vs. Release column identifies the withdrawal source (surface or ground water) and the release location (surface or ground water). For example, the withdrawal of water at Lansdowne is from groundwater, but the release is to sewage lagoons, and then a stream.

FR110740301_091027.docx 102 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX D

Table D.2 PTTW Summary for Takings Outside of Water Budget Coverage Permit # Withdrawal Source Sector Sub-Sector Consumptive Net Taking Days Subwatershed Source vs. Factor (m3/year) Active Release *

01-P-4012 S/S S Recreational Aesthetics 0.25 207,411 210 St. Lawrence River Direct 8577-5ZCP45 S/S S Water Supply Municipal 0.2 2,657,200 365 St. Lawrence River Direct 85-P-4065 S/S S Water Supply Municipal 0.2 746,060 365 St. Lawrence River Direct 89-P-4013 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 89,448 120 St. Lawrence River Direct 94-P-4027 S/S S Miscellaneous Other - Miscellaneous 1 20,907 120 St. Lawrence River Direct 94-P-4043 S/S S Commercial Mall / Business 0.25 2,874 100 St. Lawrence River Direct 95-P-4056 S/S S Industrial Cooling Water 0.25 829,645 365 St. Lawrence River Direct 80-P-4013 S/S S Water Supply Other - Water Supply 0.2 66,372 45 Bay of Quinte Direct 2843-626J3U S/S S Agricultural Tender Fruit 0.8 99,125 25 Bay of Quinte Direct 99-P-4037 S/S S Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 0.8 135,170 180 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 68-P-0154 S/S S Agricultural Other - Agricultural 0.8 32,018 21 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 01-P-4022 S/S S Agricultural Tender Fruit 0.8 16,316 77 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 00-P-4045 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 116,469 108 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 0653-5ZDQYV S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 163,056 180 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 99-P-4021 S/S S Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 0.7 335,429 300 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 04-P-4046 S/S S Industrial Cooling Water 0.25 14,920,470 365 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 5635-5ZCQ6U S/S S Industrial Cooling Water 0.25 0 365 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 65-P-0496 S/S S Industrial Cooling Water 0.25 19,892,500 365 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 71-P-0259 S/S S Industrial Cooling Water 0.25 1,120,021 365 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 01-P-4003 S/S S Industrial Manufacturing 0.25 82,125 240 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 80-P-4039C S/S S Industrial Other - Industrial 0.25 5,913 365 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 90-P-4075 S/S S Remediation Other - Remediation 0.25 33,945 365 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 0846-65ZKS6 S/S S Water Supply Municipal 0.2 876,000 365 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 5458-62TLU3 S/S S Water Supply Municipal 0.2 657,000 365 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 70-P-0067 S/S S Water Supply Municipal 0.2 8,614,000 365 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 72-P-0397 S/S S Water Supply Municipal 0.2 2,887,880 365 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 94-P-4062 S/S S Water Supply Municipal 0.2 278,601 365 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct 95-P-4039 S/S S Water Supply Municipal 0.2 548,837 365 Lake Ontario/Bay of Quinte Direct * These "Direct" subwatershed withdrawals are actually directly from Lake Ontario, the Bay of Quinte, and the St. Lawrence River. They are therefore not included in the Water Budget, and are here for volume comparison purposes only.

FR110740301_091027.docx 103 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E STRESS ANALYSIS FOR GAUGED, SEMI-GAUGED AND UNGAUGED SUBWATERSHEDS

FR110740301_091027.docx 104 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.1 Surface Water Stress Wilton Creek Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 30 8 21 0.00 0.00 0 0 Feb 31 7 24 0.00 0.00 0 0 Mar 101 38 63 0.00 0.00 0 0 Apr 81 32 49 0.00 0.00 0 0 May 23 7 16 0.01 0.01 0 0 Jun 7 2 5 0.05 0.05 1 1 Jul 2 0.4 2 0.05 0.05 3 3 Aug 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.05 0.05 7 7 Sep 1.4 0.3 1.1 0.01 0.01 1 1 Oct 7 2 5 0.01 0.01 0 0 Nov 36 8 28 0.00 0.00 0 0 Dec 45 16 29 0.00 0.00 0 0 Table E.2 Groundwater Stress Wilton Creek Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply 3 Current Future Current Future 3 3 (m /d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 44,700 4,500 40,200 170 190 0.4 0.5 Feb 44,700 4,500 40,200 170 190 0.4 0.5 Mar 44,700 4,500 40,200 170 190 0.4 0.5 Apr 44,700 4,500 40,200 170 190 0.4 0.5 May 44,700 4,500 40,200 140 160 0.3 0.4 Jun 44,700 4,500 40,200 250 290 0.6 0.7 Jul 44,700 4,500 40,200 250 290 0.6 0.7 Aug 44,700 4,500 40,200 250 290 0.6 0.7 Sep 44,700 4,500 40,200 140 160 0.3 0.4 Oct 44,700 4,500 40,200 140 160 0.3 0.4 Nov 44,700 4,500 40,200 170 190 0.4 0.5 Dec 44,700 4,500 40,200 170 190 0.4 0.5 Annual 44,700 4,500 40,200 180 210 0.4 0.5 Table E.3 Surface Water Stress Millhaven Creek Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 41 15 26 0.30 0.33 1 1 Feb 38 11 27 0.27 0.30 1 1 Mar 81 44 37 0.30 0.33 1 1 Apr 79 35 44 0.29 0.32 1 1 May 27 5 22 0.31 0.34 1 2 Jun 11 3 7 0.30 0.33 4 5 Jul 5 2 3 0.31 0.34 12 14 Aug 3 1 2 0.31 0.34 19 21 Sep 4 2 2 0.30 0.33 13 14 Oct 12 3 10 0.31 0.34 3 3 Nov 29 8 21 0.29 0.32 1 2 Dec 45 20 25 0.30 0.33 1 1 Note: Community of Sydenham Water Supply is located in this subwatershed

FR110740301_091027.docx 105 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.4 Groundwater Stress Millhaven Creek Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply 3 Current Future Current Future 3 3 (m /d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 59,100 5,900 53,200 440 470 0.8 0.9 Feb 59,100 5,900 53,200 440 470 0.8 0.9 Mar 59,100 5,900 53,200 440 470 0.8 0.9 Apr 59,100 5,900 53,200 440 470 0.8 0.9 May 59,100 5,900 53,200 400 430 0.8 0.8 Jun 59,100 5,900 53,200 560 630 1.1 1.2 Jul 59,100 5,900 53,200 560 630 1.1 1.2 Aug 59,100 5,900 53,200 560 630 1.1 1.2 Sep 59,100 5,900 53,200 400 430 0.8 0.8 Oct 59,100 5,900 53,200 400 430 0.8 0.8 Nov 59,100 5,900 53,200 440 470 0.8 0.9 Dec 59,100 5,900 53,200 440 470 0.8 0.9 Annual 59,100 5,900 53,200 460 500 0.9 0.9 Table E.5 Surface Water Stress Collins Creek Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 40 13 28 0.05 0.05 0 0 Feb 30 13 17 0.04 0.04 0 0 Mar 107 54 53 0.05 0.05 0 0 Apr 99 59 40 0.04 0.04 0 0 May 31 13 18 0.06 0.06 0 0 Jun 8 2 6 0.08 0.08 1 1 Jul 2 0.4 2 0.28 0.28 12 12 Aug 0.9 0.1 1.1 0.28 0.28 26 26 Sep 2 0.1 2 0.05 0.05 2 2 Oct 11 3 9 0.06 0.06 1 1 Nov 44 15 29 0.04 0.04 0 0 Dec 57 20 36 0.05 0.05 0 0 Table E.6 Groundwater Stress Collins Creek Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply 3 Current Future Current Future 3 3 (m /d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 88,500 8,900 79,600 8930 8960 11 11 Feb 88,500 8,900 79,600 8930 8960 11 11 Mar 88,500 8,900 79,600 8930 8960 11 11 Apr 88,500 8,900 79,600 8930 8960 11 11 May 88,500 8,900 79,600 8870 8910 11 11 Jun 88,500 8,900 79,600 13700 13800 17 17 Jul 88,500 8,900 79,600 13700 13800 17 17 Aug 88,500 8,900 79,600 13700 13800 17 17 Sep 88,500 8,900 79,600 13600 13600 17 17 Oct 88,500 8,900 79,600 8870 8910 11 11 Nov 88,500 8,900 79,600 8930 8960 11 11 Dec 88,500 8,900 79,600 8930 8960 11 11 Annual 88,500 8,900 79,600 10500 10550 13 13

FR110740301_091027.docx 106 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.7 Surface Water Stress Little Cataraqui Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%)

Jan 46 30 16 0.00 0.00 0 0 Feb 26 14 12 0.00 0.00 0 0 Mar 88 35 53 0.00 0.00 0 0 Apr 73 30 43 0.00 0.00 0 0 May 31 14 17 0.01 0.01 0 0 Jun 19 13 5 0.05 0.05 1 1 Jul 21 11 10 0.05 0.05 0 0 Aug 18 11 7 0.05 0.05 1 1 Sep 26 14 11 0.01 0.01 0 0 Oct 35 19 16 0.01 0.01 0 0 Nov 54 22 32 0.00 0.00 0 0 Dec 43 23 20 0.00 0.00 0 0 Table E.8 Groundwater Stress Little Cataraqui Creek Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply 3 Current Future Current Future 3 3 (m /d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 3,500 400 3,100 7 8 0.2 0.3 Feb 3,500 400 3,100 7 8 0.2 0.3 Mar 3,500 400 3,100 7 8 0.2 0.3 Apr 3,500 400 3,100 7 8 0.2 0.3 May 3,500 400 3,100 5 5 0.2 0.2 Jun 3,500 400 3,100 6 7 0.2 0.2 Jul 3,500 400 3,100 6 7 0.2 0.2 Aug 3,500 400 3,100 6 7 0.2 0.2 Sep 3,500 400 3,100 5 5 0.2 0.2 Oct 3,500 400 3,100 5 5 0.2 0.2 Nov 3,500 400 3,100 7 8 0.2 0.3 Dec 3,500 400 3,100 7 8 0.2 0.3 Annual 3,500 400 3,100 6 7 0.2 0.2 Table E.9 Surface Water Stress Cataraqui River Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%)

Jan 49 22 27 0.11 0.11 0 0 Feb 58 38 20 0.10 0.10 1 1 Mar 49 28 22 0.11 0.11 1 1 Apr 61 15 46 0.11 0.11 0 0 May 35 17 18 0.12 0.12 1 1 Jun 17 14 3 0.12 0.12 4 4 Jul 9 9 0 0.13 0.13 65 65 Aug 11 8 2 0.13 0.13 5 5 Sep 23 7 17 0.12 0.12 1 1 Oct 25 15 10 0.12 0.12 1 1 Nov 25 13 12 0.11 0.11 1 1 Dec 30 10 21 0.11 0.11 1 1

FR110740301_091027.docx 107 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.10 Groundwater Stress Cataraqui River Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress 3 QR 0.1Supply (m /d) Current Future Current Future 3 3 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 170,000 17,000 153,000 340 360 0.2 0.2 Feb 170,000 17,000 153,000 340 360 0.2 0.2 Mar 170,000 17,000 153,000 340 360 0.2 0.2 Apr 170,000 17,000 153,000 340 360 0.2 0.2 May 170,000 17,000 153,000 230 260 0.2 0.2 Jun 170,000 17,000 153,000 370 420 0.2 0.3 Jul 170,000 17,000 153,000 370 420 0.2 0.3 Aug 170,000 17,000 153,000 370 420 0.2 0.3 Sep 170,000 17,000 153,000 230 260 0.2 0.2 Oct 170,000 17,000 153,000 230 260 0.2 0.2 Nov 170,000 17,000 153,000 340 360 0.2 0.2 Dec 170,000 17,000 153,000 340 360 0.2 0.2 Annual 170,000 17,000 153,000 320 350 0.2 0.2 Table E.11 Surface Water Stress Lyndhurst Creek Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 37 17 20 0.00 0.00 0 0 Feb 38 14 25 0.00 0.00 0 0 Mar 91 51 40 0.00 0.00 0 0 Apr 120 75 45 0.00 0.00 0 0 May 35 17 18 0.01 0.01 0 0 Jun 6 2 4 0.07 0.07 2 2 Jul 2 0.8 1 0.07 0.07 7 7 Aug 3 1.3 2 0.07 0.07 3 3 Sep 5 2 3 0.07 0.07 3 3 Oct 15 4 11 0.01 0.01 0 0 Nov 19 8 11 0.00 0.00 0 0 Dec 36 16 21 0.00 0.00 0 0 Table E.12 Groundwater Stress Lyndhurst Creek Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply 3 Current Future Current Future 3 3 (m /d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 140,000 14,000 126,000 8640 8660 7 7 Feb 140,000 14,000 126,000 8640 8660 7 7 Mar 140,000 14,000 126,000 8640 8660 7 7 Apr 140,000 14,000 126,000 8640 8660 7 7 May 140,000 14,000 126,000 8580 8600 7 7 Jun 140,000 14,000 126,000 8680 8720 7 7 Jul 140,000 14,000 126,000 8680 8720 7 7 Aug 140,000 14,000 126,000 8680 8720 7 7 Sep 140,000 14,000 126,000 8580 8600 7 7 Oct 140,000 14,000 126,000 8580 8600 7 7 Nov 140,000 14,000 126,000 8640 8660 7 7 Dec 140,000 14,000 126,000 8640 8660 7 7 Annual 140,000 14,000 126,000 8640 8660 7 7

FR110740301_091027.docx 108 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.13 Surface Water Stress Lyn Creek Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 29 9 22 1.6 1.6 7 7 Feb 23 8 17 1.4 1.4 9 9 Mar 90 50 42 1.6 1.6 4 4 Apr 80 41 41 1.6 1.6 4 4 May 23 8 16 1.6 1.6 10 10 Jun 8 3 7 1.6 1.6 23 23 Jul 2 0.4 3 1.6 1.6 50 50 Aug 1 0.0 2 1.6 1.6 70 70 Sep 2 0.0 3 1.6 1.6 45 45 Oct 13 0.4 14 1.6 1.6 11 11 Nov 43 3 41 1.6 1.6 4 4 Dec 29 11 19 1.6 1.6 8 8 Table E.14 Groundwater Stress Lyn Creek Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress 3 QR 0.1Supply (m /d) Current Future Current Future 3 3 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 49,000 4,900 44,100 1,260 1,280 3 3 Feb 49,000 4,900 44,100 1,260 1,280 3 3 Mar 49,000 4,900 44,100 1,260 1,280 3 3 Apr 49,000 4,900 44,100 1,260 1,280 3 3 May 49,000 4,900 44,100 1,230 1,250 3 3 Jun 49,000 4,900 44,100 2,350 2,410 5 5 Jul 49,000 4,900 44,100 2,460 2,510 6 6 Aug 49,000 4,900 44,100 2,460 2,510 6 6 Sep 49,000 4,900 44,100 2,230 2,250 5 5 Oct 49,000 4,900 44,100 1,230 1,250 3 3 Nov 49,000 4,900 44,100 1,260 1,280 3 3 Dec 49,000 4,900 44,100 1,260 1,280 3 3 Annual 49,000 4,900 44,100 1,630 1,660 4 4 Table E.15 Surface Water Stress Buells Creek Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 33 14 21 1.8 1.8 9 9 Feb 24 11 14 1.6 1.6 11 11 Mar 46 28 20 1.8 1.8 9 9 Apr 58 26 33 1.7 1.7 5 5 May 20 5 17 1.8 1.8 11 11 Jun 9 4 7 1.7 1.7 26 26 Jul 5 3 4 1.8 1.8 45 45 Aug 4 2 4 1.8 1.8 43 43 Sep 11 3 9 1.7 1.7 19 19 Oct 17 5 13 1.8 1.8 14 14 Nov 24 9 17 1.7 1.7 10 10 Dec 22 14 10 1.8 1.8 18 18

FR110740301_091027.docx 109 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.16 Groundwater Stress Buells Creek Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress 3 QR 0.1Supply (m /d) Current Future Current Future 3 3 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 29,000 2,900 26,100 90 110 0.3 0.4 Feb 29,000 2,900 26,100 90 110 0.3 0.4 Mar 29,000 2,900 26,100 90 110 0.3 0.4 Apr 29,000 2,900 26,100 90 110 0.3 0.4 May 29,000 2,900 26,100 80 90 0.3 0.3 Jun 29,000 2,900 26,100 140 160 0.5 0.6 Jul 29,000 2,900 26,100 140 160 0.5 0.6 Aug 29,000 2,900 26,100 140 160 0.5 0.6 Sep 29,000 2,900 26,100 80 90 0.3 0.3 Oct 29,000 2,900 26,100 80 90 0.3 0.3 Nov 29,000 2,900 26,100 90 110 0.3 0.4 Dec 29,000 2,900 26,100 90 110 0.3 0.4 Annual 29,000 2,900 26,100 100 120 0.4 0.5 Table E.17 Surface Water Stress Sydenham Lake Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 30 8 21 0.7 0.8 3 4 Feb 31 7 24 0.6 0.8 3 3 Mar 101 38 63 0.7 0.8 1 1 Apr 81 32 49 0.7 0.8 1 2 May 23 7 16 0.7 0.8 4 5 Jun 7 2 5 0.7 0.8 13 16 Jul 2 0.4 2 0.7 0.9 42 50 Aug 0.9 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.9 101 122 Sep 1.4 0.3 1.1 0.7 0.8 62 74 Oct 7 2 5 0.7 0.8 13 16 Nov 36 8 28 0.7 0.8 2 3 Dec 45 16 29 0.7 0.8 2 3 Note: Community of Sydenham Water Supply is located in this subwatershed Table E.18 Groundwater Stress Sydenham Lake Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply 3 Current Future Current Future 3 3 (m /d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 24,000 2,400 21,600 100 110 0.5 0.5 Feb 24,000 2,400 21,600 100 110 0.5 0.5 Mar 24,000 2,400 21,600 100 110 0.5 0.5 Apr 24,000 2,400 21,600 100 110 0.5 0.5 May 24,000 2,400 21,600 80 100 0.4 0.5 Jun 24,000 2,400 21,600 150 180 0.7 0.8 Jul 24,000 2,400 21,600 150 180 0.7 0.8 Aug 24,000 2,400 21,600 150 180 0.7 0.8 Sep 24,000 2,400 21,600 80 100 0.4 0.5 Oct 24,000 2,400 21,600 80 100 0.4 0.5 Nov 24,000 2,400 21,600 100 110 0.5 0.5 Dec 24,000 2,400 21,600 100 110 0.5 0.5 Annual 24,000 2,400 21,600 110 130 0.5 0.6

FR110740301_091027.docx 110 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.19 Surface Water Stress Gananoque River above Delta Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 37 17 20 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 Feb 38 14 25 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 Mar 91 51 40 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 Apr 120 75 45 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 May 35 17 18 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.1 Jun 6 2 4 0.01 0.01 0.3 0.3 Jul 2 0.8 0.9 0.01 0.01 1 1 Aug 3 1.3 2 0.01 0.01 0.5 0.5 Sep 5 2 3 0.01 0.01 0.4 0.4 Oct 15 4 11 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.1 Nov 19 8 11 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 Dec 36 16 21 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 Table E.20 Groundwater Stress Gananoque River above Delta Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply 3 Current Future Current Future 3 3 (m /d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 50,000 5,000 45,000 7,910 7,920 18 18 Feb 50,000 5,000 45,000 7,910 7,920 18 18 Mar 50,000 5,000 45,000 7,910 7,920 18 18 Apr 50,000 5,000 45,000 7,910 7,920 18 18 May 50,000 5,000 45,000 7,890 7,900 18 18 Jun 50,000 5,000 45,000 7,910 7,920 18 18 Jul 50,000 5,000 45,000 7,910 7,920 18 18 Aug 50,000 5,000 45,000 7,910 7,920 18 18 Sep 50,000 5,000 45,000 7,890 7,900 18 18 Oct 50,000 5,000 45,000 7,890 7,900 18 18 Nov 50,000 5,000 45,000 7,910 7,920 18 18 Dec 50,000 5,000 45,000 7,910 7,920 18 18 Annual 50,000 5,000 45,000 7,910 7,920 18 18 Table E.21 Surface Water Stress Gananoque River above Outlet Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 23 11 12 0.07 0.07 1 1 Feb 34 12 22 0.07 0.07 0.3 0.3 Mar 95 53 42 0.07 0.07 0.2 0.2 Apr 117 73 44 0.07 0.07 0.2 0.2 May 64 31 33 0.09 0.09 0.3 0.3 Jun 17 6 10 0.10 0.10 1 1 Jul 7 3 4 0.11 0.11 3 3 Aug 12 5 8 0.11 0.11 1 1 Sep 22 9 12 0.09 0.09 1 1 Oct 4 1 3 0.09 0.09 3 3 Nov 4 2 2 0.07 0.07 3 3 Dec 21 9 12 0.07 0.07 1 1

FR110740301_091027.docx 111 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.22 Groundwater Stress Gananoque River above Outlet Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply 3 Current Future Current Future 3 3 (m /d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 150,000 15,000 135,000 710 740 0.5 0.5 Feb 150,000 15,000 135,000 710 740 0.5 0.5 Mar 150,000 15,000 135,000 710 740 0.5 0.5 Apr 150,000 15,000 135,000 710 740 0.5 0.5 May 150,000 15,000 135,000 560 590 0.4 0.4 Jun 150,000 15,000 135,000 710 770 0.5 0.6 Jul 150,000 15,000 135,000 710 770 0.5 0.6 Aug 150,000 15,000 135,000 710 770 0.5 0.6 Sep 150,000 15,000 135,000 560 590 0.4 0.4 Oct 150,000 15,000 135,000 560 590 0.4 0.4 Nov 150,000 15,000 135,000 710 740 0.5 0.5 Dec 150,000 15,000 135,000 710 740 0.5 0.5 Annual 150,000 15,000 135,000 670 710 0.5 0.5 Table E.23 Surface Water Stress Gananoque River above Marble Rock Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%)

Jan 23 14 9 0.03 0.03 0 0 Feb 24 14 10 0.02 0.02 0 0 Mar 92 73 19 0.03 0.03 0 0 Apr 104 70 34 0.03 0.03 0 0 May 52 35 17 0.03 0.03 0 0 Jun 12 0.5 11 0.05 0.05 0 0 Jul 5 1.0 4 0.05 0.05 1 1 Aug 5 4 1.1 0.05 0.05 5 5 Sep 13 3 9 0.05 0.05 1 1 Oct 12 6 6 0.03 0.03 0 0 Nov 15 3 12 0.03 0.03 0 0 Dec 32 8 24 0.03 0.03 0 0 Table E.24 Groundwater Stress Gananoque River above Marble Rock Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply 3 Current Future Current Future 3 3 (m /d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 420,000 42,000 378,000 9,210 9,280 2 2 Feb 420,000 42,000 378,000 9,210 9,280 2 2 Mar 420,000 42,000 378,000 9,210 9,280 2 2 Apr 420,000 42,000 378,000 9,210 9,280 2 2 May 420,000 42,000 378,000 24,860 24,920 7 7 Jun 420,000 42,000 378,000 25,180 25,320 7 7 Jul 420,000 42,000 378,000 25,180 25,320 7 7 Aug 420,000 42,000 378,000 25,180 25,320 7 7 Sep 420,000 42,000 378,000 24,860 24,920 7 7 Oct 420,000 42,000 378,000 24,860 24,920 7 7 Nov 420,000 42,000 378,000 24,950 25,020 7 7 Dec 420,000 42,000 378,000 9,210 9,280 2 2 Annual 420,000 42,000 378,000 18,430 18,510 5 5

FR110740301_091027.docx 112 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.25 Surface Water Stress Gananoque River above Gananoque Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 23 14 9 0.17 0.17 2 2 Feb 24 14 10 0.15 0.15 2 2 Mar 92 73 19 0.17 0.17 1 1 Apr 104 70 34 0.16 0.16 0.5 0.5 May 52 35 17 0.18 0.18 1 1 Jun 12 0.5 11 0.20 0.20 2 2 Jul 5 1.0 4 0.20 0.20 5 5 Aug 5 4 1.1 0.20 0.20 18 18 Sep 13 3 9 0.19 0.19 2 2 Oct 12 6 6 0.18 0.18 3 3 Nov 15 3 12 0.16 0.16 1 1 Dec 32 8 24 0.17 0.17 1 1 Table E.26 Groundwater Stress Gananoque River above Gananoque Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply 3 Current Future Current Future 3 3 (m /d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%)

Jan 480,000 48,000 432,000 9,670 9,750 2 2 Feb 480,000 48,000 432,000 9,670 9,750 2 2 Mar 480,000 48,000 432,000 9,670 9,750 2 2 Apr 480,000 48,000 432,000 9,670 9,750 2 2 May 480,000 48,000 432,000 25,110 25,180 6 6 Jun 480,000 48,000 432,000 25,480 25,630 6 6 Jul 480,000 48,000 432,000 25,680 25,830 6 6 Aug 480,000 48,000 432,000 25,680 25,830 6 6 Sep 480,000 48,000 432,000 25,110 25,180 6 6 Oct 480,000 48,000 432,000 25,110 25,180 6 6 Nov 480,000 48,000 432,000 25,410 25,480 6 6 Dec 480,000 48,000 432,000 9,670 9,750 2 2 Annual 480,000 48,000 432,000 18,830 18,920 4 4 Table E.27 Surface Water Stress Cataraqui River above Bedford Mills Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 45 21 25 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 Feb 79 55 24 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 Mar 42 25 17 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 Apr 26 7 18 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 May 59 23 36 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 Jun 27 17 10 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.1 Jul 21 14 7 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.1 Aug 24 16 9 0.01 0.01 0.1 0.1 Sep 57 14 43 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 Oct 52 20 31 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.0 Nov 20 11 10 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 Dec 11 4 8 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0

FR110740301_091027.docx 113 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.28 Groundwater Stress Cataraqui River above Bedford Mills Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply 3 Current Future Current Future 3 3 (m /d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 75,000 7,500 67,500 130 130 0.2 0.2 Feb 75,000 7,500 67,500 130 130 0.2 0.2 Mar 75,000 7,500 67,500 130 130 0.2 0.2 Apr 75,000 7,500 67,500 130 130 0.2 0.2 May 75,000 7,500 67,500 80 90 0.1 0.1 Jun 75,000 7,500 67,500 120 130 0.2 0.2 Jul 75,000 7,500 67,500 120 130 0.2 0.2 Aug 75,000 7,500 67,500 120 130 0.2 0.2 Sep 75,000 7,500 67,500 80 90 0.1 0.1 Oct 75,000 7,500 67,500 80 90 0.1 0.1 Nov 75,000 7,500 67,500 130 130 0.2 0.2 Dec 75,000 7,500 67,500 130 130 0.2 0.2 Annual 75,000 7,500 67,500 120 120 0.2 0.2 Table E.29 Surface Water Stress Cataraqui River above Jones Falls Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 36 18 17 0.09 0.09 0.5 0.5 Feb 32 17 15 0.08 0.08 0.5 0.5 Mar 41 18 22 0.09 0.09 0.4 0.4 Apr 45 18 27 0.09 0.09 0.3 0.3 May 32 12 21 0.10 0.10 0.5 0.5 Jun 28 5 23 0.10 0.10 0.4 0.4 Jul 29 5 24 0.10 0.10 0.4 0.4 Aug 29 5 24 0.10 0.10 0.4 0.4 Sep 28 5 23 0.09 0.09 0.4 0.4 Oct 31 9 22 0.10 0.10 0.5 0.5 Nov 32 13 19 0.09 0.09 0.5 0.5 Dec 36 18 17 0.09 0.09 0.5 0.5 Table E.30 Groundwater Stress Cataraqui River above Jones Falls Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress 3 QR 0.1Supply (m /d) Current Future Current Future 3 3 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 210,000 21,000 189,000 350 380 0.2 0.2 Feb 210,000 21,000 189,000 350 380 0.2 0.2 Mar 210,000 21,000 189,000 350 380 0.2 0.2 Apr 210,000 21,000 189,000 350 380 0.2 0.2 May 210,000 21,000 189,000 260 290 0.1 0.2 Jun 210,000 21,000 189,000 420 490 0.2 0.3 Jul 210,000 21,000 189,000 420 490 0.2 0.3 Aug 210,000 21,000 189,000 420 490 0.2 0.3 Sep 210,000 21,000 189,000 260 290 0.1 0.2 Oct 210,000 21,000 189,000 260 290 0.1 0.2 Nov 210,000 21,000 189,000 350 380 0.2 0.2 Dec 210,000 21,000 189,000 350 380 0.2 0.2 Annual 210,000 21,000 189,000 350 390 0.2 0.2

FR110740301_091027.docx 114 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.31 Surface Water Stress Cataraqui River above Kingston Mills Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 42 19 23 0.25 0.25 1 1 Feb 46 32 14 0.23 0.23 2 2 Mar 49 29 20 0.25 0.25 1 1 Apr 25 7 18 0.24 0.24 1 1 May 29 11 18 0.26 0.26 1 1 Jun 19 12 7 0.26 0.26 4 4 Jul 11 8 4 0.31 0.31 8 8 Aug 15 10 5 0.31 0.31 6 6 Sep 19 5 15 0.25 0.25 2 2 Oct 22 9 13 0.26 0.26 2 2 Nov 24 12 11 0.24 0.24 2 2 Dec 38 12 26 0.25 0.25 1 1 Note: Joyceville/Pittsburgh Institution water supply is located in this subwatershed Table E.32 Groundwater Stress Cataraqui River above Kingston Mills Dam Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q 0.1Supply Current Future Current Future R (m3/d) (m3/d) (m3/d) (m3/d) (m3/d) (%) (%) Jan 320,000 32,000 288,000 1,540 1,650 0.5 0.6 Feb 320,000 32,000 288,000 1,540 1,650 0.5 0.6 Mar 320,000 32,000 288,000 1,540 1,650 0.5 0.6 Apr 320,000 32,000 288,000 1,540 1,650 0.5 0.6 May 320,000 32,000 288,000 1,590 1,690 0.6 0.6 Jun 320,000 32,000 288,000 2,130 2,340 0.7 0.8 Jul 320,000 32,000 288,000 2,130 2,340 0.7 0.8 Aug 320,000 32,000 288,000 2,130 2,340 0.7 0.8 Sep 320,000 32,000 288,000 1,590 1,690 0.6 0.6 Oct 320,000 32,000 288,000 1,350 1,460 0.5 0.5 Nov 320,000 32,000 288,000 1,540 1,650 0.5 0.6 Dec 320,000 32,000 288,000 1,540 1,650 0.5 0.6 Annual 320,000 32,000 288,000 1,680 1,810 0.6 0.6

Table E.33 Surface Water Stress Cana Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 30 8 21 0.00 0.00 0 0 Feb 31 7 24 0.00 0.00 0 0 Mar 101 38 63 0.00 0.00 0 0 Apr 81 32 49 0.00 0.00 0 0 May 23 7 16 0.01 0.01 0 0 Jun 7 2 5 0.01 0.01 0 0 Jul 2 0 2 0.01 0.01 1 1 Aug 1 0 1 0.01 0.01 1 1 Sep 1 0 1 0.01 0.01 1 1 Oct 7 2 5 0.01 0.01 0 0 Nov 36 8 28 0.00 0.00 0 0 Dec 45 16 29 0.00 0.00 0 0

FR110740301_091027.docx 115 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.34 Groundwater Stress Cana Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q 0.1Supply Current Future Current Future R (m3/d) (m3/d) (m3/d) (m3/d) (m3/d) (%) (%) Jan 32,000 3,200 28,800 1,000 1,200 3 4 Feb 32,000 3,200 28,800 1,000 1,200 3 4 Mar 32,000 3,200 28,800 1,000 1,200 3 4 Apr 32,000 3,200 28,800 1,000 1,200 3 4 May 32,000 3,200 28,800 1,000 1,200 3 4 Jun 32,000 3,200 28,800 2,000 2,400 7 8 Jul 32,000 3,200 28,800 2,000 2,400 7 8 Aug 32,000 3,200 28,800 2,000 2,400 7 8 Sep 32,000 3,200 28,800 1,000 1,200 3 4 Oct 32,000 3,200 28,800 1,000 1,200 3 4 Nov 32,000 3,200 28,800 1,000 1,200 3 4 Dec 32,000 3,200 28,800 1,000 1,200 3 4 Annual 32,000 3,200 28,800 1,000 1,200 3 4 Note: Cana Subdivision water supply is located in this subwatershed Table E.35 Surface Water Stress Bay of Quinte Ungauged Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 30 8 21 0.08 0.08 0 0 Feb 31 7 24 0.07 0.07 0 0 Mar 101 38 63 0.08 0.08 0 0 Apr 81 32 49 0.08 0.08 0 0 May 23 7 16 0.09 0.09 1 1 Jun 7 2 5 0.27 0.27 5 5 Jul 2 0.4 2 1.15 1.15 68 68 Aug 1 0.2 1 1.15 1.15 164 164 Sep 1 0.3 1 0.21 0.21 19 19 Oct 7 2 5 0.09 0.09 2 2 Nov 36 8 28 0.08 0.08 0 0 Dec 45 16 29 0.08 0.08 0 0 Table E.36 Groundwater Stress Bay of Quinte Ungauged Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply 3 Current Future Current Future 3 3 (m /d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 120,000 12,000 108,000 14,370 14,390 13 13 Feb 120,000 12,000 108,000 14,370 14,390 13 13 Mar 120,000 12,000 108,000 14,370 14,390 13 13 Apr 120,000 12,000 108,000 14,370 14,390 13 13 May 120,000 12,000 108,000 14,260 14,290 13 13 Jun 120,000 12,000 108,000 14,380 14,430 13 13 Jul 120,000 12,000 108,000 14,380 14,430 13 13 Aug 120,000 12,000 108,000 14,380 14,430 13 13 Sep 120,000 12,000 108,000 14,260 14,290 13 13 Oct 120,000 12,000 108,000 14,260 14,290 13 13 Nov 120,000 12,000 108,000 14,370 14,390 13 13 Dec 120,000 12,000 108,000 14,370 14,390 13 13 Annual 120,000 12,000 108,000 14,350 14,380 13 13

FR110740301_091027.docx 116 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.37 Surface Water Stress Lake Ontario Ungauged Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 30 8 21 0.01 0.01 0 0 Feb 31 7 24 0.00 0.00 0 0 Mar 101 38 63 0.01 0.01 0 0 Apr 81 32 49 0.01 0.01 0 0 May 23 7 16 0.02 0.02 0 0 Jun 7 2 5 0.88 0.88 17 17 Jul 2 0.4 2 0.91 0.91 54 54 Aug 1 0.2 1 0.91 0.91 130 130 Sep 1 0.3 1 0.86 0.86 78 78 Oct 7 2 5 0.02 0.02 0 0 Nov 36 8 28 0.01 0.01 0 0 Dec 45 16 29 0.01 0.01 0 0 Table E.38 Groundwater Stress Lake Ontario Ungauged Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress 3 QR 0.1Supply (m /d) Current Future Current Future 3 3 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 130,000 13,000 117,000 29,900 29,930 26 26 Feb 130,000 13,000 117,000 29,900 29,930 26 26 Mar 130,000 13,000 117,000 29,900 29,930 26 26 Apr 130,000 13,000 117,000 29,900 29,930 26 26 May 130,000 13,000 117,000 29,770 29,810 25 25 Jun 130,000 13,000 117,000 30,140 30,220 26 26 Jul 130,000 13,000 117,000 30,140 30,220 26 26 Aug 130,000 13,000 117,000 30,140 30,220 26 26 Sep 130,000 13,000 117,000 29,950 29,990 26 26 Oct 130,000 13,000 117,000 29,770 29,810 25 25 Nov 130,000 13,000 117,000 29,900 29,930 26 26 Dec 130,000 13,000 117,000 29,900 29,930 26 26 Annual 130,000 13,000 117,000 29,940 29,990 26 26 Table E.39 Surface Water Stress St. Lawrence River Ungauged Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 30 8 21 0.05 0.05 0 0 Feb 31 7 24 0.04 0.04 0 0 Mar 101 38 63 0.05 0.05 0 0 Apr 81 32 49 0.04 0.04 0 0 May 23 7 16 0.05 0.05 0 0 Jun 7 2 5 0.28 0.28 5 5 Jul 2 0.4 2 0.28 0.28 16 16 Aug 1 0.2 0.7 0.28 0.28 40 40 Sep 1 0.3 1.1 0.27 0.27 25 25 Oct 7 2 5 0.05 0.05 1 1 Nov 36 8 28 0.04 0.04 0 0 Dec 45 16 29 0.05 0.05 0 0

FR110740301_091027.docx 117 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX E

Table E.40 Groundwater Stress St. Lawrence River Ungauged Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress 3 QR 0.1Supply (m /d) Current Future Current Future 3 3 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 250,000 25,000 225,000 12,810 12,910 6 6 Feb 250,000 25,000 225,000 12,810 12,910 6 6 Mar 250,000 25,000 225,000 12,810 12,910 6 6 Apr 250,000 25,000 225,000 12,810 12,910 6 6 May 250,000 25,000 225,000 12,670 12,770 6 6 Jun 250,000 25,000 225,000 13,770 13,960 6 6 Jul 250,000 25,000 225,000 13,770 13,960 6 6 Aug 250,000 25,000 225,000 13,770 13,960 6 6 Sep 250,000 25,000 225,000 13,310 13,400 6 6 Oct 250,000 25,000 225,000 12,670 12,770 6 6 Nov 250,000 25,000 225,000 12,810 12,910 6 6 Dec 250,000 25,000 225,000 12,810 12,910 6 6 Annual 250,000 25,000 225,000 13,070 13,190 6 6 Note: Miller Manor Retirement Home water supply is located in this subwatershed Table E.41 Surface Water Stress Lansdowne Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress Q50 Q10 Q50-Q10 Current Future Current Future (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (%) (%) Jan 29 9 22 0.00 0.00 0 0 Feb 23 8 17 0.00 0.00 0 0 Mar 90 50 42 0.00 0.00 0 0 Apr 80 41 41 0.00 0.00 0 0 May 23 8 16 0.01 0.01 0 0 Jun 8 3 7 0.02 0.02 0 0 Jul 2 0 3 0.02 0.02 1 1 Aug 1 0 2 0.02 0.02 1 1 Sep 2 0 3 0.01 0.01 0 0 Oct 13 0 14 0.01 0.01 0 0 Nov 43 3 41 0.00 0.00 0 0 Dec 29 11 19 0.00 0.00 0 0 Table E.42 Groundwater Stress Lansdowne Subwatershed Month Supply Reserve S-R Demand Stress

QR 0.1Supply 3 Current Future Current Future 3 3 (m /d) 3 3 (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (m /d) (%) (%) Jan 2010 201 1810 210 250 12 14 Feb 2010 201 1810 190 230 10 13 Mar 2010 201 1810 200 240 11 13 Apr 2010 201 1810 200 240 11 13 May 2010 201 1810 220 260 12 14 Jun 2010 201 1810 240 290 13 16 Jul 2010 201 1810 270 320 15 18 Aug 2010 201 1810 250 300 14 17 Sep 2010 201 1810 200 240 11 13 Oct 2010 201 1810 210 250 12 14 Nov 2010 201 1810 210 250 12 14 Dec 2010 201 1810 200 240 11 13 Annual 2010 201 1810 220 259 12 14 Note: Village of Lansdowne water supply is located in this subwatershed.

FR110740301_091027.docx 118 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F RISK ASSESSMENT WORKBOOK

FR110740301_091027.docx 119 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX F

Wilton Creek Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 7 7 Demand Stress Moderate Moderate Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

Note: Wilton Creek has gone dry.

Millhaven Creek Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.2 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 19 21 Demand Stress Moderate Moderate Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19 Note: Sydenham Lake Intake is on this creek. Millhaven Creek has gone dry.

FR110470301_090113 120 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX F

Collins Creek Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 17 13 17 13 Demand

Stress Low Moderate Low Moderate Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 26 26 Demand Stress Moderate Moderate Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

Note: Collins Creek has gone dry. Little Cataraqui Creek Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 1 1 Demand Stress Moderate Moderate Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19 Note: Little Cataraqui Creek has gone dry.

FR110470301_090113 121 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX F

Cataraqui River Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 65 65 Demand Stress Low Low Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

Lyndhurst Creek Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 7 7 7 7 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 7 7 Demand Stress Low Low Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

FR110470301_090113 122 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX F

Lyn Creek Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 4 6 4 6 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 70 70 Demand Stress Significant Significant Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

Note: Lyn Creek has gone dry. Buells Creek Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 45 45 Demand Stress Moderate Moderate Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19 Note: Buells Creek has gone dry.

FR110470301_090113 123 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX F

Gananoque River Above Delta Dam Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 18 18 18 18 Demand

Stress Moderate Low Moderate Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 1 1 Demand Stress Low Low Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

Gananoque River Above Outlet Dam Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 3 3 Demand Stress Low Low Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

FR110470301_090113 124 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX F

Gananoque River Above Marble Rock Dam Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 4 7 5 7 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 5 5 Demand Stress Low Low Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

Gananoque River Above Ganaoque Dam Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 4 6 4 6 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 18 18 Demand Stress Low Low Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

FR110470301_090113 125 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX F

Cataraqui River Above Bedford Mills Dam Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 0.1 0.1 Demand Stress Low Low Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

Cataraqui River Above Jones Falls Dam Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 0.5 0.5 Demand Stress Low Low Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

FR110470301_090113 126 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX F

Cataraqui River Above Kingston Mills Dam Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 8 8 Demand Stress Low Low Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

Note: Includes Joyceville Pittsburgh Institution surface water supply and Cana Subdivision groundwater supply Cana Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 3 7 4 8 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 1 Demand 1 Stress Low Assignment Low

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

Note: Includes Cana Subdivsion groundwater supply

FR110470301_090113 127 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX F

Bay of Quinte Ungaugued Subwatersheds Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 13 13 13 13 Demand

Stress Moderate Low Moderate Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 164 164 Demand Stress Significant Significant Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

Lake Ontario Ungauged Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 26 26 26 26 Demand

Stress Significant Moderate Moderate Significant Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 130 130 Demand Stress Significant Significant Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

FR110470301_090113 128 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX F

St. Lawrence Ungauged Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 6 6 6 6 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 40 40 Demand Stress Moderate Moderate Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

Note: Municipal Wells are in this subwatershed: Lansdowne and Miller Manor Sydenham Lake Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 Demand

Stress Low Low Low Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 101 122 Demand Stress Significant Significant Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19 Note: Sydenham Intake is in this subwatershed. Lake levels decline even when dam is closed.

FR110470301_090113 129 Tier 1 Water Budget and Stress Assessment APPENDIX F

Lansdowne Subwatershed Stress Assessment - Quantity Tier 1 Screening: Subwatershed Stress Assessment Current Conditions Future Conditions Groundwater Average Monthly Average Monthly Annual Maximum Annual Maximum Percent 12 15 14 18 Demand

Stress Moderate Low Moderate Low Assignment

Surface Water

Percent 1 1 Demand Stress Low Low Assignment

Version 0.5 Risk Assessment Workbook Page 15 of 19

Note: Includes Town of Lansdowne groundwater supply

FR110470301_090113 130