Tier 1 Water Budget - CTC Source Protection Region...Draft Accepted Tier 1 Water Budget for the Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Area Meeting Presentation – February 17, 2009

1

CTC Source Protection RegionCTC Source Protection Region

www.ctcswp.ca

Made possible through the support of the Government of Ontario

Tier 1 Water BudgetCTC SPC Meeting # 2/09 – Agenda Item # 6.1February 17, 2009Gayle SooChan, P.Geo.Director, Groundwater Resources, CLOCADirk Kassenaar, M.Sc. P.EngE.J. Wexler, M.Sc., M.Sc. (Eng)



www.ctcswp.ca


CLOSPA Tier 1 Water Budget Process/ Timelines

• Earthfx Inc. – Prepared the T1 Water Budget Study for the CLOCA jurisdiction – draft completed Jan 08

• Peer Review process initiated Feb 08

• Revised per comments and re-circulated to Peer reviewers for sign-off Aug 08

• Additional comments received from municipality Oct 08

• Revised per final comments, distributed to SPC Feb 09 for acceptance

• Formal Peer Review Team : Durham Region (Works Dept.), Papadoupolos & Associates, Dr. R. Gerber, TCC Source Protection Region, Ministry of Natural Resources, Conservation Ontario.

• MOE-CR and LSGB Source Protection Region were also invited to comment and provided material. No comments were however received.


www.ctcswp.ca


Peer Review Comments: on Draft Tier 1• In our opinion, this is an excellent report that provides a solid

framework for those charged with managing water-resources in the CLOCA area.

• The analyses have been conducted to a high technical standard.

• Peer Reviewers main suggestions for revisions were associated with some unique methodologies in determination of the groundwater supply factor which affected the stress calculations. The study team was directed to revise the document to ensure provincial consistency in results.

• Revisions/corrections were also made to the PTTW data used by the review team. These corrections resulted in revised stress calculations.

• Revisions were also made to ensure compliance with the DirectorsRules (changes since the historical technical guidance).


www.ctcswp.ca


CLOSPA Tier 1 Water Budget Presentation

• Earthfx Inc.:

• Dirk Kassenaar, M.Sc. P.Eng

• E.J. Wexler, M.Sc., M.Sc. (Eng)


www.ctcswp.ca


5

Draft Accepted Tier 1 Water Budget for the Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Area

Meeting Presentation – February 17, 2009

Dirk Kassenaar, M.Sc., P.Eng.EJ Wexler, M.Sc. M.E. P.Eng.Earthfx Inc.



www.ctcswp.ca


Presentation Outline

• Tier 1 Water Budget Objectives

• Overview of Selected Approach• Subwatershed assessment areas• Modelling approach

• CLOCA Watersheds: Overview

• Summary of Tier 1 Water Budget Components• Water Demand, Supply, Reserve

• Stress Assessment Results

• SGRA Analysis

• Conclusions


www.ctcswp.ca


Tier 1 Water Budget: Objectives and Steps• A Tier 1 water budget is a screening level assessment of water supply and

water demand in the study area• Identify subwatersheds needing a more detailed assessment

• Calculate “% Water demand” = Water Demand/Supply• Calculated on annual and monthly basis for both groundwater and

surface water

• Assign a low, moderate or significant “stress” level based on thresholds• Think Low, Medium or High “Relative Demand Level”• Thresholds are conservative and meant only for screening

• A Tier 2 is a more detailed and complex assessment to confirm the stress levels,

• A Tier 3 is needed to actually assess sustainability, risk and ecological stress

• Additional analysis included in this study:• SGRA – Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas


www.ctcswp.ca


Water Budget Components


www.ctcswp.ca


Overview of CLOCA Tier 1 Approach

• Delineate assessment areas (subwatersheds):• Guidance recommends 20 to 100 km2 assessment area

• Estimate Water Demand:• Compile MOE permit data, estimate rural and agricultural water use• Correct water demand for locally returned water (consumptive use) and

seasonal usage patterns

• Estimate Water Supply: • Tier 1 Guidance allows either spreadsheet or numerical flow model• Modelling approach selected for CLOCA: adapt existing models

• USGS MODFLOW (groundwater flow model)• USGS PRMS (Precipitation – Surface Runoff model)

• Calculate % Water Demand and assign stress levels


www.ctcswp.ca


CLOCA Subwatersheds: Overview

• Location• South slope of Oak Ridges Moraine

• Geologic environment• 1 Minute geologic history of CLOCA• High recharge Oak Ridges Moraine sediments both within and

just north of CLOCA study area

• Subwatershed Assessment Areas• Surface watershed boundaries not necessarily groundwater shed

boundaries (lateral groundwater underflow)


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

CLOCA

CLOCA Subwatersheds


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

Land Use Classification


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

Physiography


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

Surficial Geology


www.ctcswp.ca


Geologic Cross Section

Oak Ridges Aquifer

Thorncliffe Aquifer

Scarborough Aquifer

A B

A

B


www.ctcswp.ca


Subwatershed Assessment Areas

• Assessment area logically selected based on historic surface water subwatersheds• Guidance recommends 20 to 100 km2 areas• Selected areas: 6 to 132 km2

• However: surface watershed boundaries not always a good indication of groundwatershed boundaries• Multiple aquitard layers isolate the lower aquifers,

allowing underflow

• Model area extends beyond CLOCA boundaries to allow calculation of lateral inflows• Note: Some other studies have assumed that lateral

inflows are negligible at a Tier 1 assessment level

Areakm2

Lynde Creek 132Pringle Creek 28Corbett Creek 15Goodman Creek 10Oshawa Creek 110Harmony Creek 47Farewell Creek 36Robinson Creek 6Tooley Creek 11Black Creek 24Darlington Creek 16Bowmanville Creek 90Westside Creek 6Soper Creek 75Bennet Creek 7Lake Catchments 24

Watershed


www.ctcswp.ca


Model Area


www.ctcswp.ca


WATER DEMAND ESTIMATES

Draft Accepted Tier 1 Water Budget for the Central Lake Ontario Draft Accepted Tier 1 Water Budget for the Central Lake Ontario Source Protection AreaSource Protection Area

18


www.ctcswp.ca


Consumptive Demand Estimate

• Definition: Consumptive demand is the amount of water that is not returned to its original source.

• Data Sources:• MOE permit data

• Where possible confirmed by CLOCA• Assumed maximum rate, but adjusted for seasonal use• Actual use data not available from MOE

• Estimates of rural (un-serviced) demand: current and future• Non-permitted agricultural water use

• Estimate based on MOE water well usage codes (irrigation, livestock, orchard, etc. )

• Expired or possible permits: estimated usage• Golf courses with no known permit: estimated usage


www.ctcswp.ca


Consumptive Demand Estimate Corrections

• Seasonal usage correction• Many permits are for a limited number of days per year.

• Logically allocated over the appropriate months• Even if the permit was issued for 365 days, seasonal usage was

estimated based on permit use (golf course, snowmaking)

• Consumptive Use: Locally returned water• Tier 1 allows different consumptive approaches: watershed,

aquifer, etc. • CLOCA Assessment: Assumed all water consumptive relative to

the watershed• Conservative assumption: Return rates taken from MOE

guidance (Golf course: 70% consumptive)• Other Tier 1 studies have assumed pumping from deep

aquifers would be 100% consumptive


www.ctcswp.ca


Overall Groundwater Demand: By Usage

0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

9.8% - S

nowmak

ing

5.4% - D

ewater

ing

58.6%

- Unp

ermitte

d Ag.

20.6%

- Golf

0.1%

5.4% - U

nservi

ced

Consu

mption

Concrete Plant / DrinkingDewateringGolf Course IrrigationMaintenanceOther- CommercialSnowmakingWater SupplyUnpermitted AgriculturalUnserviced Consumption


www.ctcswp.ca


Total Groundwater Demand: By Subwatershed

2%0%0%4%5%

1%2%3%

1%1% 1%

Darlington 7%

Soper 8%

Oshawa 14%

Bowmanville 11%Lynde , 39%

Lynde Pringle Corbett Goodman Oshawa Harmony Farewell Robinson Tooley Black Darlington Bowmanville Westside Soper Bennett Lake Ontario


www.ctcswp.ca


Consumptive Demand Estimate: Conclusions

• The consumptive demand estimate is quite uncertain:• Actual permitted water use is not know at this time• Unserviced population and non-permitted agricultural use is

estimated

• However: There are no municipal groundwater users in the study area• No Tier 2 level assessment will therefore be required.


www.ctcswp.ca


WATER SUPPLY ESTIMATES


24


www.ctcswp.ca


Water Supply Estimate

• Recharge Estimate• USGS Precipitation Runoff Modelling System (PRMS)

• Primarily to estimate groundwater recharge• Calibrate to streamflow estimates at gauges, with underflow

corrections estimated from GW model

• Lateral Inflows (Qin)• USGS MODFLOW model: GW flux crossing the subwatershed

boundary

• Water Reserve• Estimated as 10% of the baseflow discharge, as estimated by

the MODFLOW Model


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

Estimated GW Recharge

Note high recharge immediately north

of study area


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

GW Levels in Lower Aquifer

Used to estimate lateral flow rates


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

GW Discharge to Streams

Used to estimate baseflow reserve


www.ctcswp.ca


Subwatershed Stress Assessment


29


www.ctcswp.ca


% Water Demand =QDEMAND

x 100QSUPPLY - QRESERVE

0 - 19 %LowLow

≥ 20%ModerateModerate

≥ 50%SignificantSignificant

Maximum Monthly% Water DemandStress Level

Assignment

0 - 24%0 - 9%LowLow

≥ 25%≥ 10%ModerateModerate

≥ 50%≥ 25%SignificantSignificant

MaximumMonthly% Water Demand

Average Annual

% Water Demand

Stress Level Assignment

Groundwater Stress LevelsSurface Water Stress Levels

Tier 1 Tier 1 –– Stress LevelsStress Levels

Note: Qsupply = Qrecharge + Q lateral inflow


www.ctcswp.ca


Percent Water Demand Results

Watershed Q Recharge

(m3/s)

Q In

(m3/s)

Q Supply(m3/s)

Q Reserve (m3/s)

Q DemandCurrent Condi-tions (m3/s)

% Water

DemandCurrentCondi-tions

Stress Level

Current Conditions

Lynde Creek 0.6765 0.2020 0.8785 0.0679 0.0819 10.10 Moderate Pringle Creek 0.1115 0.0420 0.1535 0.0106 0.0043 2.98 Low Corbett Creek 0.0463 0.0170 0.0633 0.0041 0.0001 0.19 Low Goodman Creek 0.0462 0.0150 0.0612 0.0024 0.0009 1.48 Low Oshawa Creek 0.5892 0.1970 0.7862 0.0650 0.0300 4.17 Low Harmony Creek 0.1756 0.0810 0.2566 0.0175 0.0095 3.95 Low Farewell Creek 0.1577 0.1100 0.2677 0.0168 0.0100 4.00 Low Robinson Creek 0.0193 0.0150 0.0343 0.0004 0.0023 6.89 Low Tooley Creek 0.0423 0.0200 0.0623 0.0028 0.0038 6.30 Low Black Creek 0.1243 0.0670 0.1913 0.0106 0.0062 3.44 Low Darlington Creek 0.0702 0.0220 0.0922 0.0043 0.0149 16.97 Moderate Bowmanville Creek 0.6149 0.3050 0.9199 0.0816 0.0239 2.85 Low Westside Creek 0.0180 0.0220 0.0400 0.0013 0.0015 3.76 Low Soper Creek 0.4152 0.2000 0.6152 0.0407 0.0170 2.97 Low Bennet Creek 0.0272 0.0210 0.0482 0.0018 0.0018 3.82 Low Lake Catchments 0.0747 0.1100 0.1847 0.0086 0.0032 1.79 Low


www.ctcswp.ca


Stress Assessment Results:

• Lynde Creek: Moderate stress level• Golf courses• Snowmaking operations

• Darlington Creek: Moderate stress level• Quarry operation in lower subwatershed

• No municipal supply in either subwatershed, therefore no Tier 2 needed


www.ctcswp.ca


Stress Assessment Results: Lateral Inflows• Lateral inflows are equal to between 30% and 144% of the

groundwater recharge• Qin is a significant portion of GW supply term

• Need to “think outside the watershed” when looking at CLOCAQ Q Ratio of

Area Recharge In Qin/Qrechargekm2 (m3/s) (m3/s) Percent

Lynde Creek 132 0.677 0.202 30%Pringle Creek 28 0.112 0.042 38%Corbett Creek 15 0.046 0.017 37%Goodman Creek 10 0.046 0.015 32%Oshawa Creek 110 0.589 0.197 33%Harmony Creek 47 0.176 0.081 46%Farewell Creek 36 0.158 0.110 70%Robinson Creek 6 0.019 0.015 78%Tooley Creek 11 0.042 0.020 47%Black Creek 24 0.124 0.067 54%Darlington Creek 16 0.070 0.022 31%Bowmanville Creek 90 0.615 0.305 50%Westside Creek 6 0.018 0.022 122%Soper Creek 75 0.415 0.200 48%Bennet Creek 7 0.027 0.021 77%Lake Catchments 24 0.075 0.110 NA

Watershed


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

GW Supply

Higher supply in subwatersheds that

reach the ORM


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

Percent GW Demand

Higher Percent demand in Lynde and Darlington


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

Tier 1 Stress Level

Lynde and Darlington exhibit moderate GW

stress


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

SW Stress Level

SW Stress levels based on high demand during

low summer flows


www.ctcswp.ca


Stress Assessment: Conclusions

• Lynde and Darlington Creeks classified as moderate stress level• No municipal groundwater supply, therefore no need to proceed

to a Tier 2 assessment

• Considerable uncertainty in the water demand estimates

• Advanced modelling techniques used to estimate water supply• Modelling analysis essentially at a Tier 2 level

• Lateral groundwater inflows account for a significant portion of the water supply term


www.ctcswp.ca


Comments on Stress Assessment: Field Verification

• Cumulative flow analysis of stream gauge data can indicate if stress is real

• Example: Cumulative flow for Oshawa Creek: 1959-2003• Deviation from linear trend suggests increasing consumptive stress


www.ctcswp.ca


Significant Recharge Areas


40


www.ctcswp.ca


SGRA: Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas

• SGRA and High Volume Recharge Areas (HVRA) calculated using a number of guidance recommended methods

• Cell-based PRMS Recharge estimate can be adapted and re-processed with different threshold levels to estimate SGRA areas

• Need to consider:• Shallow versus deep groundwater flow system• Municipal water supply source must be considered in defining

significance


www.ctcswp.ca


The Technical Rules prescribe the following equations. Part V.2 - Delineation of significant groundwater recharge areas

41. Subject to rule 42, an area is a significant groundwater recharge area if,(1) the area annually recharges water to the underlying aquifer at a rate that is

greater than the rate of recharge across the whole of the related groundwater recharge area by a factor of 1.15 or more; or

(2) the area annually recharges a volume of water to the underlying aquifer that is 55% or more of the volume determined by subtracting the annual evapotranspiration for the whole of the related groundwater recharge area from the annual precipitation for the whole of the related groundwater recharge area.

42. Despite rule 41, an area shall not be delineated as a significant groundwater recharge area unless the area has a hydrological connection to a surface water body or aquifer that is a source of drinking water for a drinking water system.


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

SGRA: Method 4

SGRA


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

SGRA: Method 5

SGRA


www.ctcswp.ca


Lynde

Oshawa

Bowmanville

Darlington

Soper

Harmony

SGRA: Particle Tracking

Reverse particle tracking from high discharge

stream reaches illustrates SGRAs and significant underflow


www.ctcswp.ca


SGRA Conclusions

• PRMS Recharge Model indicates that recharge is highly variable on both a seasonal and spatial basis

• SGRA analysis cannot simply look at surficial materials: • Shallow Iroquois Beach sand deposits in the southern portion are thin

and not directly connected to the deeper aquifer system

• Particle tracking indicates: • Significant recharge occurs outside of the study area • Underflow is important: Bowmanville discharge can be traced under

Soper Creek to a recharge location outside of the subwatershed.

• SGRA Thresholds can be adjusted as necessary


www.ctcswp.ca


CONCLUSIONS


47


www.ctcswp.ca


Tier 1 Water Budget Report Conclusions• Lynde and Darlington Creeks classified as Moderate Stress Level under

current and future demand conditions.• No municipal groundwater sources exist in these subwatersheds • Tier 2 level analysis is not needed.

• Considerable uncertainty in the water demand estimates. Major uses: • Non-permitted agricultural: 59%• Golf courses: 21%• Snowmaking: 10%• Dewatering: 5%

• Need to confirm actual water use from MOE and other sources

Documents

Tier 1 Water Budget - CTC Source Protection Region...Draft Accepted Tier 1 Water Budget for the Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Area Meeting Presentation – February 17, 2009