a a report

Approved January 18, 2012 TOC-1

Approved Assessment Report: Toronto and Region Source Protection Area

Table of ConTenTs

DaTa sourCes anD analysis

a DaTa sourCes anD analysis ....................................................................................a-1

A1.1 Data Sources Matrix ................................................................................................................................. A-1 A1.2 Monitoring Data Sources ......................................................................................................................... A-1 A1.2.1 Stream Flow Gauging ..................................................................................................................... A-8 A1.2.2 Precipitation/Meteorological Gauging ......................................................................................... A-8 A1.2.3 Snow Cover Monitoring ................................................................................................................. A-8 A1.2.4 Groundwater Monitoring ............................................................................................................... A-8 A1.2.5 Surface Water Quality................................................................................................................... A-22 A1.2.6 Low-Flow Stream Flow Surveys .................................................................................................. A-30 A1.2.7 Biological Monitoring ................................................................................................................... A-31 A1.2.8 Coastal Wetland Monitoring ........................................................................................................ A-34 A1.3 Information Management System ......................................................................................................... A-36 A1.4 Methods of Analysis ................................................................................................................................ A-37 A1.5 Surface Water Quality Data Analysis and Reporting ........................................................................... A-37 A1.5.1 Exploratory Analysis .................................................................................................................... A-37 A1.5.2 Statistical Analysis......................................................................................................................... A-38 A1.5.3 Reporting Results .......................................................................................................................... A-38 A1.6 Groundwater Quality Data Analysis and Reporting ............................................................................ A-38 A1.6.1 Data Compilation .......................................................................................................................... A-38 A1.6.2 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................. A-38 A1.6.3 Analysis of Trends at Each Monitoring Well ............................................................................. A-39 A1.6.4 Aquifer Characterization .............................................................................................................. A-39 A1.7 Limitations: Data, Assumptions, and Methods .................................................................................... A-39 A1.7.1 Filling Data Gaps ........................................................................................................................... A-40 A1.7.2 Method Limitations....................................................................................................................... A-41

lisT of Tables

Table A-1: Data Sources for the Assessment Report............................................................................................ A-2Table A-2: Monitoring Databases and Data Descriptions .................................................................................... A-6Table A-3: TRCA/ Provincial Stream Gauge Network ......................................................................................... A-9Table A-4: TRCA Climate Stations ........................................................................................................................ A-14Table A-5: Snow Course Locations ....................................................................................................................... A-21Table A-6: Groundwater Monitoring Locations ................................................................................................. A-21Table A-7: Current Surface Water Quality Sites ................................................................................................. A-22Table A-8: Historical Surface Water Quality Sites .............................................................................................. A-24Table A-9: Low Flow Index Monitoring Stations ................................................................................................ A-31Table A-10: TRCA O.S.A.P Monitoring Sites ....................................................................................................... A-32Table A-11: Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitoring Project locations ................................................... A-35Table A-12: Data Gaps ........................................................................................................................................... A-40Table A-13: Knowledge Gaps ................................................................................................................................ A-40

Approved January 18, 2012A-1

Appendix A: Data Sources and Analysis

a DaTa sourCes anD analysis

a1.1 DaTa sourCes MaTrix

To organize the data sources required for preparation of the Assessment Report, the province has developed an Excel file called the Source Water Protection (SWP) Data Requirements Matrix. The matrix is intended to:

• Provide a complete list of available data sets for SWP,

• Help inventory and evaluate local data,

• Help identify data gaps,

• Facilitate data request process; and,

• Facilitate communications around data between neighbouring Conservation Authorities and their SWP watershed region.

The matrix includes data set names, data descriptions, data access, data sources, and links to metadata. The file also includes a list of data sources required to build particular maps. Requests for data have been made by Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) staff to the province and the upper tier municipalities. TRCA staff maintains an inventory of the data and metadata received to date.

a1.2 MoniToring DaTa sourCes

TRCA’s monitoring networks provide an ongoing source of data that support numerous programs, including Drinking Water Source Water Protection. TRCA’s monitoring databases that are relevant to source water protection planning are summarized in Table a-1, which includes data type, status, and spatial coverage and Table a-2 describes other monitoring databases. TRCA’s monitoring network incorporates both provincial and federal monitoring partnership programs. This monitoring network collects information pertaining, but not limited to, the following data types:

• Climate (Environment Canada, TRCA, as well as the regional municipalities)

• Precipitation; and,

• Temperature.

• Surface water (Environment Canada, TRCA)

• Continuous stream gauges,

• Low flow measurements; and,

• Surface water quality (Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network – PWQMN.

• Groundwater (TRCA, Municipalities)

• Water levels; and,

• Quality.

Other monitoring programs, such as aquatic ecosystem studies conducted by the province and conservation authorities, also contributed to the development the Assessment Report. Surface water quality is important to the overall monitoring of watershed health, and is necessary to determine chemical loadings to Lake Ontario, the source of water supply for the majority of the population.

Approved January 18, 2012 A-2


Tabl

e a

-1:

Dat

a so

urce

s fo

r th

e a

sses

smen

t r

epor

t Purpose

Boun

dari

es

Data Sets

Wat

er R

esou

rces

In

form

atio

n Pr

ogra

m (W

RIP)

Land

Ow

ners

hip

Wat

ersh

ed,

Qua

tern

ary

Mun

icip

al

Boun

dary

Prov

inci

al D

igita

l El

evat

ion

Mod

el

(DEM

) —

Tile

d

Prov

inci

al D

EM —

Tile

d (V

ersio

n 2)

Ort

ho/D

TM

DEM

Loca

l DEM

(M

unic

ipal

ities

—

Ort

hos)

Rive

r Cro

ss

Sect

ions

Short Data Description

Iden

tifies

the

asso

-ci

ated

Con

serv

atio

n Au

thor

ities

wor

king

co

oper

ativ

ely

on

Sour

ce W

ater

Pro

-te

ctio

n ob

ject

ives

.

Iden

tifies

ow

ners

hip

and

gene

ral u

se o

f the

land

. It

incl

udes

cro

wn

land

, priv

ate

land

, and

fede

ral l

and

(e.g

., In

dian

Res

erve

s).

Indi

an

Rese

rves

and

oth

er fe

dera

l la

nds

wer

e de

rived

from

th

e O

ntar

io B

ase

Map

ping

(O

BM).

A fo

urth

leve

l dr

aina

ge a

rea.

Th

ey a

re s

ubdi

vi-

sions

of t

ertia

ry

wat

ersh

eds.

Exte

nts

of th

e fo

llow

ing

mun

ici-

pal u

nits

:

1) U

pper

Tier

M

unic

ipal

ities

,

2) L

ower

Tier

M

unic

ipal

ities

.

A DE

M ra

ster

dat

a se

t tha

t cov

ers

the

Prov

ince

of O

ntar

io.

DEM

that

pro

vide

s gr

eate

r el

evat

ion

info

rmat

ion

whe

re

Digi

tal T

erra

in M

odel

s (D

TM),

SPOT

hei

ghts

, and

con

stan

t la

ke e

leva

tions

are

inco

rpo-

rate

d.

A DE

M g

ener

-at

ed fr

om th

e 20

02 o

rthop

ho-

togr

aphy

pro

ject

fo

r Sou

ther

n O

ntar

io.

DEM

pro

duct

s de

velo

ped

inde

pend

ently

of

fede

ral/p

rovi

ncia

l go

vern

men

t in

itiat

ives

.

Cros

s se

ctio

n da

ta th

at in

-cl

udes

dep

th a

nd

posit

ion

of ri

vers

an

d st

ream

s.

Purpose

Soils

& G

eolo

gyCe

nsus

Data Sets

ELC

Aggr

egat

e Ex

trac

tion

CAN

SIS

- Ont

ario

Soi

l Su

rvey

sG

eolo

gica

l Sur

vey

of C

anad

a (G

SC)

Phys

iogr

aphy

of

Sou

ther

n O

ntar

ioCe

nsus

of A

gric

ultu

reCe

nsus

of P

opul

atio

n


Digi

tized

from

air

phot

os.

Show

s th

e bo

unda

ry o

f act

ual

extra

ctio

n at

the

time

of p

hoto

g-ra

phy.

Soil

surv

eys

gene

rate

d m

ainl

y fo

r agr

icul

tura

l ar

eas

acro

ss O

ntar

io, a

ll ho

used

with

in th

e Ca

-na

dian

Soi

ls In

form

atio

n Sy

stem

(CAN

SIS)

. Da

ta

are

avai

labl

e by

cou

nty.

Surfi

cial

dep

osit

type

s, m

ater

ial

type

s, an

d ge

o-lo

gica

l fea

ture

s (e

.g.,

drum

lins,

eske

rs, h

um-

moc

ky m

orai

ne,

hum

moc

ky

glac

ioflu

vial

).

Upda

ted

surfi

cial

ge

olog

y m

appi

ng fo

r th

e O

RM b

ased

on

new

fiel

dwor

k an

d ae

rial p

hoto

grap

hic

inte

rpre

tatio

n,

com

plem

ente

d by

ar

chiv

al fi

eld

data

.

The

dist

ribut

ion

of

bedr

ock

units

and

ge

olog

ical

rock

ty

pes.

Seam

less

co

vera

ge o

f be

droc

k to

pog-

raph

y an

d se

di-

men

t thi

ckne

ss

surfa

ces.

Maj

or p

hysio

-gr

aphi

c un

its

incl

ude,

am

ong

othe

rs, t

ill p

lain

s, til

l mor

aine

s, sa

nd p

lain

s, ka

me

mor

aine

s, an

d gl

acia

l sp

illw

ays.

Desc

ribes

the

agric

ultu

re

indu

stry

(e.g

., nu

mbe

r an

d ty

pe o

f far

ms,

farm

op

erat

or c

hara

cter

istic

s, an

d la

nd m

anag

emen

t pr

actic

es).

Data

are

tied

to

spa

tial C

ensu

s Are

a bo

unda

ries.

2006

pop

ulat

ion

and

dwel

ling

coun

ts a

s w

ell

as in

form

atio

n re

gard

ing

dem

ogra

phic

, soc

ial,

and

econ

omic

cha

ract

erist

ics.

Data

are

tied

to s

patia

l ce

nsus

are

a bo

unda

ries.



Purpose

Land

Cov

er

Data Sets

Ecol

ogic

al L

and

Clas

sifica

tion

(ELC

) Co

mm

unity

Ser

ies

Sout

hern

O

ntar

io L

and

Reso

urce

In

form

atio

n Sy

stem

(S

OLR

IS)

Eval

uate

d W

etla

nd

(Sup

plem

ente

d by

W

etla

nd U

nit)

Coas

tal W

etla

nd

Mon

itorin

g Da

taba

se

Wat

er P

olyg

on

Segm

ent

Oak

Rid

ges

Mor

aine

—W

etla

nds

Envi

ronm

enta

lly

Sens

itive

Are

as

(ESA

)

Sign

ifica

nt

Nat

ural

Are

as

Area

s of N

atur

al

and

Scie

ntifi

c In

tere

st (A

NSI

)

Zoni

ng B

y-La

w

(Mun

i/City

)


ELC

map

ping

dev

el-

oped

by T

RCA.

SOLR

IS is

On-

tario

-wid

e EL

C m

appi

ng to

th

e co

mm

unity

se

ries

/ com

-m

unity

cla

ss

leve

l bas

ed

on re

mot

ely

sens

ed im

ager

y an

d ai

r pho

to

inte

rpre

tatio

n.

Land

s th

at a

re s

easo

n-al

ly o

r per

man

ently

flo

oded

by

shal

low

w

ater

or a

re c

lose

to

the

wat

er ta

ble

surfa

ce

and

have

bee

n ev

alu-

ated

und

er th

e O

ntar

io

Wet

land

Eva

luat

ion

proc

ess.

Wet

land

uni

ts

are

the

geos

patia

l co

mpo

nent

and

con

tain

th

e ba

sic c

lass

ifica

tion

(i.e.

mar

sh, b

og, f

en, o

r sw

amp)

.

Mon

itorin

g w

ater

qu

ality

, lev

el, a

nd

ecol

ogy

limite

d to

Dur

ham

Re-

gion

.

Wet

land

s th

at e

xist

in

Wat

er P

olyg

on

Segm

ent (

GUT

s 18

02/1

803)

that

ha

ve n

ot b

een

eval

uate

d th

roug

h th

e So

uthe

rn

Ont

ario

Wet

land

Ev

alua

tion

proc

ess

are

unev

alua

ted

wet

land

s.

A da

tase

t of

all w

etla

nds

with

in a

2km

bu

ffer o

f the

O

RM B

ound

ary.

Iden

tifies

an

area

with

val

ues

that

are

of l

ocal

in

tere

st a

nd m

ay

be d

esig

nate

d an

d m

anag

ed b

y a

mun

icip

ality

.

Vario

us b

iolo

gi-

cal i

nven

torie

s ha

ve b

een

unde

rtake

n by

Co

nser

vatio

n Au

-th

oriti

es.

Ofte

n th

ese

invo

lve

air

phot

o in

terp

reta

-tio

n an

d fie

ld

inve

ntor

ies.

ANSI

s re

pres

ent

land

s an

d w

ater

s th

at c

onta

in im

-po

rtant

nat

ural

la

ndsc

apes

or

feat

ures

that

are

im

porta

nt fo

r nat

u-ra

l her

itage

, pro

tec-

tion,

app

reci

atio

n,

scie

ntifi

c st

udy,

or

educ

atio

n.

Crea

ted

on p

aper

m

aps

of v

ario

us

scal

es d

epen

ding

on

mun

icip

ality

. So

met

imes

dig

i-tiz

ed d

epen

ding

on

sop

hist

icat

ion

of m

unic

ipal

ity.

Purpose

Land

Cov

erH

ydro

grap

hy &

Dra

inag

eG

roun

dwat

er L

evel

s

Data Sets

Mun

icip

al P

arce

l As

sess

men

t Dat

a (M

PAC)

Cana

da L

and

Inve

ntor

y (C

LI)

-NRC

an

Land

In

form

atio

n O

ntar

io (L

IO)

Offi

cial

Pla

n (F

utur

e)

Wat

erbo

dy N

ote:

mus

t be

supp

lem

ente

d by

Wat

er

Poly

gon

Segm

ent a

nd

Wat

er L

ine

Segm

ent)

Wat

er V

irtua

l Flo

wZo

ning

By-

Law

(M

uni/C

ity)

Mun

icip

al

Drai

ns

Prov

inci

al

Gro

undw

ater

M

onito

ring

Net

wor

k (P

GM

N)

Gro

undw

ater

El

evat

ion

(GW

St

udie

s)


Asse

ssm

ent d

ata

col-

lect

ed fo

r ind

ivid

ual

parc

els

that

des

crib

e th

e pr

oper

ty ty

pe a

nd

mul

tiple

stru

ctur

es

loca

ted

on th

e pa

rcel

. Da

ta c

an o

nly

be

purc

hase

d th

roug

h M

PAC

or o

btai

ned

in

partn

ersh

ip th

roug

h m

unic

ipal

ities

.

Cont

ains

land

us

e (1

966-

88)

& la

nd c

apab

il-ity

for a

gric

ul-

ture

, for

estry

, re

crea

tion,

un

gula

tes,

wa-

terfo

wl,

spor

t fis

h, e

tc. u

p to

14

clas

ses

(196

8-90

).

Type

s of

land

un

its, s

oils,

pr

ime,

and

cl

assifi

catio

ns

deve

lope

d fro

m so

il ty

pes

and

land

scap

e co

nditi

ons.

Land

use

des

ig-

natio

ns th

at p

ro-

vide

info

rmat

ion

on th

e fu

ture

de

velo

pmen

t sc

enar

io.

Som

e-tim

es d

igiti

zed

depe

ndin

g on

th

e so

phist

ica-

tion

of m

unic

i-pa

lity.

Wat

erbo

dy is

a c

olle

ctio

n of

one

or m

ore

wat

erbo

dy

segm

ents

. If

an o

ffici

al

nam

e ex

ists

for a

wat

erbo

dy,

it w

ill b

e re

cord

ed o

n th

e co

nsol

idat

ion,

not

on

each

in

divi

dual

seg

men

t. W

ater

lin

e se

gmen

ts a

nd w

ater

po

lygo

n se

gmen

ts a

re th

e ge

ospa

tial c

ompo

nent

s of

a

wat

erbo

dy (O

BM s

ourc

e w

ith s

ome

dist

rict u

pdat

es).

Iden

tifies

bod

ies

of

wat

er, s

uch

as ri

vers

or

stre

ams,

and

is st

ored

in

a n

etw

ork

form

at.

Virtu

al s

egm

ents

inco

r-po

rate

d to

est

ablis

h di

-re

ctio

nal fl

ow th

roug

h w

ater

feat

ures

, Wat

er

Reso

urce

s In

form

atio

n Pr

ogra

m (W

RIP)

.

Spat

ial l

ocat

ion

of ti

le d

rain

s. Ti

le d

rain

s ar

e m

atch

ed to

lots

an

d co

nces

sions

(c

adas

tral d

ata)

.

Digi

tized

fro

m th

e ol

d O

MAF

pap

er

map

s, th

is co

vera

ge is

no

t upd

ated

an

d m

ay b

e in

com

plet

e.

A m

onito

ring

netw

ork

that

pr

ovid

es d

ata

on g

roun

dwat

er

leve

l and

gro

und-

wat

er q

ualit

y fo

r th

e pr

ovin

ce.

A gr

ound

wat

er

elev

atio

n m

ap

is de

velo

ped

by c

olle

ctin

g nu

mer

ous

mea

sure

men

ts

of th

e st

atic

w

ater

leve

l in

an a

quife

r and

in

terp

olat

ing

thes

e da

ta

poin

ts.



Tab

le a

-1:

Dat

a so

urce

s fo

r th

e a

sses

smen

t r

epor

t (C

ontinu

ed)

Purpose

Clim

ate

Wat

er W

ithd

raw

als

Infr

astr

uctu

re —

Wat

er

Data Sets

CA G

auge

Sta

tions

Atm

osph

eric

En

viro

nmen

t Se

rvic

e (A

ES)

Perm

it To

Take

Wat

er (P

TTW

) —

C o

f A D

atab

ase

Wat

er W

ell

Info

rmat

ion

Syst

em (W

WIS

)

Wat

er W

ell

Info

rmat

ion

Syst

em (W

WIS

) —

Impr

oved

Stor

m

Sew

ers a

nd/

or C

ombi

ned

Sew

ers a

nd

Out

flow

s

Ont

ario

Wat

er

Trea

tmen

t Pl

ants

(WTP

)

Ont

ario

Sew

age

Trea

tmen

t Pla

nts

(STP

)W

ater

Str

uctu

reDa

ms


Met

eoro

logi

cal

data

col

lect

ed b

y lo

cal m

unic

ipal

ities

an

d TR

CA.

Prov

ides

fo

reca

sts

and/

or w

arni

ngs

of p

ossib

le

wea

ther

-rela

t-ed

em

erge

n-ci

es.

MO

E Pe

rmit

to Ta

ke W

ater

da

taba

se o

f per

mitt

ed w

ater

ta

king

s (>

50,

000

litre

s/da

y)

from

sur

face

and

gro

undw

a-te

r sou

rces

, sup

plem

ente

d w

ith T

RCA

wat

er u

se a

sses

s-m

ent s

urve

y da

ta

Geo

refe

renc

ed

wel

ls, in

clud

ing

grou

ndw

ater

w

ells,

test

wel

ls,

and

aban

done

d w

ells.

New

and

pre

viou

s sp

atia

l and

tabu

lar

data

base

impr

ove-

men

ts a

re b

eing

in

corp

orat

ed in

to

the

WW

IS d

ata.

Cond

uits

for

stor

mw

ater

w

ithin

mun

ici-

pally

ser

vice

d ar

eas.

Loca

tion

of

wat

er tr

eatm

ent

plan

ts in

Ont

ario

ba

sed

on a

com

-pi

latio

n of

199

7 an

d 20

00 M

OE

data

sets

.

Loca

tion

of s

ew-

age

treat

men

t pl

ants

in O

ntar

io

base

d on

a c

om-

pila

tion

of 1

997

and

2000

MO

E da

tase

ts.

Man

-mad

e st

ruc-

ture

s ins

ide

a w

a-te

rbod

y. M

inim

al

desc

riptiv

e de

tail

prov

ided

.

Man

-mad

e st

ruct

ures

in

side

a w

ater

body

un

der M

NR

juris

dict

ion.

Purpose

Gro

undw

ater

Qua

lity

Surf

ace

Wat

er Q

ualit

yVu

lner

abili

ty

Data Sets

Prov

inci

al

Gro

undw

ater

M

onito

ring

Net

wor

k (P

GM

N)

Wat

er W

ell

Info

rmat

ion

Syst

em

(WW

IS)

Site

Sca

le

Mon

itorin

g

Mic

robi

olog

ical

Sa

mpl

ing

&

Anal

ysis

OM

AF W

ater

Q

ualit

y St

udy

Prov

inci

al

Wat

er Q

ualit

y M

onito

ring

Net

wor

k (P

WQ

MN

)

Loca

l CA

Sa

mpl

ing

Ont

ario

Ben

thic

Bi

omon

itorin

g N

etw

ork

(OBB

N)

Prov

inci

al

Wat

er Q

ualit

y M

onito

ring

Net

wor

k (P

WQ

MN

)

Prov

inci

al

Gro

undw

ater

M

onito

ring

Net

wor

k (P

GM

N)

CA W

ater

Q

ualit

y M

onito

ring


A pr

ovin

ce-w

ide

mon

itorin

g ne

twor

k th

at p

rovi

des

data

on

gro

undw

ater

le

vels

and

qual

ity.

TRCA

has

mul

tiple

da

ta p

oint

s fo

r six

w

ells,

and

bas

elin

e da

ta fo

r all

23

wel

ls.

Lim

ited

data

on

wat

er q

ual-

ity p

rovi

ded

for

som

e of

the

wel

ls in

the

WW

IS. P

rimar

-ily

for w

ells

affe

cted

by

salt,

met

hane

, et

c.

Varie

s ac

cord

-in

g to

term

s of

re

fere

nce

for t

he

cont

amin

ated

sit

e st

udie

s (e

.g.,

mun

icip

al la

nd-

fills,

pet

role

um

sites

, and

gas

st

atio

ns).

For h

ealth

-re

late

d w

ater

qu

ality

inci

dent

s th

at in

volv

e m

icro

biol

ogi-

cal d

etec

tions

. G

ener

ally

test

sa

mpl

es b

roug

ht

in b

y th

e pu

blic

fro

m p

rivat

e w

ells.

Gen

eral

ly, b

ottle

te

stin

g th

roug

h ac

cred

ited

labo

ra-

torie

s. V

arie

s on

a

site-

to-s

ite b

asis.

Av

aila

ble

in h

ard

copy

onl

y.

Wat

er q

ualit

y sa

mpl

e co

llec-

tions

that

are

un

derta

ken

acro

ss th

e pr

ovin

ce a

t ap

prox

imat

ely

two

hund

red

sites

.

Loca

l wat

er

sam

ples

an

d fie

ld/la

b te

sts.

Mon

itors

the

stat

e of

org

an-

isms

livin

g in

or

on th

e bo

ttom

of

wat

erbo

dies

.

Wat

er q

ualit

y sa

mpl

e co

llec-

tions

und

erta

ken

acro

ss th

e pr

ovin

ce a

t ap-

prox

imat

ely

two

hund

red

sites

.

Desig

ned

to

prov

ide

good

qu

ality

dat

a (c

urre

nt a

nd

hist

oric

al) o

n ge

olog

ical

/ st

ratig

raph

ic

grou

ndw

ater

le

vel a

nd

grou

ndw

ater

qu

ality

for t

he

prov

ince

.

TRCA

col

-le

cts

wat

er

sam

ples

and

co

nduc

ts

som

e fie

ld a

nd

lab

test

s.

Sam

ples

are

se

nt to

an

accr

edite

d la

bora

tory

fo

r ad-

ditio

nal

test

ing.



Purpose

Gro

undw

ater

Ele

vati

on (G

W S

tudi

es)

Gro

undw

ater

Data Sets

CA G

auge

St

atio

ns

Wat

er S

urve

y of

Can

ada

(WSC

)/HYD

AT

— d

aily

Wat

er S

urve

y of

Ca

nada

(WSC

)/HY

DAT

—

hour

ly

Base

flow

(CAs

/Pr

ivat

e)En

hanc

ed F

low

Di

rect

ion

(EFD

IR)

CA M

appe

d Aq

uife

r Re

char

ge/

Disc

harg

e Ar

eas

3-D

Map

ping

fo

r Aqu

ifer

Dist

ribut

ion

and

Thic

knes

s

Wat

er W

ell

Info

rmat

ion

Syst

em (W

WIS

)

Hist

oric

al S

trea

m

Map

ping

Pote

ntia

l Spr

ings

in

the

ORM

, Sou

ther

n O

ntar

io fr

om A

eria

l Th

erm

ogra

phy


Gau

ge d

ata

stor

ed in

M

S Ac

cess

da

taba

se

(Env

iroba

se).

Conv

ersio

n to

SQ

L un

derw

ay.

Daily

mea

sure

s of

rive

r flow

an

d re

cord

s of

lake

/rive

r le

vels.

Hour

ly m

easu

res

of ri

ver fl

ow a

nd

reco

rds

of la

ke/

river

leve

ls.

Capt

ured

by

vari-

ous

met

hodo

lo-

gies

dep

endi

ng

on a

utho

rity

(e.g

. Pa

nel M

etho

d,

Culv

ert M

etho

d,

or B

ucke

t M

etho

d).

A flo

w-c

orre

cted

flow

di

rect

ion

grid

bas

ed o

n m

appe

d hy

drog

raph

y ba

sed

on th

e Pr

ovin

cial

DE

M.

A fu

ndam

enta

l da

tase

t for

Arc

Hydr

o an

d th

eref

ore

a re

com

men

d-ed

dat

aset

for S

ourc

e W

ater

Pro

tect

ion.

Rech

arge

ar

eas

are

whe

re

prec

ipita

tion

read

ily in

filtra

tes

an a

quife

r. Di

s-ch

arge

are

as a

re

whe

re g

roun

d-w

ater

is re

leas

ed

to th

e su

rface

.

The

York

-Pee

l-Du

rham

-Tor

onto

G

roun

dwat

er

Man

agem

ent

Stud

y te

am h

as

prep

ared

inte

r-pr

eted

sur

face

s fo

r bot

h aq

uife

rs

and

aqui

tard

s.

Geo

refe

renc

ed

wel

ls, in

clud

ing

grou

ndw

ater

w

ells,

test

wel

ls,

and

aban

done

d w

ells.

New

and

pr

evio

us s

patia

l an

d ta

bula

r da

taba

se.

Hist

oric

al

stre

am m

appi

ng

com

plet

ed b

y TR

CA s

taff.

Dat

a ex

ists

in v

aryi

ng

form

ats.

Data

ext

ract

ed fr

om

ther

mal

infra

red

imag

es

show

ing

a co

ntra

st in

su

rface

tem

pera

ture

s.

War

m a

reas

on

the

ther

-m

al im

age

coin

cide

with

po

rtion

s of

stre

ams

and

may

indi

cate

sig

nific

ant

grou

ndw

ater

disc

harg

e lo

catio

ns.

Purpose

Thre

ats

& C

onta

min

ants

Fish

erie

s D

ata

Data Sets

Cem

eter

ies

Win

dshi

eld

Surv

ey

Petr

oleu

m

Wel

lsW

aste

Disp

osal

Site

Unse

rvic

ed

Area

s

Ont

ario

Str

eam

As

sess

men

t Pr

otoc

ol (O

SAP)

Aqua

tic R

esou

rce

Mon

itorin

g

Prog

ram

(ARM

P)Aq

uatic

Res

ourc

e Ar

ea (A

RA)


A w

inds

hiel

d su

rvey

was

con

-du

cted

in w

ellh

ead

prot

ectio

n ar

eas

to

iden

tify

pote

ntia

l co

ntam

inan

t so

urce

s, in

clud

ing

cem

eter

ies.

LIO

cla

ss:

Petro

leum

Wel

l. Fu

ll de

tails

in

the

Ont

ario

O

il, G

as, a

nd

Salt

Reso

urce

s Li

brar

y.

A sit

e de

dica

ted

to th

e sy

stem

atic

des

truct

ion,

tra

nsfo

rmat

ion,

bur

ial,

or

stor

age

of w

aste

mat

eria

l. TR

CA s

taff

has

upda

ted

the

info

rmat

ion

since

the

initi

al N

RVIS

load

.

Area

s th

at d

o no

t ha

ve m

unic

ipal

se

wag

e an

d/or

and

wat

er

serv

ices

.

Fiel

d da

ta s

uch

as

spec

ies,

tem

pera

-tu

re, h

abita

t, ge

o-m

orph

olog

y, an

d ba

seflo

w s

tore

d in

the

HABP

ROG

S da

taba

se.

Data

from

a v

arie

ty o

f sou

rces

re

gard

ing

past

and

pre

sent

con

di-

tions

of t

his

syst

em. T

he re

sults

of

the

field

pro

gram

are

pre

sent

ed

to a

sses

s cu

rrent

con

ditio

n/he

alth

of t

he w

ater

shed

’s aq

uatic

re

sour

ces.

ARA

desc

ribes

an

area

of a

wat

er-

body

(e.g

., id

entifi

es th

e th

erm

al

regi

mes

for a

stre

am a

nd p

hysic

al

char

acte

ristic

s of

the

wat

er).

ARA

Li

ne S

egm

ent a

nd A

RA P

olyg

on

Segm

ent a

re th

e ge

ospa

tial

com

pone

nts

of th

e AR

A.

Ther

mal

cla

ssifi

ca-

tion

of s

tream

s an

d w

ater

bodi

es.



Tabl

e a

-2:

Mon

itor

ing

Dat

abas

es a

nd D

ata

Des

crip

tion

s

Dat

abas

e N

ame

Dat

a

Type

Form

atPe

riod

of R

ecor

dCo

vera

ge A

rea

Reco

rdin

g/Co

llect

ion

Freq

uenc

y

Dur

ham

Reg

ion

Coas

tal

Wet

land

s M

onit

orin

g D

atab

ase

Wat

er le

vels

exce

l20

03 –

pre

sent

5 co

asta

l wet

land

sCo

ntin

uous

read

ings

Wat

er te

mpe

ratu

reex

cel

2003

– p

rese

nt5

coas

tal w

etla

nds

Cont

inuo

us re

adin

gs

Sedi

men

t qua

lity

acce

ss20

028

coas

tal w

etla

nds

5-ye

ar ro

tatio

n co

llect

ion

Fish

com

mun

ityac

cess

2003

– p

rese

nt8

coas

tal w

etla

nds

Mon

thly

col

lect

ion

Inve

rtebr

ate

acce

ss20

03 –

pre

sent

8 co

asta

l wet

land

sM

onth

ly c

olle

ctio

n

Subm

erge

d pl

ants

acce

ss20

03 –

pre

sent

8 co

asta

l wet

land

sM

onth

ly c

olle

ctio

n

Wet

land

Eva

luat

ion

Dat

abas

eM

NR

eval

uatio

n re

ports

pape

r20

0515

wet

land

s5

year

rota

tion

ARM

P Bi

o-M

onit

orin

g D

atab

ase

Wat

er Q

ualit

y In

dex

valu

es (W

QI),

sta

tus

and

syst

em ty

peex

cel

1996

– 2

004

(term

inat

ed)

ARM

PS p

er w

ater

shed

One

col

lect

ion

per s

ite p

er A

RMP

Wat

er te

mpe

ratu

reex

cel

1996

– 2

004

(term

inat

ed)

ARM

PS p

er w

ater

shed

One

col

lect

ion

per s

ite p

er A

RMP

OSA

P Bi

o-M

onit

orin

g D

atab

ase

Ont

ario

Stre

am A

sses

smen

t Pro

toco

lsac

cess

Initi

ated

200

514

9 sit

esva

riabl

e

Spec

ies

Dat

abas

eTe

rrest

rial s

peci

es a

ttrib

utes

acce

ss20

03 –

pre

sent

Juris

dict

ion

Seas

onal

col

lect

ion

Regi

onal

Mon

itor

ing

Net

wor

k D

atab

ases

Gro

undw

ater

qua

lity

(TRC

A/PG

MN

)ac

cess

2001

– p

rese

nt23

site

s; lim

ited

data

for a

ll bu

t 6

sites

.1

sam

ple

colle

cted

per

site

per

yea

r for

6 s

ites.

Ad

ditio

nal s

ites

adde

d fo

r 200

9.

Man

ual g

roun

dwat

er le

vel

mea

sure

men

ts

(TRC

A/PG

MN

)ac

cess

2001

– p

rese

nt9

sites

in 2

001,

incr

ease

d to

22

sites

cur

rent

lyPe

riodi

c m

anua

l m

easu

rem

ents

to v

erify

hou

rly

data

Auto

mat

ed g

roun

dwat

er le

vel

mea

sure

men

ts(T

RCA/

PGM

N)

acce

ss20

01 –

pre

sent

9 sit

es in

200

1, in

crea

sed

to 2

2 sit

es c

urre

ntly

Hour

ly re

adin

gs

Surfa

ce w

ater

qua

lity

(TRC

A/PW

QM

N)

acce

ss19

65 –

pre

sent

19 s

ites

Mon

thly

col

lect

ion

at P

WQ

MN

site

s; tw

o sa

mpl

es

colle

cted

per

yea

r at T

RCA

sites

;



Dat

abas

e N

ame

Dat

a

Type

Form

atPe

riod

of R

ecor

dCo

vera

ge A

rea

Reco

rdin

g/Co

llect

ion

Freq

uenc

y

Regi

onal

Mon

itor

ing

Net

wor

k D

atab

ases

Surfa

ce w

ater

flow

sac

cess

1959

– p

rese

nt d

epen

ding

on

stat

ion

63 g

auge

s cu

rrent

ly in

all

TRSP

A w

ater

shed

sCo

ntin

uous

gau

ges

inst

alle

d an

d m

aint

aine

d by

W

ater

Sur

vey

of C

anad

a pl

us T

RCA

Rain

fall

and

clim

ate

stat

ions

ac

cess

1936

– p

rese

nt97

act

ive

loca

tions

by T

RCA,

AE

S, m

unic

ipal

ities

Cont

inuo

us –

see

Tabl

e A-

3

Snow

pac

kac

cess

1998

– p

rese

nt12

loca

tions

Bi-w

eekl

y –

seas

onal

Low

flow

s (T

RSPA

)ac

cess

2000

- pr

esen

t68

site

s4

– 6

mea

sure

men

ts p

er in

dex

site

per y

ear. A

d-di

tiona

l sin

gle

year

mea

sure

men

ts

Low

flow

s (Y

PDT)

e:DA

T20

0246

site

s1

mea

sure

men

t per

site

Stre

am m

orph

olog

ye:

DAT

2002

46 s

ites

1 m

easu

rem

ent p

er s

ite

Site

loca

tions

acce

ssCu

rrent

All s

ites

As a

dded

/rem

oved

Fiel

d no

tes

exce

l20

01 -

pres

ent

Mos

t site

sAs

requ

ired

PTTW

Dat

abas

ePo

tent

ial c

onta

min

ant t

hrea

ts, l

ocat

ions

, and

at

tribu

tes

acce

ss20

02 -

pres

ent

628

wat

er u

sers

in T

RCA’

s Wat

er

Use

Asse

ssm

ent d

atab

ase

As Id

entifi

ed

YPD

T D

atab

ase

Subs

urfa

ce/w

ell d

ata

acce

ss19

50s

– pr

esen

tJu

risdi

ctio

nAs

iden

tified

Clim

atic

dat

aac

cess

1960

s –

pres

ent

Juris

dict

ion

As id

entifi

ed

Surfa

ce w

ater

dat

aac

cess

1960

s –

pres

ent

Juris

dict

ion

As id

entifi

ed

PTTW

dat

aac

cess

2002

– p

rese

ntJu

risdi

ctio

nAs

iden

tified



a1.2.1 stream flow gauging

Stream gauge data are required for water budgets, assimilative capacity studies, water takings, aquatic studies, and recharge and discharge analyses. Total flows, base flows, mean daily flows, and mean monthly flow information is derived from the raw level data and stream section and profile survey information.

There are 63 active or “open” stations (Table a-3), which include both Environment Canada’s Water Survey of Canada (WSC) and TRCA stations.

a1.2.2 Precipitation/Meteorological gauging

Monitoring and measuring precipitation is a fairly simple process. One must obtain an accurate sample of the precipitation falling at the location of the gauge and have sufficient spatial coverage throughout the watershed to permit accurate estimates of the volume of water falling on a watershed. This information is currently compared with runoff volumes and quantitative hydrologic forecasting. Two types of climate station measurement locations operate within the watershed rain gauges, and complete climate stations. Some of each are operated and maintained by TRCA, while others are maintained by the Atmospheric Environment Service (AES) or TRCA’s municipal partners. These climate stations, most of which comprise tipping bucket rain gauges, are summarized on Table a-4. The data are collected by AES and are available from the Environment Canada website.

a1.2.3 snow Cover Monitoring

TRCA operates and maintains snow course surveys at twelve locations, with ten measurement sites per location. These locations are identified in Table a-5. A snow course location consists of a series of numbered posts driven into the ground 30 metres apart, usually in a straight line. The water content is calculated based on the weight of the snow in a core sampler. One ounce of snow in the sampler contains the equivalent of one inch of water. Snow course measurements are taken twice monthly, from December to May.

a1.2.4 groundwater Monitoring

In partnership with the MOE, TRCA operates and maintains a network of 22 groundwater monitoring wells located throughout the watershed (Table a-6). Loggers were installed in the monitoring wells from 2000 to 2003 and automatically record water levels and temperature. Dataloggers measure absolute pressure (water pressure + atmospheric pressure), expressed in centimetres of water column.

The data are downloaded and sent electronically to the MOE Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Information System database (PGMIS). The data are locally exported from PGMIS into the YDPT database using a SITEFX (specialized software) interface. TRCA staff is required to perform QA/QC activities to verify the continued accuracy of the data. Water levels are periodically measured manually to ensure that the automated systems are functioning correctly. QA/QC activities for all TRCA wells have not been completed at this time. Efforts are being made to align non-SWP funded program deliverables to support SWP analytical requirements.

Water samples are collected from selected wells in the fall each year and are analyzed routinely for general chemistry and metals. Baseline water quality samples have been taken from every well in the network. Data from five wells are provided by either the MOE (Stouffville 700) or York Region (MW-2, 9, and 26; STO-18-87).



Tabl

e a

-3:

TrC

a/P

rovi

ncia

l str

eam

gau

ge n

etw

ork

Loca

tion

TRCA

IDW

SC ID

Stat

usRe

cord

Len

gth

Ope

rato

rW

ater

shed

East

ing

Nor

thin

gTe

lem

etry

TRCA

/City

20n/

aCl

osed

1999

-200

0To

ront

oHi

ghla

nd C

reek

6418

20.0

4846

055.

8no

TRCA

/City

21n/

aCl

osed

1999

-200

0To

ront

oHi

ghla

nd C

reek

6427

05.9

4846

147.

0no

Gan

atse

kaig

on C

reek

nea

r Pic

kerin

g31

02HC

114

Clos

ed19

76-8

1, 2

003

- Cur

rent

TRCA

Duffi

ns C

reek

6541

95.0

4858

433.

0no

Ross

land

& H

arw

ood

– M

iller

s Cr

eek

35n/

aCl

osed

Tem

pora

ryTR

CADu

ffins

Cre

ek65

7863

.448

6042

9.4

no

Burn

dene

t Cre

ek –

Ken

nedy

and

Aus

tin D

rive

36n/

aCl

osed

2001

- 200

5TR

CARo

uge

Rive

r63

6760

.048

5858

2.0

no

Ross

land

& H

arw

ood

– M

iller

s Cr

eek

59n/

aCl

osed

1999

TRCA

Duffi

ns C

reek

6570

74.2

4861

183.

5no

SWM

Pon

d M

onito

ring

60n/

aCl

osed

2000

Rich

mon

d Hi

llRo

uge

Rive

rn/

an/

ano

SWM

Pon

d M

onito

ring

61n/

aCl

osed

2000

Rich

mon

d Hi

llRo

uge

Rive

rn/

an/

ano

SWM

Pon

d M

onito

ring

62n/

aCl

osed

2000

Rich

mon

d Hi

llRo

uge

Rive

rn/

an/

ano

SWM

Pon

d M

onito

ring

63n/

aCl

osed

2000

Rich

mon

d Hi

llRo

uge

Rive

rn/

an/

ano

SWM

Pon

d M

onito

ring

64n/

aCl

osed

2000

Rich

mon

d Hi

llRo

uge

Rive

rn/

an/

ano

SWM

Pon

d M

onito

ring

65n/

aCl

osed

2000

Rich

mon

d Hi

llRo

uge

Rive

rn/

an/

ano

Stou

ffvill

e Cr

eek

belo

w S

touf

fvill

e72

02HC

035

Clos

ed19

74 -

1982

WSC

Duffi

ns C

reek

6418

33.7

4868

479.

0no

Rees

or C

reek

nea

r Alto

na73

02HC

040

Clos

ed19

74 -

1976

WSC

Duffi

ns C

reek

6437

80.4

4868

408.

9no

Wes

t Duf

fins

near

Alto

na74

02HC

041

Clos

ed19

74 -

1982

WSC

Duffi

ns C

reek

6452

71.1

4868

899.

9no

Wix

on C

reek

bel

ow A

ltona

7502

HC04

6Cl

osed

1974

- 19

82W

SCDu

ffins

Cre

ek64

5849

.948

6909

2.8

no

Mic

hell

Cree

k be

low

Cla

rem

ont

7602

HC04

5Cl

osed

1974

- 19

82W

SCDu

ffins

Cre

ek65

0286

.948

6932

0.9

no



Loca

tion

TRCA

IDW

SC ID

Stat

usRe

cord

Len

gth

Ope

rato

rW

ater

shed

East

ing

Nor

thin

gTe

lem

etry

Maj

or C

reek

abo

ve G

reen

Riv

er77

02HC

037

Clos

ed19

74 -

1976

WSC

Duffi

ns C

reek

6451

48.4

4863

182.

7no

Wes

t Duf

fins

@ G

reen

Riv

er78

02HC

026

Clos

ed63

-68,

70-

73, 7

4-88

WSC

Duffi

ns C

reek

6458

67.5

4862

709.

2no

Gan

atse

kiag

on C

reek

nea

r Bro

ugha

m79

02HC

042

Clos

ed19

74 -

1976

WSC

Duffi

ns C

reek

6491

47.0

4863

656.

2no

Urfe

nea

r Bro

ugha

m80

02HC

043

Clos

ed19

74 -

1976

WSC

Duffi

ns C

reek

6514

44.5

4864

410.

4no

Brou

gham

@ B

roug

ham

8102

HC04

4Cl

osed

1974

- 19

76W

SCDu

ffins

Cre

ek65

1918

.048

6453

3.1

no

Wes

t Duf

fins

near

Pic

kerin

g82

02HC

106

Clos

ed19

65 -

1988

WSC

Duffi

ns C

reek

6540

57.7

4856

992.

0no

Duffi

ns C

reek

@ A

jax-

wes

t83

02HC

049

Clos

ed19

89-1

991

WSC

Duffi

ns C

reek

6558

29.0

4857

325.

3no

Wes

t Hum

ber @

Hig

hway

71

02HC

031

Ope

n19

65 -

Curre

ntW

SCHu

mbe

r Riv

er60

6343

.048

4587

3.0

yes

Don

Rive

r @ To

dmor

den

202

HC02

4O

pen

1962

- Cu

rrent

WSC

Don

Rive

r63

2064

.048

3828

4.0

yes

Etob

icok

e @

QEW

*3

02HC

030

Ope

n19

66 -

Curre

ntW

SCEt

obic

oke

Cree

k61

6520

.048

2866

0.0

yes

Wes

t Duf

fins

abov

e G

reen

Riv

er4

02HC

038

Ope

n19

74 -

Curre

ntW

SCDu

ffins

Cre

ek64

6170

.048

6410

2.0

yes

Duffi

ns C

reek

abo

ve P

icke

ring

502

HC01

9O

pen

1960

- Cu

rrent

WSC

Duffi

ns C

reek

6558

88.0

4861

628.

0ye

s

Duffi

ns a

t Aja

x6

02HC

049

Ope

n19

89 -

Curre

ntW

SCDu

ffins

Cre

ek65

6251

.048

5690

9.0

yes

Mim

ico

@ Is

lingt

on7

02HC

033

Ope

n19

65 -

Curre

ntW

SCM

imic

o Cr

eek

6193

94.0

4833

768.

0ye

s

Hum

ber R

iver

@ W

esto

n Ro

ad*

802

HC00

3O

pen

1945

- Cu

rrent

WSC

Hum

ber R

iver

6192

15.0

4839

500.

0ye

s

Blk

Cree

k @

Sca

rlett

Road

902

HC02

7O

pen

1966

- Cu

rrent

WSC

Hum

ber R

iver

6205

71.0

4836

774.

0ye

s

Wes

t Don

@ Y

ork

Mill

s*

1002

HC00

5O

pen

1945

- Cu

rrent

WSC

Don

Rive

r62

8585

.048

4425

5.0

yes

G. R

oss

Lord

Dam

11n/

aO

pen

1973

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Don

Rive

r62

3798

.048

4771

1.0

yes



Loca

tion

TRCA

IDW

SC ID

Stat

usRe

cord

Len

gth

Ope

rato

rW

ater

shed

East

ing

Nor

thin

gTe

lem

etry

Clai

revi

lle D

am*

12n/

aO

pen

19XX

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Hum

ber R

iver

6102

99.0

4843

563.

0ye

s

Littl

e Do

n @

Yor

k M

ills

1302

HC02

9O

pen

1964

- Cu

rrent

WSC

Don

Rive

r63

3243

.048

4633

1.0

yes

High

land

Cre

ek –

Mor

ning

side

Wor

ks*

1402

HC01

3O

pen

1956

- Cu

rrent

WSC

High

land

Cre

ek64

5529

.048

4884

2.0

no

East

Hum

ber

15n/

aO

pen

1999

- Cu

rrent

Rich

mon

d Hi

llHu

mbe

r Riv

er62

1687

.748

6726

2.3

no

Lake

Wilc

ox –

Inflo

w

16n/

aO

pen

1998

- Cu

rrent

Rich

mon

d Hi

llHu

mbe

r Riv

er62

5930

.548

6780

4.3

no

Roug

e at

Hig

hway

404

17n/

aO

pen

1998

- Cu

rrent

Rich

mon

d Hi

llRo

uge

Rive

r63

0126

.548

5936

8.2

no

Mor

ning

side

Cree

k at

Ste

eles

18n/

aO

pen

1998

- Cu

rrent

Scha

effe

rsRo

uge

Rive

r64

1559

.348

5555

3.1

no

Mor

ning

side

Cree

k at

Fin

ch A

venu

e Ea

st19

n/a

Ope

n19

98 -

Curre

ntSc

haef

fers

Roug

e Ri

ver

6436

43.9

4853

429.

6no

Hum

ber R

iver

@ P

algr

ave

2202

HC04

7O

pen

1981

-98,

200

2 - C

urre

ntW

SCHu

mbe

r Riv

er59

4477

.048

6460

9.0

yes

Cold

Cre

ek n

ear B

olto

n*23

02HC

023

Ope

n19

62 -

Curre

ntW

SCHu

mbe

r Riv

er60

3013

.048

6022

5.0

yes

Hum

ber R

iver

@ E

lder

Mill

s24

02HC

025

Ope

n19

62 -

Curre

ntW

SCHu

mbe

r Riv

er61

0353

.148

5199

4.4

yes

East

Hum

ber R

iver

@ P

ine

Gro

ve25

02HC

009

Ope

n19

53 -

Curre

ntW

SCHu

mbe

r Riv

er61

3896

.048

4953

9.0

yes

East

Hum

ber R

iver

@ K

ing

Cree

k*26

02HC

032

Ope

n19

65 -

93, 2

002

- Cur

rent

WSC

Hum

ber R

iver

6114

87.0

4862

025.

0ye

s

Etob

icok

e Cr

eek

at B

ram

pton

2702

HC01

7O

pen

1957

- Cu

rrent

WSC

Etob

icok

e Cr

eek

5999

45.0

4838

374.

0ye

s

Rees

or C

reek

@ 8

th C

once

ssio

n28

02HC

039

Ope

n19

76 -9

3, 1

997

- Cur

rent

TRCA

Duffi

ns C

reek

6443

92.0

4866

289.

0no

Brou

gham

Cre

ek @

5th

Con

cess

ion

2902

HC04

4O

pen

1974

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Duffi

ns C

reek

6546

68.0

4863

409.

0no

Urfe

Cre

ek @

Ros

sland

Rd

3002

HC04

3O

pen

1974

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Duffi

ns C

reek

6514

88.0

4864

382.

0no

Carru

ther

s @

Bay

ly S

treet

32n/

aO

pen

2002

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Carru

ther

s Cr

eek

6608

01.0

4857

058.

0no



Loca

tion

TRCA

IDW

SC ID

Stat

usRe

cord

Len

gth

Ope

rato

rW

ater

shed

East

ing

Nor

thin

gTe

lem

etry

Littl

e Ro

uge

Nea

r Loc

ust H

ill*

3302

HC02

8O

pen

1964

- Cu

rrent

WSC

Roug

e Ri

ver

6433

13.0

4863

176.

0ye

s

Roug

e Ri

ver n

ear M

arkh

am*

3402

HC02

2O

pen

1961

- Cu

rrent

WSC

Roug

e Ri

ver

6419

60.0

4857

663.

0ye

s

Uppe

r Hum

ber @

Hig

hway

938

02HC

057

Ope

n20

05 -

Curre

ntW

SCHu

mbe

r Riv

er58

9223

.048

6916

8.0

yes

Cent

revi

lle C

reek

nea

r Alb

ion*

3902

HC05

1O

pen

2005

- Cu

rrent

WSC

Hum

ber R

iver

5935

58.0

4864

120.

0ye

s

Hum

ber @

Gor

eway

Roa

d41

n/a

Ope

n20

02 -

Curre

ntTR

CAHu

mbe

r Riv

er60

4266

.048

4697

1.0

no

Ger

man

Mill

s at

Hig

hway

744

n/a

Ope

n20

01 -

Curre

ntRi

chm

ond

Hill

Don

Rive

r62

8377

.348

5543

2.1

no

Tayl

or C

reek

45n/

aO

pen

2004

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Don

Rive

r63

4709

.048

4008

4.0

no

High

land

Cre

ek –

Mal

vern

Bra

nch

46n/

aO

pen

2003

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

High

land

Cre

ek64

2291

.048

5097

1.0

no

Littl

e Ro

uge

near

Dic

kson

s Hi

ll48

02HC

053

Ope

n20

02 -

Curre

ntW

SCRo

uge

Rive

r63

7946

.048

6505

7.0

yes

Pine

Cre

ek a

t Rad

om51

n/a

Ope

n20

00 -

Curre

ntTR

CAFr

ench

man

’s Ba

y65

3715

.048

5429

7.0

no

Kros

no C

reek

at S

andy

Bea

ch R

oad

52n/

aO

pen

2000

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Fren

chm

an’s

Bay

6548

38.0

4854

106.

0no

Mic

hell

Cree

k –

Clar

emon

t CA

53n/

aO

pen

2001

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Duffi

ns C

reek

6536

91.0

4868

213.

0no

East

Duf

fin C

reek

– C

lare

mon

t CA

54

n/a

Ope

n20

01 -

Curre

ntTR

CADu

ffins

Cre

ek65

3994

.048

6808

4.0

no

Petti

coat

Cre

ek C

onse

rvat

ion

Area

n/a

Ope

n20

01 -

Curre

ntTR

CAPe

ttico

at C

reek

6520

03.0

4851

818.

0no

Mim

ico

Cree

k –

Wild

woo

d Pa

rk55

n/a

Ope

n20

03 -

Curre

ntTR

CAM

imic

o Cr

eek

6103

48.0

4840

698.

0no

Roug

e W

est –

Egl

in E

ast

57n/

aO

pen

2001

- Cu

rrent

Rich

mon

d Hi

llRo

uge

Rive

r62

6764

.048

6191

1.0

no

Lake

Wilc

ox G

auge

– o

utflo

w58

n/a

Ope

n19

98 -

Curre

ntRi

chm

ond

Hill

Hum

ber R

iver

6249

39.5

4867

231.

3no

Roug

e Ea

st66

n/a

Ope

n20

00 -

Curre

ntRi

chm

ond

Hill

Roug

e Ri

ver

6294

61.1

4860

387.

2no



Loca

tion

TRCA

IDW

SC ID

Stat

usRe

cord

Len

gth

Ope

rato

rW

ater

shed

East

ing

Nor

thin

gTe

lem

etry

Don

Rive

r Eas

t @ Th

ornh

ill68

02HC

056

Ope

n20

05 -

Curre

ntW

SCDo

n Ri

ver

6255

33.0

4853

870.

0no

Plun

kett

Cree

k70

n/a

Ope

n20

04 -

Curre

ntTR

CAHu

mbe

r Riv

er61

2501

.048

4812

7.0

no

Gan

etse

kiag

on C

reek

71n/

aO

pen

2003

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Duffi

ns C

reek

6538

61.0

4858

804.

0no

Beav

er C

reek

at H

ighw

ay 4

0484

n/a

Ope

n20

06 -

Curre

ntRi

chm

ond

Hill

Roug

e Ri

ver

6305

63.0

4857

068.

0no

Sprin

g Cr

eek

89n/

aO

pen

2003

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Etob

icok

e Cr

eek

6068

56.0

4838

498.

0no

Etob

icok

e Cr

eek

@ D

erry

& D

ixie

90n/

aO

pen

2003

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Etob

icok

e Cr

eek

6067

43.0

4836

865.

0no

Mor

ning

side

Trib

utar

y91

n/a

Ope

n20

03 –

200

4Sc

haef

fers

Roug

e Ri

ver

6425

21.8

4854

770.

0no

Wes

t Don

Riv

er @

Duf

ferin

& S

teel

es93

n/a

Ope

n20

05 -

Curre

ntTR

CADo

n Ri

ver

6229

08.0

4850

018.

0tb

d

Wes

t Duf

fins

@ H

ighw

ay 7

95n/

aO

pen

2005

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Duffi

ns C

reek

6460

80.0

4862

510.

0n/

a

High

land

Cre

ek @

Bel

lam

y an

d La

wre

nce

97n/

aO

pen

2005

- Cu

rrent

WSC

High

land

Cre

ek64

2157

.048

4594

2.0

yes

Blac

k Cr

eek

@ S

teel

es

98n/

aO

pen

2006

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Hum

ber R

iver

6190

46.0

4848

181.

0tb

d

Stou

ffvill

e Da

m*

99n/

aO

pen

2005

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Duffi

ns C

reek

6403

47.0

4870

869.

0tb

d

Miln

e Da

m10

0n/

aO

pen

2005

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Roug

e Ri

ver

6419

60.0

4858

582.

0tb

d

East

Don

at H

ighw

ay 7

101

n/a

Ope

n20

06 -

Curre

ntRi

chm

ond

Hill

Don

Rive

r62

4885

.048

5446

2.0

no

Roug

e @

Hig

hway

710

4n/

aO

pen

2006

- Cu

rrent

TRCA

Roug

e Ri

ver

n/a

n/a

tbd

Blac

k Cr

eek

at W

ilson

/401

105

n/a

Ope

n20

06 -

Curre

ntTR

CAHu

mbe

r Riv

ern/

an/

atb

d



Tabl

e a

-4:

TrC

a C

limat

e st

atio

ns

TRCA

Gau

ge N

ame

Ow

ner

Stat

usTe

lem

etry

East

ing

(N83

)N

orth

ing

(N83

)G

auge

Typ

eH

isto

rica

l Rec

ord

Leng

thSe

ason

al /

Year

Rou

nd

Butto

nvill

e Ai

rpor

t AE

Sop

enno

6302

77.6

4857

494.

1

1985

- Cu

rrent

year

roun

d

Duffe

rin O

ffice

AES

open

no62

3279

.648

4886

7.1

Tipp

ing

Buck

etn/

ase

ason

al

Pear

son

Inte

rnat

iona

l Airp

ort

AES

open

no61

2653

.948

3648

0.8

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

36 -

Curre

nt y

ear r

ound

Toro

nto

Isla

nd A

irpor

t AE

Scl

osed

no62

9097

.448

3185

5.5

19

56 -

2006

seas

onal

Trin

ityAE

Sop

enno

6292

99.7

4836

396.

5Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

n/a

seas

onal

Albi

on

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6141

37.2

4844

028.

6

1979

- Cu

rrent

yea

r rou

nd

Anca

ster

CC

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6228

52.5

4843

314.

6Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1991

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Berin

gCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no61

8353

.448

3254

6.9

19

79 -

Curre

nt y

ear r

ound

Berm

onds

ey Y

ard

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6351

04.7

4842

538.

2Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1991

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Boot

hCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no63

3339

4834

809.

1Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1979

- Cu

rrent

year

roun

d

Brow

nCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no62

9178

.748

3698

7.9

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

79 -

Curre

ntye

ar ro

und

Cast

lefie

ldCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

62

3545

.748

4105

6.8

20

01 -

Curre

nt y

ear r

ound

Cent

ral

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6272

51.1

4834

978.

2Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1979

- Cu

rrent

year

roun

d

Chur

chCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no63

0651

.348

3574

5Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1979

- Cu

rrent

year

roun

d

Cum

mer

Are

naCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no63

0916

.848

5088

8.5

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

91 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Dow

nsvi

ew A

rena

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6200

21.4

4841

863.

2Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1991

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal



TRCA

Gau

ge N

ame

Ow

ner

Stat

usTe

lem

etry

East

ing

(N83

)N

orth

ing

(N83

)G

auge

Typ

eH

isto

rica

l Rec

ord

Leng

thSe

ason

al /

Year

Rou

nd

Earle

Bal

es C

CCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no62

5949

.448

4576

7.7

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

91 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Elle

smer

e Ya

rdCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no63

9149

4847

751.

9Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1999

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Emer

y Yar

dCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no61

6668

.948

4607

4.3

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

91 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Finc

h Ya

rdCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no62

2658

.348

4720

8.9

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

91 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Fore

st H

illCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no62

7844

.748

3890

3.1

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

79 -

Curre

ntye

ar ro

und

Gre

enw

ood

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6344

37.2

4837

308.

6Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1979

- Cu

rrent

year

roun

d

High

land

Cre

ek Tr

eatm

ent P

lant

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6495

59.5

4848

169.

7Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1995

- Cu

rrent

yea

r rou

nd

How

ard

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6248

55.7

4834

274.

7Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1979

- Cu

rrent

year

roun

d

Kew

Bea

ch

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6367

80.7

4836

487.

9Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1979

- Cu

rrent

year

roun

d

Kim

berly

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6370

72.9

4838

011.

3Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1979

- Cu

rrent

year

roun

d

Kipl

ing

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6193

46.7

4829

268

19

79 -

Curre

nt y

ear r

ound

Mai

n Tr

eatm

ent P

lant

City

of T

oron

tocl

osed

no64

2772

.948

4165

8.7

grad

uate

d cy

linde

r19

86 -

2000

year

roun

d

Mar

tin G

rove

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6144

52.3

4837

390.

7

1979

- Cu

rrent

yea

r rou

nd

Mar

yval

e Pu

blic

Sch

ool

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6357

90.2

4847

340

Tipp

ing

Buck

etn/

ase

ason

al

Mc

Nic

oll a

nd K

enne

dyCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no63

7171

.748

5060

5.6

Tipp

ing

Buck

etn/

ase

ason

al

Mitc

hell

Fiel

d CC

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6277

38.1

4848

231

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

91 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Mor

ning

side

Yard

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6454

40.2

4850

241

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

04 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al



TRCA

Gau

ge N

ame

Ow

ner

Stat

usTe

lem

etry

East

ing

(N83

)N

orth

ing

(N83

)G

auge

Typ

eH

isto

rica

l Rec

ord

Leng

thSe

ason

al /

Year

Rou

nd

Nas

hden

e Ya

rdCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no64

0713

.748

5336

7.9

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

04 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Nor

th To

ront

o Ci

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no62

9063

.648

4087

9.6

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

79 -

Curre

ntye

ar ro

und

Old

Wes

ton

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6237

31.4

4836

822

Tipp

ing

Buck

etn/

aye

ar ro

und

Orio

le Y

ard

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6314

27.8

4847

403.

1Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

n/a

seas

onal

Prov

iden

ce V

illa

City

of T

oron

tocl

osed

no63

8261

.748

4141

4.4

Tipp

ing

Buck

etn/

ase

ason

al

Rich

view

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6177

38.8

4837

339.

7

1979

- Cu

rrent

yea

r rou

nd

St A

ugus

tine

Sem

inar

yCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no64

1969

.148

4195

3.1

Tipp

ing

Buck

etn/

ase

ason

al

Swan

sea

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6228

03.2

4833

428.

6Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1979

- Cu

rrent

year

roun

d

Thor

nclif

feCi

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no63

2870

.448

4178

3st

anda

rd c

onic

al20

01 -

Curre

ntye

ar ro

und

Toro

nto

Isla

nd A

irpor

t Ci

ty o

f Tor

onto

open

no62

9562

.748

3219

9.5

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

79 -

Curre

ntye

ar ro

und

Toro

nto

Zoo

City

of T

oron

toop

enno

6463

30.2

4853

543.

9Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1994

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Cent

re a

nd B

athu

rst

City

of V

augh

anop

enno

6243

0948

5248

8.1

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

98 -

Curre

ntye

ar ro

und

Islin

gton

and

Rut

herfo

rdCi

ty o

f Vau

ghan

open

no61

2841

.248

5246

7.7

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

98 -

Curre

ntye

ar ro

und

Keel

e an

d M

ajor

Mac

kenz

ieCi

ty o

f Vau

ghan

open

no61

9035

4857

312.

6Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1998

- Cu

rrent

year

roun

d

Cher

ryw

ood

Tran

sfor

mer

Sta

tion

Ont

ario

Hyd

roop

enno

6515

20.1

4855

974.

4Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

n/a

year

roun

d

Bram

alea

Roa

d Pe

el R

egio

nop

enye

s60

3433

4841

331.

7Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1995

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Brita

nnia

Roa

d W

est

Peel

Reg

ion

open

yes

6030

4448

2793

2.8

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

95 –

Cur

rent

year

roun

d



TRCA

Gau

ge N

ame

Ow

ner

Stat

usTe

lem

etry

East

ing

(N83

)N

orth

ing

(N83

)G

auge

Typ

eH

isto

rica

l Rec

ord

Leng

thSe

ason

al /

Year

Rou

nd

Dixi

e Ro

ad

Peel

Reg

ion

open

yes

6129

53.7

4829

981

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

95 –

Cur

rent

seas

onal

East

Ave

nue

Peel

Reg

ion

open

yes

6160

03.3

4825

235.

1Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1995

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Falb

ourn

e St

reet

Pe

el R

egio

nop

enye

s60

6607

4830

281.

9Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1995

- Cu

rrent

year

roun

d

Fir T

ree

Peel

Reg

ion

open

yes

6076

79.7

4838

382.

9Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1995

– C

urre

ntse

ason

al

Huro

ntar

io R

oad

Peel

Reg

ion

open

yes

6019

76.2

4834

688

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

95 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Lake

shor

e Ro

adPe

el R

egio

nop

enye

s61

2378

.548

1658

5.9

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

95 –

Cur

rent

year

roun

d

Miss

issau

ga V

alle

y Bl

vd

Peel

Reg

ion

open

yes

6109

79.2

4828

011.

4Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1995

– C

urre

ntse

ason

al

Old

Kin

g Ro

adPe

el R

egio

nop

enye

s60

2083

.848

5930

0.6

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

95 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Ore

nda

Road

Pe

el R

egio

nop

enye

s60

1368

.448

3915

4.6

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

95 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Que

en S

treet

Peel

Reg

ion

open

yes

5990

65.2

4836

048.

1Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1995

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Sand

alw

ood

Park

way

Peel

Reg

ion

open

yes

5965

8548

4118

8.6

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

95 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Sout

h Co

mm

onPe

el R

egio

nop

enye

s60

7798

.448

2061

5.5

Tipp

ing

Buck

et19

95 –

Cur

rent

year

roun

d

Trus

cott

Peel

Reg

ion

open

yes

6092

98.9

4818

451.

8Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1995

– C

urre

ntye

ar ro

und

Will

iam

s Pa

rkw

ay

Peel

Reg

ion

open

yes

6043

42.6

4844

193.

6Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1995

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Wol

feda

le R

oad

Peel

Reg

ion

open

yes

6088

12.9

4825

808.

4Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1995

– C

urre

ntye

ar ro

und

48th

& 1

6th

Tow

n of

M

arkh

amop

enno

6389

50.8

4861

362.

1Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

n/a

seas

onal

John

Stre

et F

HTo

wn

of

Mar

kham

open

no62

8658

4853

147.

4Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1996

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal



TRCA

Gau

ge N

ame

Ow

ner

Stat

usTe

lem

etry

East

ing

(N83

)N

orth

ing

(N83

)G

auge

Typ

eH

isto

rica

l Rec

ord

Leng

thSe

ason

al /

Year

Rou

nd

Rugg

les A

ve

Tow

n of

M

arkh

amop

enno

6266

29.1

4854

552.

8Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1996

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Unio

nvill

e FH

Tow

n of

M

arkh

amop

enno

6358

81.5

4859

568.

9Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1996

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Yong

e an

d Ki

ng R

oad

Tow

n of

Ric

h-m

ond

Hill

open

no62

3859

.748

6667

7.2

n/

a y

ear r

ound

Ajax

Wor

ks Y

ard

TRCA

open

no65

8832

4855

761

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

03 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Albi

on H

ills

CA

TRCA

open

no59

3103

4864

192

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

04 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Alex

Duf

f Mem

oria

l Poo

lTR

CAop

enno

6272

2748

3587

1Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2005

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Boyd

Fie

ld C

entre

TRCA

clos

edno

6119

0848

5388

0Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2002

- 20

09

seas

onal

Bruc

e’s

Mill

CA

TRCA

open

no63

3059

4867

308

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

02 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Cent

revi

lle C

reek

TRCA

clos

edye

s59

3558

4864

120

wei

ghin

g ga

uge

n/a

year

roun

d

Clai

revi

lle D

amTR

CAop

enno

6099

6448

4410

4Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2001

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Clar

emon

t CA

TRCA

open

no65

4490

4868

058

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

02 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Don

Rive

r at Y

ork

Mill

sTR

CAcl

osed

yes

6285

8548

4425

5Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2003

- 20

10se

ason

al

Duffe

rin R

eser

voir

TRCA

open

no62

2278

4854

337

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

05 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Etob

icok

e Cr

eek

near

QEW

TRCA

open

yes

6165

2048

2866

0Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2005

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Gle

n Ha

ffy C

ATR

CAop

enno

5840

2348

6551

4Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2002

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Goo

dwoo

d Pu

mpi

ng S

tatio

nTR

CAop

enno

6443

2348

7701

3Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2004

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Hear

t Lak

e CA

TR

CAop

enno

5974

6248

4363

6Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2002

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal



TRCA

Gau

ge N

ame

Ow

ner

Stat

usTe

lem

etry

East

ing

(N83

)N

orth

ing

(N83

)G

auge

Typ

eH

isto

rica

l Rec

ord

Leng

thSe

ason

al /

Year

Rou

nd

Kenn

edy

Pum

p St

atio

nTR

CAop

enno

n/a

n/a

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

06 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

King

and

Alb

ion-

Vaug

han

TRCA

open

no60

3013

4860

225

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

06 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

King

Cre

ek @

Mill

Roa

d TR

CAop

enye

s61

1487

4862

025

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

03 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

Laid

law

Bus

Dep

otTR

CAop

enno

5997

2148

5007

2Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2005

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Law

renc

e Av

enue

and

Wes

ton

Road

TRCA

clos

edye

s61

9215

4839

500

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

05 -

2009

seas

onal

Lloy

d Ha

m F

arm

TRCA

clos

edno

6406

5248

6403

8Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2004

- 20

05se

ason

al

Mill

ers

Cree

k St

atio

nTR

CAcl

osed

no65

7300

4862

132.

9Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1999

- 20

00se

ason

al

Miss

issau

ga W

orks

Yar

dTR

CAop

enno

6079

9148

3845

0Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2005

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Mor

ning

side

Wor

ks Y

ard

TRCA

open

yes

6455

2948

4884

2Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2005

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Petti

coat

Cre

ek C

A TR

CAop

enno

6517

0348

5181

1Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2003

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Pick

erin

g Ci

ty H

all

TRCA

clos

edno

6536

0848

5527

0Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2001

- 20

04se

ason

al

Rees

or n

ear H

ighw

ay 7

TRCA

open

yes

6433

1348

6317

6Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2005

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Roug

e Ri

ver a

t 14t

hTR

CAcl

osed

yes

6419

6048

5766

3Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2003

- 20

07se

ason

al

St. W

ilfrid

Sch

ool

TRCA

clos

edno

6541

7748

5870

1Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2002

- 20

07se

ason

al

Stou

ffvill

e Da

mTR

CAop

enno

6403

4748

7086

9Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2005

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Stou

ffvill

e W

PCP

TRCA

clos

edno

6408

81.9

4869

846.

7Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2002

seas

onal

Sue

Gra

nge

Farm

TRCA

open

no58

9843

4847

840

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

05 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al



TRCA

Gau

ge N

ame

Ow

ner

Stat

usTe

lem

etry

East

ing

(N83

)N

orth

ing

(N83

)G

auge

Typ

eH

isto

rica

l Rec

ord

Leng

thSe

ason

al /

Year

Rou

nd

Tow

n of

Cal

edon

Pum

ping

Sta

tion

TRCA

open

no59

1256

4857

875

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

02 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

TRCA

Hea

d O

ffice

TRCA

open

yes

6196

2348

4752

3Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

2003

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

York

Pum

ping

Sta

tion

TRCA

open

no62

2489

4863

741

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

04 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

York

Reg

ion

Wor

ks Y

ard

TRCA

open

no62

9933

4860

292

Tipp

ing

Buck

et20

04 -

Curre

ntse

ason

al

U of

T –

Sca

rbor

ough

Cam

pus

Univ

ersit

y of

To

ront

o op

enno

6454

64.1

4849

498.

5Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1996

- Cu

rrent

year

roun

d

Hum

ber

York

Reg

ion

open

no61

4285

4846

657

20

05 -

Curre

nt y

ear r

ound

Lesli

e Pu

mpi

ng S

tatio

nYo

rk R

egio

nop

enno

6301

65.5

4851

895.

3Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1995

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

McC

owan

and

16t

hYo

rk R

egio

nop

enno

6378

31.1

4861

135.

3Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1995

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal

Pugs

ley

York

Reg

ion

clos

edno

6263

22.5

4859

254.

6Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

n/a

seas

onal

Stou

ffvill

e W

orks

York

Reg

ion

open

no64

1612

.848

7152

0Ti

ppin

g Bu

cket

1995

- Cu

rrent

seas

onal



Table a-5: snow Course locations

Station Watershed LocationRecord Frequency

(Nov-May)Period of Record

2307 Etobicoke Heart Lake Conservation Area Bi-weekly 1998 - Present

2302 Humber Cold Creek Stream Gauge Bi-weekly 2003 - 2004

2301 Humber Albion Hills Farm Bi-weekly 2004 - Present

2304 Humber Boyd Conservation Area Bi-weekly 2004 - Present

2303 Humber Claireville Dam Bi-weekly 2005 - Present

2310 Don G.Ross Lord Park Bi-weekly 1998 - Present

2309 Rouge Milne Conservation Park Bi-weekly 1998 - Present

2308 Rouge Bruce's Mill Range Bi-weekly 2004 - Present

2305 Duffins Claremont Shop Bi-weekly 2004 - 2009

2312 Duffins Greenwood Conservation Area Bi-weekly 1998 - Present

2311 Duffins Glen Major Forest Bi-weekly 2005 - Present

2306 Duffins Stouffville Dam Bi-weekly 2003 - 2004

Note: Parameters measured at each location include snow depth and water equivalency

Table a-6: groundwater Monitoring locations

Watershed Subwatershed Well Name Data Source Aquifer Period of Record

Etobicoke ET04W021-1 PGMN Oak Ridges Jun 01 - Sep 08

W366-1 PGMN Oak Ridges Sep 03 - Aug 07

Humber

HU01 W325-1 PGMN Scarborough Sep 03 - Aug 07

HU03 W367-1 PGMN Oak Ridges Sep 03 - Aug 07

HU06 W075-1 PGMN Thorncliffe Oct 01 - Aug 07

HU08W061-1 PGMN Scarborough Jul 01 - Aug 07

W060-1 PGMN Thorncliffe Jul 01 - Aug 07

HU10W327-3 PGMN Thorncliffe Jul 03 - Mar 07

W327-4 PGMN Scarborough Jul 03 - Aug 07

HU11W329-1 PGMN Oak Ridges Sep 03 - Jan 07

W330-1 PGMN Thorncliffe Feb 04 - Aug 07

HU12 W328-1 PGMN Bedrock Jul 03 - Jul 07

Don DO04 W017-2 PGMN Scarborough Aug 01 - Jun 08



Watershed Subwatershed Well Name Data Source Aquifer Period of Record

Rouge

RO02 Stouffville 700 MOE Oak Ridges Jun 03- Jul 07

RO03MW-09 Municipal Thorncliffe Jun 00- Aug 07

MW-02 Municipal Scarborough Jun 00- Aug 07

RO04 W382-1 PGMN Oak Ridges Feb 07 - Jul 07

RO05 W059-1 PGMN Oak Ridges Jul 01 - Jul 07

RO06 MW-26 Municipal Thorncliffe Mar 03- Aug 07

RO07 W006-1 PGMN Oak Ridges Jun 01 - Aug 07

Duffins

DU03

W326-2 PGMN Shallow Jul 03 – Oct 08

W326-3 PGMN Thorncliffe Jul 03 – Jul 08

W045-1 PGMN Scarborough Jun 01- Aug 07

DU04

W012-1 PGMN Shallow Jun 01- Aug 07

W011-1 PGMN Thorncliffe Jun 01- Aug 07

W010-1 PGMN Scarborough Jun 01- Aug 07

a1.2.5 surface Water Quality

Chemical and physical characteristics of surface water quality across the TRCA watersheds are monitored through the Provincial Surface Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN). TRCA participates in this program by collecting monthly samples from April through November. The samples are analyzed for a range of water quality indicators, including temperature, Ph, conductivity, turbidity, suspended solids, major ions, nutrients, metals, and pesticides, in order to screen overall water quality. TRCA staff currently monitors 38 PWQMN stations located at watershed and subwatershed outlets (Table a-7). Historical data sets have existed for each site extending back to the early 1960s, though significant gaps in the dataset have been identified (Table a-8).

Table a-7: Current surface Water Quality sites

MOE Station ID

TRSPA IDCreek/

WatershedEasting Northing First Last Frequency Operator

E14.9 06008000702 Etobicoke Creek 606440 4836994 1965 2009 monthly PWQMN


M1.4 Mayfield Etobicoke Creek 595028 4843488 1973 2009 monthly RWMP

n/a MM003WM Mimico Creek 613849 4837916 2006 2009 monthly City of Toronto

M1.4 06008200302 Mimico Creek 621585 4831713 1994 2009 monthly PWQMN

HW16.9 06008300202 Humber River 610869 4843350 1966 2009 monthly City of Toronto

HB5.6 06008301202 Humber River 620488 4836845 1974 2009 monthly City of Toronto

n/a HU010WM Humber River 615027 4844744 2006 2009 monthly City of Toronto

n/a HU1RWMP Humber River 618678 4848311 2006 2009 monthly City of Toronto



MOE Station ID

TRSPA IDCreek/

WatershedEasting Northing First Last Frequency Operator

H35.0 06008300902 Humber River 602980 4860243 1969 2009 monthly PWQMN



HW22.0 06008310302 Humber River 606385 4845870 2002 2009 monthly PWQMN


HE20.7 06008300402 Humber River 614148 4850423 1965 2009 monthly RWMP

H23.9 06008302002 Humber River 610386 4851861 1996 2009 monthly RWMP

DE17.9 06008500302 Don River 628954 4851256 1966 2009 monthly City of Toronto

DW20.6 06008500402 Don River 622014 4851207 1966 2009 monthly City of Toronto

n/a DM 6.0 Don River 634378 4840251 2001 2009 monthly City of Toronto

n/a DN008WM Don River 630236 4850889 2006 2009 monthly City of Toronto

D4.5 06008501402 Don River 632000 4838576 1979 2009 monthly PWQMN

Hi2.5 06009400202 Highland Creek 647429 4849056 1972 2009 monthly City of Toronto

n/a RG008WM Rouge River 641985 4857669 1968 2009 monthly City of Toronto

RL9.0 RG007WM Rouge River 644300 4857816 1972 2009 monthly City of Toronto

R4.2 06009701302 Rouge River 648243 4852830 1973 2009 monthly City of Toronto

RL4.1 06009701102 Rouge River 648007 4852511 1973 2009 monthly PWQMN

RB20.1 06009701802 Rouge River 634680 4861770 2002 2009 monthly PWQMN

R18.4 97777 Rouge River 634214 4856823 2001 2009 monthly RWMP

RL17.4 97999 Rouge River 640589 4863887 1972 2009 monthly RWMP

Du2.4 06010400102 Duffins Creek 657579 4855880 1964 2009 monthly PWQMN

DuE17.5 06010400802 Duffins Creek 650372 4869299 1972 2009 monthly PWQMN

DuW5.3 Brock Ridge Duffins Creek 654656 4857115 1973 2009 monthly RWMP

DuE6.8 Paulyn Park Duffins Creek 655458 4859419 1973 2009 monthly RWMP

DuE15.4 7th Concession Duffins Creek 653641 4868158 1973 2009 monthly RWMP

DuW19.3 8th Concession Duffins Creek 644191 4866462 1973 2009 monthly RWMP

C2.8 Shoal PointCarruthers

Creek660850 4856972 2002 2009 monthly RWMP

n/a PT001WM Petticoat Creek 652005 4851804 2009 2009 monthly RWMP

n/a FB003WMFrenchman's

Bay653663 4854406 2009 2009 monthly RWMP



Table a-8: Historical surface Water Quality sites

MOE Station

IDTRSPA ID

Creek/Watershed

Easting Northing First Last Frequency Operator



E28.2 Mayfield Etobicoke Creek 595028 4843488 1973 2009 monthly RWMP

M1.4 06008200302 Mimico Creek 621585 4831713 1994 2009 monthly PWQMN

HW16.9 06008300202 Humber River 610869 4843350 1966 2009 monthly City of Toronto

HB5.6 06008301202 Humber River 620488 4836845 1974 2009 monthly City of Toronto




HW22.0 06008310302 Humber River 606385 4845870 2002 2009 monthly PWQMN


HE20.7 06008300402 Humber River 614148 4850423 1965 2009 monthly RWMP

H23.9 06008302002 Humber River 610386 4851861 1996 2009 monthly RWMP

DE17.9 06008500302 Don River 628954 4851256 1966 2009 monthly City of Toronto

DW20.6 06008500402 Don River 622014 4851207 1966 2009 monthly City of Toronto

D4.5 06008501402 Don River 632000 4838576 1979 2009 monthly PWQMN

Hi2.5 06009400202 Highland Creek 647429 4849056 1972 2009 monthly City of Toronto

n/a RG008WM Rouge River 641985 4857669 1968 2009 monthly City of Toronto

RL9.0 RG007WM Rouge River 644300 4857816 1972 2009 monthly City of Toronto

R4.2 06009701302 Rouge River 648243 4852830 1973 2009 monthly City of Toronto

RL4.1 06009701102 Rouge River 648007 4852511 1973 2009 monthly PWQMN

RB20.1 06009701802 Rouge River 634680 4861770 2002 2009 monthly PWQMN

Du2.4 06010400102 Duffins Creek 657579 4855880 1964 2009 monthly PWQMN

DuE17.5 06010400802 Duffins Creek 650372 4869299 1972 2009 monthly PWQMN

DuW5.3 Brock Ridge Duffins Creek 654656 4857115 1973 2009 monthly RWMP

DuE6.8 Paulyn Park Duffins Creek 655458 4859419 1973 2009 monthly RWMP

DuE15.4 7th Concession Duffins Creek 653641 4868158 1973 2009 monthly RWMP

DuW19.3 8th Concession Duffins Creek 644191 4866462 1973 2009 monthly RWMP

C2.8 Shoal PointCarruthers

Creek660850 4856972 2002 2009 monthly RWMP

n/a 06008000502 Etobicoke Creek 617474 4827078 3/15/2000 11/10/2000 n/a(inactive

PWQMN site)

n/a 06008301302 Humber River 589218 4869178 4/4/1974 8/29/1974 n/a(inactive

PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)



MOE Station

IDTRSPA ID

Creek/Watershed



PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)

n/a 06008500802 Don River 626204 4858973 1/17/1966 1/28/1966 n/a(inactive

PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)

n/a 06010405002 Duffins Creek 652104 4864327 4/8/1980 12/18/1980 n/a(inactive

PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)



MOE Station

IDTRSPA ID

Creek/Watershed



PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)

n/a 06009701502 Rouge River 645007 4858864 5/31/1973 8/27/1974 n/a(inactive

PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)



MOE Station

IDTRSPA ID

Creek/Watershed



PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)



MOE Station

IDTRSPA ID

Creek/Watershed



PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)

n/a 06009400102 Highland Creek 649292 4847680 12/3/1964 11/16/1971 n/a(inactive

PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)



MOE Station

IDTRSPA ID

Creek/Watershed



PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)



MOE Station

IDTRSPA ID

Creek/Watershed



PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)

n/a 06008200202 Mimico Creek 615334 4836534 10/19/1972 4/22/1997 n/a(inactive

PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)

n/a 06008200102 Mimico Creek 622480 4831009 10/28/1964 11/1/1994 n/a(inactive

PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)

n/a 06010700102Carruthers

Creek661492 4855140 12/3/1964 12/15/1994 n/a

(inactive PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)

n/a 06009900102 Petticoat Creek 648912 4855136 5/31/1973 6/23/2009 n/a(inactive

PWQMN site)


PWQMN site)

a1.2.6 low-flow stream flow surveys

TRCA is working with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment on the Low Water Response Program. This program monitors rainfall and streamflow within the creeks of TRCA’s watersheds. The Authority has also undertaken a stream baseflow assessment program. The main objective of this work is to obtain baseflow information to help develop a long-term baseflow monitoring network using a predetermined distribution of measurement sites. These data are also necessary for model calibration in water budgeting exercises, a necessary component for Source Water Protection activities.



Table a-9 lists the index sites where streamflow measurements are taken annually. A more comprehensive list of sites (about 1200 locations) has been surveyed once. The annual index field program measures flows taken over spring/summer/fall seasons. Field flow measurements are generally taken at stream crossings and stream gauge stations. These measurements represent a significant source of information that supports aquatic studies, groundwater discharge, and water budgets, including numerical model calibration.

a1.2.7 biological Monitoring

Biological sampling measures ecological effects, whereas sampling for chemical and physical parameters measures stressors (i.e., environmental contamination). Though source water protection technical guidelines do not directly link the assessment and protection of drinking water to biological assessment, it is recognized that the various components of the watershed are closely linked. Protecting source water is important to the biological health of the watershed, and biological indicators are fundamental in protecting source water. TRCA’s biological surveys involve sampling creatures, such as benthic macroinvertebrates and fish, found living within the aquatic environment. Benthic macroinvertebrates make good health indicators of aquatic ecosystems because

• They generally have limited mobility, which makes them vulnerable to many creek stresses that may occur,

• They have short life cycles,

• They are easily collected and identified; and,

• Their spatial distribution across the watershed is good.

The Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) contains a series of standardized methodologies for identifying sites, evaluating benthic macroinvertebrates, fish communities, physical habitat and water temperatures in wadeable streams (Table a-10). The OSAP provides standardized methods that ensure data repeatability. Use of these standard methodologies allows data to be shared, used for multiple purposes and stored in a common database.

Table a-9: low flow index Monitoring stations

Site Easting Northing Watershed Site Easting Northing Watershed

EC 25 595030 4843482 Etobicoke lwd001 633779 4841028 Don

EC 67 605451 4839049 Etobicoke lwd026 624132 4848401 Don

EC 79 614246 4830169 Etobicoke TM006 637716 4839714 Don

EC 92 613603 4833331 Etobicoke UED001 629393 4850780 Don

M01 602629 4843968 Mimico HC006 648955 4848711 Highland

M06 610152 4841553 Mimico HC009 648186 4847729 Highland

HUM 109 611768 4850621 Humber HC012 648280 4848525 Highland

HUM 148 600520 4859203 Humber HC015B 645315 4848697 Highland



HUM 200 616442 4842859 Humber pc001 652135 4851859 Petticoat

HUM 38 613762 4849493 Humber pc007 648910 4855139 Petticoat

HUM 400 619657 4838490 Humber fb001 652968 4853997 Frenchman’s Bay







HUM 45 611575 4855280 Humber br001 635017 4859709 Rouge

HUM 57 611473 4862014 Humber bz001 634113 4859369 Rouge

HUM 58 610175 4862204 Humber lt004 648190 4852787 Rouge

HUM 66 620482 4836847 Humber lt048 638689 4867409 Rouge

HUM 86 621670 4834267 Humber lw003 647926 4852541 Rouge

HUM 90 619004 4836885 Humber mb001 639724 4858841 Rouge

HUM 93 618284 4840148 Humber ur001 632876 4856526 Rouge

HUM 95 616192 4841813 Humber D-001 643487 4870429 Duffins

MH072 602683 4860817 Humber D-065 650373 4869303 Duffins

MH183 593893 4864607 Humber D-076 653977 4867670 Duffins

WH003 608572 4845382 Humber D-139 655895 4861650 Duffins





GM001 630785 4851296 Don C 08 657977 4863340 Carruthers

LD006 632912 4839805 Don C 11 659516 4860768 Carruthers

LE004 635426 4841131 Don C 13 660848 4856971 Carruthers

Table a-10: TrCa o.s.a.P Monitoring sites


CC001WM 661121 4855576 Carruthers HL011WM 637340 4849639 Highland

CC002WM 660268 4858861 Carruthers HU001WM 612659 4854231 Humber

CC003WM 658930 4863523 Carruthers HU002WM 607384 4857019 Humber

DF001WM 657593 4855822 Duffins HU003WM 621589 4834352 Humber
























DN001WM 631839 4837534 Don HU024WM 611315 4861789 Humber















DN016WM 622615 4850449 Don MM001WM 622398 4831011 Mimico





DN021WM 626437 4853013 Don PT001WM 651987 4851798 Petticoat






EC001WM 617505 4827026 Etobicoke PT004WM 647273 4856586 Petticoat

EC002WM 615805 4829373 Etobicoke RG001WM 648483 4852831 Rouge













FB001WM 652478 4854437 Frenchman's Bay RG014WM 637095 4866273 Rouge




HL001WM 649487 4848106 Highland RG018WM 631467 4862594 Rouge









HL010WM 641345 4846335 Highland

a1.2.8 Coastal Wetland Monitoring

The Durham Region Coastal Wetland Monitoring Project is designed as a long-term program that will assess the health of 15 wetlands along the north shore of Lake Ontario in Durham Region (Table a-11). Five of these wetlands are in TRSPA’s jurisdiction.

To standardize the collection of biological and physical data among the partner organizations, a Methodology Handbook was developed by Environment Canada and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and fieldwork began in the spring of 2002.

Water levels in the Great Lakes have been recorded by the Canadian Hydrographic Service since 1860. These



data show that levels in Lake Ontario have varied by up to two metres since that time. In 1958, however, lake level regulation was implemented, which moderated levels. While lake levels still fluctuate, they do not do so to the extent that occurred prior to regulation

Table a-11: Durham region Coastal Wetland Monitoring Project locations

Site Number Wetland

1 Rouge River Marsh

2 Frenchman’s Bay Marsh

3 Hydro Marsh

4 Duffins Creek Marsh

5 Carruthers Creek Marsh

The Durham Region Coastal Wetlands Project monitors both physical features and biological communities. The following physical features or aspects are observed within the Coastal Wetland Monitoring Program:

• Water Quality - Measure various water quality parameters, including turbidity (clarity of water), conductivity, nitrogen, and phosphorus,

• Water Levels - For wetlands that can be cut off from Lake Ontario due to the formation of a barrier beach, measure water levels throughout the vegetation growing season (May to October),

• Sediment Quality - Collect recently deposited sediments to analyze for various contaminants including pesticides, metals, PCBs and PAHs,

• Bathymetry - Map wetland basin topography to reveal contours,

• Watershed Vegetation - Ecological Land Classification to Community Series level summarized for each wetland’s watershed,

• Land-use Change in Adjacent Uplands - Compare current land use in 1000-meter zone around wetland with expected land use according to municipal and regional Official Plans. Obtain percentages of change for each land use category; and,

• Land-use Change in Watershed - In conjunction with Watershed Management Plans, compare current land usage with expected land usage according to municipal and regional Official Plans Sediment and Nutrient Loading Computer modelling incorporating a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). This step is to be completed when technology becomes available.

The following biological communities are observed within the Coastal Wetland Monitoring Program:

• Birds—Survey marsh breeding bird communities using the Marsh Monitoring Program methodology,

• Amphibians—Survey amphibian communities using the Marsh Monitoring Program methodology,

• Fish—Survey wetland fish community using electrofishing boat,

• Macroinvertebrates—Sample wetland macroinvertebrates by sweep-netting through water column,

• Wetland Vegetation—Use Ecological Land Classification to define vegetation communities at each wetland and surrounding 500 metres,

• Submerged Plants—Sample submerged aquatic vegetation using 20 randomly placed quadrants; and,

• Identifying Key Habitats—Over time, identify and track habitats associated with species at risk (i.e., endangered, threatened, or of special concern).



a1.3 inforMaTion ManageMenT sysTeM

One of the key elements of any Monitoring Program is the data that are collected. As such, the storage, security and retrieval of the data are extremely important. In 2001, the TRCA contracted a consultant to develop a relational database (TRCA Envirobase) to house all of the various environmental data collected through this and other programs of the TRCA. This relational database also has the ability to link various data sets that are currently available. Updates to the relational database have been completed in subsequent years including the addition of a sediment quality and fluvial geomorphology component.

Additional customization of the TRCA’s database structure along with data entry is on-going. Changes to the corporate IT/Network structure in the near future will enable more effective sharing and use of the relational database by staff. In 2005-06, a review of the existing database and data requirements specific to the Source Protection Planning (SPP) process was undertaken. Based on this review, the following specific actions have been initiated and/or completed:

• Identify the data input/output routine and developed the data input/output template;

• Update the database model with the addition of data requirements,

• Upload new water quality data from various sources (i.e., MOE, City of Toronto, private laboratories),

• QA/QC check and data update, including identification of duplicate records,

• Development and design of a new database model to integrate the datasets; and,

• Design of a user-friendly interface application to allow staff to query the data quickly.

TRCA has developed an internal GIS system based on the ARC GIS platform to access the information in Envirobase as well as the other datasets. This system has been populated with layers for such features as (but not limited to):

• High resolution aerial photography,

• Watercourses,

• Land use,

• Transportation network,

• TRCA property,

• Topography,

• Physiography,

• Surficial Geology,

• Hydrology,

• Wetlands,

• Aquatic habitat and species data; and,

• Terrestrial Natural Heritage data.

Source protection funding from the MOE has permitted the TRCA to expand its GIS capabilities, and begin migration to the ARCHYDRO platform. This platform has added capabilities to incorporate hydrologic information and calculations into the GIS environment.



a1.4 MeTHoDs of analysis

The Assessment Report includes a description of the local watershed area that was developed by compiling all the available information about the area. It will include topics such as watershed features, the water quality, the wells and intakes that draw drinking water, and the natural and human-made influences. Maps were produced to provide a visualization of the watershed. This information-gathering process will be iterative and continuous and will occur wherever possible to enhance the available data.

The watershed features include topography, physiography, geology, hydrology (surface water flow system) and hydrogeology (groundwater flow system), ecology, naturally vegetated areas, and climate. This information provides the background necessary for a more in-depth analysis in subsequent phases of the Assessment Report, including the Water Budget and Stress Assessment, the Vulnerability Analysis, and the Summary of Threats and Issues.

The water quality conditions and long-term trends in the watershed were identified. Maps and graphics are used to illustrate these trends. The objective was to describe the quality of surface water and groundwater using existing information and to determine whether the water quality is improving, deteriorating, or remaining constant.

The current water use was inventoried, as were historical takings, to illustrate where most of the water is going and at what times during the year. The inventory estimated population growth in the watershed area, which has a significant impact on future water demands.

The SPA also identified land-use activities that are known to pose a threat to the quality or quantity of drinking water to determine human and ecological impacts.

A Watershed Characterization Report has been prepared for the Source Protection Areas (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, March, 2007). Workshops involving the Conservation Authority and municipal partners were held in late 2006 and early 2007 to review the contents of earlier versions of these reports. The most recent versions include edits and updates that are the result of the comments provided. The province has established a panel to review the Watershed Characterization Reports. Comments from this review panel were received on January 8, 2008, and were incorporated into the final Assessment Report.

a1.5 surfaCe WaTer QualiTy DaTa analysis anD rePorTing

The analysis and reporting of surface water quality data were accomplished in three steps:

• Exploratory analysis,

• Statistical analysis; and,

• Reporting results.

a1.5.1 exploratory analysis

The first step involves plotting water quality observations to visually examine the attributes of the data (e.g., outliers and data entry errors). Each water quality observation is represented as a single point or dot. The y-axis (the dependent axis) is the concentration of a water quality parameter, and the x-axis (the independent axis) is time, usually represented as months or years. Specifically, a plot of water quality results against time allows for the

• Observation of seasonal and annual trends,

• Identification of anomalous results and potential errors,



• Comparison of results to water quality criteria (e.g., Provincial Water Quality Objectives, Canadian Water Quality Guidelines),

• Observation of changes in water quality over time,

• Identification of missing periods of record (data gaps); and,

• Identification of biases introduced by the timing of water quality measurements.

a1.5.2 statistical analysis

The second step in the analysis of surface water quality data involves the selection and application of statistical tests to establish the significance of differences, trends, and relationships that were identified in the exploration of the data.

a1.5.3 reporting results

The third step involves the use of graphics such as maps and boxplots to present selected results in a format consistent with the information needs and technical knowledge of the target audience. Results that are selected for reporting should describe the prevailing surface water quality conditions in the watershed.

a1.6 grounDWaTer QualiTy DaTa analysis anD rePorTing

a1.6.1 Data Compilation

Groundwater quality data may be available from a wide variety of sources, including

• The Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network (PGMN),

• Private well sampling,

• Municipal water sampling programs;,

• Health departments; and,

• Other groundwater studies.

a1.6.2 Data analysis

The assemblage and integration of information that will provide an understanding of groundwater quality on watershed basis can be performed a number of ways, including

> The assemblage of GIS layers,

> The construction of binary plots,

> The construction of maps and cross sections,

> The construction of vertical and horizontal iso-chemical contour maps,

> The construction of groundwater quality diagrams (e.g., Durov, Piper, Stiff, rose),

> The construction of chemical concentration versus time plots,

> The preparation of tables that compare water quality concentrations to water quality criteria (e.g., Ontario Drinking Water Standards, Provincial Water Quality Standards), and

> The use of statistical methods.



Parameters that exceed the standard can be highlighted, as some parameters naturally exceed water quality standards. Naturally elevated parameters can be present due to the geological materials in the area, the recharge environment, or other factors.

a1.6.3 analysis of Trends at each Monitoring Well

Time versus concentration plots can help determine whether levels of water quality are changing. Time-concentration plots are generated from water quality data for one parameter, usually in one monitoring well, with time across the x-axis, and the concentration for that parameter along the y-axis. Statistical trend analysis packages (e.g., packages built into Excel) can be used to determine if there is a trend.

Alternatively, the data can be visually interpreted to determine whether there is a trend. Trends usually occur over a longer term, though there may be a blip or short-term spike in concentration indicating a short-term event, such as a spill or controlled release into the environment. Trends can also occur seasonally or cyclically. Seasonal or cyclic trends occur where water quality fluctuates through seasons or through wet or dry years.

Where water quality impairments have been identified in a watershed (i.e., concerns, known contamination), the parameters typical for those impairments can also be evaluated through time-concentration plots to determine whether the trends are increasing or decreasing. Trend analysis can provide an indication of contamination, changes in groundwater recharge, a connection to surface water, or general changes within an aquifer. Significant increasing or decreasing trends should be identified in the individual monitoring wells. By doing this, we can identify areas where water quality is influenced by surface activities, including precipitation, and therefore may be more vulnerable to surface activities.

a1.6.4 aquifer Characterization

Groundwater quality data was also analyzed on a watershed basis to look for larger-scale trends in water quality. Monitoring wells from similar aquifer units can be grouped to determine the typical maximum, minimum, and average water quality ranges for the aquifer units. Where little information is available to determine whether monitoring wells are in the same aquifer, water quality data can be compared through piper diagrams, stiff diagrams, rose diagrams, and other geochemistry tools to determine whether water samples are of a similar nature, and potentially of similar origin.

a1.7 liMiTaTions: DaTa, assuMPTions, anD MeTHoDs

Database management that relates to the structure or approach were developed for each of the CA partners and the CTC Watershed Region to manage data. Currently, a three-database system is being considered within the overall database management system. This system includes

• Internal relational databases that house aquatic ecosystem and stream survey information conducted by CLOSPA,

• The CAMC-YPDT (Conservation Authority Moraine Coalition–York Peel Durham Toronto Oak Ridges Moraine groundwater study) database that includes subsurface information (e.g., boreholes, wells, water levels, chemistry); and,

• The contaminant inventory database, to be provided by the province.

Data that are undergoing refinement have been identified for source protection planning purposes and are summarized in Table a-12 and Table a-13.



Table a-12: Data gaps

ComponentData Set Name or

SourceData Problem Comment

GIS DatabaseTRCA/external data sources

Requires updateInternal GIS data, grids, shape file reorganization. Metadata track-ing system to be developed.

Rating Tables within Hydrologic Database

TRCA - Engineering de-partment hydraulic data

Requires update Updated for WSC sites annually.

Integrated Hydro-logic Database

TRCA’s hydrologic data Requires update

Data currently exists in various formats. Need to develop a consis-tent format and relational database to maintain data relating to climate, rating curves, water levels, streamflow, spot baseflow, and water quality measurements.

York-Peel-Durham-Toronto (YPDT) Hydrogeologic Database

Various data sources Requires updateNot all monitoring locations or data entered—continually being updated with various data sets. Database management required. Multi-user access to be applied over a networked environment.

Table a-13: Knowledge gaps

Continued groundwater level and chemistry monitoring and analysis involving both PGMN wells and municipal partner monitoring wells (where data are provided).

Low-flow streamflow surveys (quality and quantity) to characterize discharge zones and associated water quality. These surveys are also useful to delineate zones that may be impacted by human activities.

Overland and streamflow travel time studies to be able to address possible spills response protocol and actions.

Enhance the continuous streamflow gauge network and update data regarding discharge to streams.

Update and verify outdated or missing water use data including Permit to Take Water (PTTW) information.

Development of acceptable water use targets to protect both the resource and the aquatic ecosystem.

Need for additional water quality monitoring sites.

Need for additional climatic sites/data monitoring.

Development of the ESRI ArcHydro data model.

Overland and streamflow travel time studies to be able to address possible spills response protocol and actions.

a1.7.1 filling Data gaps

Future watershed planning work will aim to develop and refine the overall database management system using the following methods:

• Preparing and refining land classification maps,

• Monitoring and analyzing groundwater level and chemistry involving both PGMN wells and municipal partner monitoring wells,

• Reviewing low-flow streamflow surveys (quality and quantity) to characterize discharge zones and associated water quality and to delineate zones that may be impacted by human activities,

• Reviewing overland and streamflow travel time studies to be able to address possible spills response protocol and actions,



• Enhancing the continuous streamflow gauge network and updating data regarding discharge to streams,

• Enhancing the coverage of climate data,

• Updating and verifying outdated or missing water using data including Permit to Take Water (PTTW) information; and,

• Preparing a contaminant source database and associated risk to drinking water provided by each potential source.

Priority gaps that need to be addressed as part of ongoing watershed planning initiatives include:

• Further development and promotion of the existing Clean Water Stewardship Program and Rural Clean Water Program, which supports well upgrades and abandonment, nutrient management best management practices, and land restoration initiatives on private lands—all efforts that help remove potential pathways for contaminants,

• Need for additional water quality monitoring sites,

• Need for additional streamflow monitoring and climatic sites,

• Development of the ESRI ArcHydro data model; and,

• Further estimates of water surplus (Thornthwaite methodology).

a1.7.2 Method limitations

Knowledge gaps relate to analysis and tool development to estimate and/or refine the water quality and quantity estimates and understand how the surface and groundwater flow systems operate. These tools enable us to predict the impact of potential future changes, such as increased municipal supply from groundwater due to climate change.

Priority knowledge gaps that need to be addressed include:

• Refinement of aquifer characterization and flow system understanding, including the orientation of bedrock valley systems and significant area recharge and discharge mapping,

• Development of surface water modelling capabilities,

• Refinement of a three-dimensional groundwater flow modelling tool,

• Refinement of the interaction of the surface water and groundwater flow models;

• Development of acceptable water use targets to protect both the resource and the aquatic ecosystem; and,

• Development of methodology and tools to provide spills response analysis that will involve all pathways, including overland flow, stream travel, and groundwater flow, including the unsaturated zone transport

Approved January 18, 2012

Table of ConTenTsWaTershed CharaCTerizaTion

b1 MeThodoloGY and GaPs ..................................................................................... b1-1

B1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. B1-1 B1.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ...................................................................................................... B1-1 B1.2.1 Document Preparation ........................................................................................................................ B1-1 B1.2.2 Internal Review .................................................................................................................................... B1-2 B1.2.3 External Review ................................................................................................................................... B1-2 B1.3 Knowledge and Data Gaps ..................................................................................................................... B1-2 B1.3.1 The Physical Description .................................................................................................................... B1-2 B1.3.2 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................. B1-3 B1.3.3 Water Quantity (Water Use) ............................................................................................................... B1-4 B1.3.4 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................................... B1-4 B1.3.5 Naturally Vegetated Areas .................................................................................................................. B1-5 B1.3.6 Aquatic Ecology ................................................................................................................................... B1-6 B1.3.7 Human Characterization ..................................................................................................................... B1-6

b2 sUrfaCe WaTer QUaliTY doCUMenTaTion ........................................................ b2-1

b3 GroUndWaTer QUaliTY doCUMenTaTion .......................................................... b3-1

b4 MUniCiPal WaTer QUaliTY doCUMenTaTion ..................................................... b4-1

lisT of Tables

Table B-1: Summary of Watershed Characterization Data Gaps .............................................................................7

TOC-1


Approved January 18, 2012B1-1

Appendix B: Watershed Characterization

b1 MeThodoloGY and GaPs

b1.1 baCKGroUnd

This Appendix includes the methodology for the preparation of the Watershed Characterization portion of the Assessment Report. It includes quality assurance and quality control procedures that were adhered to as well as knowledge or data gaps that were identified.

The data and mapping in the Watershed Characterization Report were the result of compilations of existing watershed information available to TRCA as of late 2009. The data sources are described in detail in Appendix A of the Assessment Report. The work was heavily dependent on the technical work and reporting for watershed plans completed under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. TRCA minimized duplication of efforts by seconding key technical staff on an as-needed basis from the watershed planning tasks to the source water protection effort. Key areas of overlap included:

•NaturalHeritage,

•LandUse,

•Physiographyandtopography,

•Hydrologyandhydrogeology;and,

•Surface water and groundwater quality.

The main goal of TRCA’s source water protection staff was to take the outputs of watershed plans in these key areas and make the data and mapping as consistent as possible across the entire TRCA jurisdiction. This was a significantchallengebecausemostdatacollection,mapping,andanalysishadbeenconductedonawatershedbasis,andsignificantedgemappingissueswereidentified.ThemapsandanalysisincludedintheWatershedCharacterizationReportrepresentTRCA’sbesteffortstodateonmaintainingconsistent,geo-referenceddataacross both political and watershed boundaries.

The data gaps identified in this appendix were identified by TRCA staff as they reviewed and summarized theavailableinformationonTRCA’swatersheds.ThiswasthefirsteffortofitskindforTRCA,intermsofbreadth of disciplines and the geographic areas covered. TRCA recognizes that the data gaps described in this appendix will that filling these gaps will not necessarily be filled through the Source Protection Program. Rather,itisexpectedthatmostwillbeaddressedovertimethroughongoingoperationsattheConservationAuthority,withthesupportofourmunicipalpartners.Asnewinformationiscollected,itwillbesavedforincorporation into future source protection documentation.

b1.2 QUaliTY assUranCe/QUaliTY ConTrol

b1.2.1 document Preparation

The first step in quality assurance involves collecting reliable data. The TRCA uses qualified field staff that has been trained in the use of the sophisticated field instruments now available such as real-time chemistry analysers and electro-magnetic flow meters. Our field staff follows provincially accepted protocols such as the Hinton Low Flow measurement protocol and Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol.

Weemployqualifiedprofessionalplanners,engineers,andscientiststoreviewandanalysethefielddata.Expertconsultantsandprovincialagencyexperts(i.e.,MinistryofNaturalResources)forspecializedfunctionssuchasremotesensingandmodellingsupplementthisstaff.Inaddition,federal(i.e.,GeologicalSurveyofCanada)andprovincial(i.e.,OntarioGeologicalSurvey)expertshavebeenconsultedinthepreparation of geologic layers and mapping.

The spatial data have been reviewed along with the associated metadata by TRCA’s GIS staff to ensure that the information provided is represented accurately on the individual maps.

Approved January 18, 2012 B1-2


b1.2.2 internal review

TRCAtechnicalstaff,aspartofourregionalmonitoringprogramandwatershedplanningprocesses,hasreviewedthepertinentdatasetsusedinthepreparationofthisreport.Inaddition,supervisorshavereviewedthis document to ensure data from other projects have been properly incorporated. Senior staff has reviewed the report for logic and consistency.

b1.2.3 external review

The final step in TRCA’s QA/QC process is external review by both the public and our partners. The draft versionofthisreportwasissuedtomunicipalstaffforreview,andatwodayworkshopwasconductedinSeptember 2006 to facilitate receipt of review comments. This report includes revisions to the draft report suggested by both the internal and external review teams.

b1.3 KnoWledGe and daTa GaPs

Significant efforts have been made by all levels of government and the TRCA to collect and interpret environmentaldataforourwatersheds.However,inthedevelopmentofthisreport,dataandknowledgegapswith respect to watershed characterization have been identified. A key task for the TRCA and the Source waterProtectionCommittee(SPC),whenformed,willbetofillthesegapsforinclusionintheAssessmentReport. It is important that these gaps be identified now so that the required information can be obtained in a timelymanner,andissuanceoftheAssessmentReportwillnotbedelayed.

b1.3.1 The Physical description

data Gaps

TheTRCAnowhasextensivegeologicdatasetsfromtheYPDTinitiative.However,therearenewwaterwellsthat have been entered into the WWIS database that have not yet been incorporated into the YPDT dataset. These will be added as they become available.

Knowledge Gaps

Our knowledge of the subsurface will always be imperfect. Given that it is not practical to install deep wells to fullypenetratetheoverburdenmaterialsinaregulargridacrosstheTRCA’sjurisdiction,othermethodssuchas seismic surveys and gravity surveys are required to better define the complex geologic layering across thislargearea.TheYPDTinitiativehasbegunworkinthisimportantarea,butonlylimitedareashavebeencoveredtodate(i.e.,Caledon).



b1.3.2 hydrology

data Gaps

Longtermbaseflowdata,withmultipleyearsofdatasetswithinawatershedareessentialinthedevelopmentof defensible water budgets. The existing baseline data have significant temporal and spatial gaps. Data sets fromotherpartners(i.e.,GSCdatafrom1996/1997intheRougeRiver),maybeusefulincontributingtoshorttermimpactassessmentandourunderstandingofthewatersheds,butareinadequatefordeterminingthelong-term effects associated with groundwater/surface water interactions.

A further fifteen stream gauges have been identified for installation throughout the TRCA jurisdiction to obtain the necessary data required to refine and expand our existing hydrologic datasets and models. Municipal stormwaterinformationincludingdetails,suchassewershedmappingandCSOoutfall/crossconnectionlocations,shouldbeincludedwithinGISlayersforfullinterpretationofflowsandwaterquality.

The PGMN currently comprises 22 wells in TRCA’s nine watersheds. Although there is not a scientific formulatodeducetheoptimalnumberofwells,witheighthydrogeologiclayersandthreeregionalaquifersystemsinthegroundwatermodel,theexistingnetworkisclearlyinsufficienttoassessgroundwaterflowpathsandtrends.Evenhavingonewellperlayerperwatershedwouldrequireover70wells,whichwouldrequire tripling of the size of the network. The actual number of wells required and their locations will be dependent on detailed analysis of the existing data and review of potential existing wells.

PGMNdatacanbesupplementedbygroundwatersamplingconductedbytheRegionalMunicipalitiesofPeel,York,andDurham,butintegrationofthosedatasetsintoTRCA’sdatabasesisongoing.

Knowledge Gaps

Asstatedabove,ourknowledgeofsubsurfaceconditionswillalwaysbeimperfectandlimited,sinceitisnotpossible to view either the soil or rock strata or the water that flows through them. The intent of the York-Peel-Durham-Torontogroundwatermanagementstudyistocombineavarietyofmethodsofinvestigation(i.e.,highqualityboreholes,surfaceanddownholegeophysics)withrigorousscientificinterpretationbyqualifiedgeoscientists. This work is supported by the participating regional municipalities and will serve to improve our hydrogeologic understanding in this complex hydrogeologic regime.

The TRCA needs a continuous surface water budget model for each watershed that is consistent with neighbouring watersheds. Additional parameters and functions should be added to the existing hydrologic models,includingGIScapabilitiesandauser-friendlygraphicalinterface.Thewaterbudgetanalyses,combined with hydrologic modelling should also be applied to advance the understanding of the basin response and the emerging trends within each of the nine watersheds. Modelling of the municipal stormwater system and linking of the surface water model with the three dimensional groundwater flow model will be necessary to fully understand conditions within the watersheds.

AConservationOntarioinitiativetodevelopaprotocolforinstreamflowrequirementsisurgentlyneeded,andisakeyknowledgegap.TRCAiscurrentlymanagingbaseflowconsiderationsusingavailableinformation,whichisnotextensive,particularlyintheheadwaterareas.Acomprehensive,province-wideprotocol/methodology for determining minimum instream flows is necessary to protect baseflows and the dependent ecosystems.



b1.3.3 Water Quantity (Water Use)

data Gaps

Historically,actualwithdrawalsbyindividualusershavenotoftenbeenmonitoredonceapermithasbeenissued.Withtheexceptionofmajormunicipalwells,loggingofwithdrawalratesandtimeperiodsarenotgenerallypubliclyavailable,wheremonitored.Inthepast,usershaveusuallyrequestedpermitsformorethantheywillrequire,asaprecautionagainstpotentialpermitviolations.Thereforeestimatesofwaterusagebasedon the PTTW database typically overestimate withdrawals by a significant margin.

TheMOEhasrecentlyrevisedtheirPTTWrequirements,andnowrequiresmonitoringofallwithdrawalactivities,andreportingofthedataonanannualbasis.Oncethisinformationbeginstoaccumulate,itwillprovidewithdrawaldetailssimilartotheinformationcompiledthroughthewaterusesurveys.Inaddition,thiswillgenerateinformationregardingtherealistictiming/durationofindividualwithdrawals,whichiscurrentlyunknown.

The TRCA is also expecting data from the municipal partners with respect to the locations and pumping rates of surface water intakes and the pumping rates over time for the municipal wells.

b1.3.4 Water Quality

data Gaps

Waterqualitysamplinghaslargelybeenbasedongrabsamplesatpresettimes,whichresultsinadiversityofflowconditionsbeingsampled,butarenotnecessarilyrepresentativeofwetordryweatherconditions.Inourjurisdiction,likemost,waterqualityissignificantlyinfluencedbywetweatherconditionsandtoofeweffortshavebeenmadetodocumenttherangeofwaterqualityoccurringunderwetweather,andforwhatduration.Thecurrent3-yearMOELakeOntarioTributaryPriorityPollutantMonitoringProgram,initiatedin2003,willhelp to provide some data for all but the Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds.

Microbialdata,particularlyforE.coliislimited.Thisparameterisnotcollectedandanalysedbysomepartners. A laboratory methodology issue has been identified by TRCA staff that further reduces available E. coli data in the Regional Monitoring Database.

Surface water quality data at some stations is missing from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s due to changes to and/or discontinuation of monitoring programs. There is also a need to integrate water quality data from municipal partners into TRCA’s database.

Sampling of the wells in the provincial groundwater monitoring network did not commence until late 2003. Therefore,thereisasignificantlackofhistoricaldata.Thisgapcanbeaddressedbyincorporatingdatafromourmunicipalpartners(i.e.,RegionsofPeelandYork)andlargerstakeholders(i.e.,OntarioRealtyCorporation)anddataminingfromtheMOE(i.e.,landfillreports),anddevelopmentreportsheldinTRCA’sarchives.Workhasbegunonalloftheseinitiatives,andwillcontinuethroughtheremainderof2006.Thiswillensure that there is good geospatial data behind the maps that are produced.

Data on organic compounds are limited to a few stations. Not all organic compounds of concern for drinking waterareanalyzedandthesourcesofsomecontaminants(e.g.,E.coli)arenotwellunderstood.Thehealthriskofcertainchemicals(e.g.,pharmaceuticalproducts)foundattraceconcentrationsindrinkingwaterisnotyet well understood. Monitoring of these ‘exotic’ chemicals in the TRCA jurisdiction is also very limited. In general,programsthatmonitorbacteriologicalvariablesinsurfacewaterneedtobeexpandedandrevisedtoimprove the overall level of confidence in the data collected.



SpillsofvaryingquantityandtoxicityarerelativelyfrequentintheTRCA’sjurisdiction,giventhenumberofcommercial/industriallanduses,andtheextensiveroadnetwork.Thenature,sourceandlocationofthesespills needs to be better characterized. There also needs to be a detailed evaluation that the potential threat spills of different types may pose to drinking water and watershed ecosystem health more generally.

Formanagementpurposes,theTRCAneedstobetterunderstandtherelativeimportanceofdifferentenvironmentalcompartments(atmosphericdeposition,soils,streamsediments,surfacewater,andgroundwater)towaterpollution(e.g.,nitrate,mercury).Wealsorequiremunicipalstormwaterinformation,suchassewershedmappingandcombinedseweroutfall/crossconnectionlocations.Basedonthedata,modelling of the municipal stormwater system is also required.

Knowledge Gaps

Overall,TRCA’sexistingsurfacewatermonitoringnetworkisadequatebutitneedstobeadjustedorfocused to provide the means to assess the links from potential sources of impact via pathways to sensitive receptors.AdditionalanalysisofadditionaldatasetsisneededbeyondthetraditionalPWQMN,CityofToronto and TRCA processes.

There is a strong need to re-evaluate the current “spatial” network of (partner) water quality sites with respect to source protection planning to determine if the geographic coverage or scale is appropriate.

b1.3.5 naturally Vegetated areas

Terrestrial systems provide evidence for the relationships between surface water and groundwater. Vegetationcommunitiescanidentifylocalareasofgroundwaterrechargeanddischarge,whichcanbeused to flag vulnerable areas. Site specific vegetation community identification is not complete across our entire jurisdiction to provide support to the baseflow and groundwater analyses. TRCA annually inventories approximately1000haofnaturalareastocontributetothisknowledge,buttherateofinventoryprogressis not sufficient to identify all natural areas and their significance for water management in time for the Assessment Report.

data Gaps

The data for riparian cover are not complete for the entire jurisdiction and some is out of date. There is a need to update this information for all the watersheds in the jurisdiction in a consistent fashion with the most current data.

Inadditiontotheremotelysensedlandscapeleveldataitisimportanttohavesitelevel,EcologicalLandClassification (ELC) to vegetation type and species to confirm the vegetation and thus habitat characteristics. Currently about 50% of the natural areas have been field inventoried.

There is a need to establish a sampling regime that will detect changes in naturally vegetated areas over time thatincludesparametersthatwillassistindeterminingtheirresponsestomatrixinfluences,climatechange,recreational uses etc.

Knowledge Gaps

It has always been intuitive that higher quality terrestrial habitat provides a higher function in terms of its sourcewaterprotectionbenefits(naturalhydrologiccycle,waterquality/quantity).Theresearchinthisfieldis minimal and a much better understanding of these relationships is required.



b1.3.6 aquatic ecology

data Gaps

Historicalspeciessamplingdataisrequiredforseveralwatersheds(Duffins,Humber,CarruthersandPetticoat) to help establish baseline aquatic conditions. Additional fisheries collections for non-sampled stream reaches across the TRCA jurisdiction are required to establish a complete record of the fish communities currently present. Mussel species and habitat should be identified across the TRCA jurisdiction. Continuous temperaturedataareneededforallwatercourseswithinseveralwatersheds(Humber,CarruthersandEtobicoke).

Knowledge Gaps

A watercourse temperature classification and analysis system is required for continuous water temperature datathatnotonlyenhancesfishhabitatidentification,butcanalsospeaktothermalimpactstostreamhabitatbecauseofcurrentdevelopmentpractices,e.g.,stormwatermanagementpondsandchangesinimperviousness.

TRCA needs detailed life history information for many fish species and their related sensitivities to various waterqualityandquantityparameters.Inaddition,integrationoffishandaquaticspeciesinformationwithwaterquality,hydrology,sourcewater,andlandcoverdataarerequiredtopredictfuturedevelopmentimpacts.

Species-level benthic invertebrate statistical analysis is required to help quantify change over time at the regional scale as well as direct management at the site or reach level. Little information on the impacts of specific aquatic invasive species on the riverine aquatic ecosystem is currently available. Such data would assist in the prioritization of mitigation programs. A strategic monitoring program is needed to determine baseflowrequirementsofbrooktrout,animportantindicatorspeciesofecosystemhealth.

b1.3.7 human Characterization

data Gaps

The human characterization data gaps include municipal and private communal wastewater treatment facilities andoutfalllocationsfromtheMOE,currentandhistoricaggregateextractionsitesfromtheMNR,andbrownfieldlocationsfromtheMOE,seeTable b-1.

Knowledge Gaps

Land Use Mapping has been assembled from various watershed plans from various municipal partners in different years. The TRCA needs to review the map product for land use and ensure that the data are current and that the land use categories are consistent. The only other significant knowledge gap associated with human characterization is an analysis of the potential chemical and microbiological impacts from commercial and industrial land uses and wastewater treatment facilities.



Table b-1: summary of Watershed Characterization data Gaps

Watershed Characterization

DeliverableData Set Name Data Gap Problem Comment

The Physical Descrip-tion

YPDT New wells which are not incor-porated into WWIS database

Ongoing data management.

Hydrology

Hydrological Data Sets Need consistent baseline dataset across TRCA jurisdic-tion, specifically in ungauged reaches/watersheds

The existing baseline data has significant gaps and previ-ous dataset available from other sources (i.e.: GSC data from 1996/1997 in the Rouge River) are useful for assess-ing the acute impacts of human activities (withdrawals, new dams, dewatering etc.) but are inadequate for deter-mining the long term effects associated with geology.

Stream gauges Further 15 gauges recom-mended

Locations yet to be determined.

PGMN Wells Current 22 wells inadequate to assess flow paths and trends

TRCA staff working with municipal partners and others to find new monitoring wells for inclusion into the network.

Water Quantity

PTTW Actual Withdraw-als Data

Reported usage of Phase I & II water takings

Some data available for the Tier 3 study; more expected as the database matures.

Water Level Monitoring by Regional Partners

There are wide areas with gaps or lack of historical data for interpretation.

Tier 3 study underway. Ongoing PGMN monitoring will help.

Flowing Wells Need to identify existing flowing wells.

Target areas for education, restoration and improve-ments.

Consistent Water Budget Analysis

Comprehensive water budget analyses are required for all nine watersheds within the TRCA

Additional parameters and functions should be added to the existing water budget models including GIS capabili-ties and a user-friendly graphical interface. The water budget analyses, combined with hydrologic modelling should also be applied to advance the understanding of the basin response and the emerging trends within each of the nine watersheds. Modelling of the municipal stormwater system may be necessary to fully understand conditions within the watersheds.

Envirobase Requires further development and enhancement.

ESRI ArcHydro data model has been identified as accept-able tool.

Sewershed and outfall mapping

Municipal GIS layers of sewersheds and CSO outfall/cross connection data currently unavailable

Municipal stormwater information including details such as sewershed mapping and CSO outfall / cross connec-tion locations should be included within GIS layers for full interpretation of flows and water quality.



Watershed Characterization

DeliverableData Set Name Data Gap Problem Comment

Water Quality

Wet Weather Water Quality

Limited datasets available Need more “wet weather” surface water quality data.

Microbial Data (specifi-cally E. coli)

Laboratory testing issues re-duced utility of existing data

This parameter is not collected or analysed by some partners.

Surface Water Quality Data (mid 1990’s – 2000)

Gaps in record Changes and / or discontinuation of monitoring programs created data gap for this time period

Municipal Groundwa-ter Quality Data

Need to integrate water quality data from municipal partners into TRCA database

Ongoing data management issue.

PGMN Water Quality Limited historic data Quality sampling did not begin until recently (2003). Po-tential for significant MOE regional office data.- landfills

Organic Compounds Data limited to small number of stations

Programs which monitor bacteriological variable and “ex-otic” chemicals need to be expanded.

Spills Information Limited data regarding the na-ture, source and location of spills

Naturally Vegetated Areas

Riparian Cover Updates required for jurisdic-tional coverage

Ecological Land Clas-sification (ELC)

Currently approximately 50% of natural areas are inventoried

Sampling Regime Development / enhancement of sampling methods

Current sampling does not provide a strong indication or direct evidence of the many influences urbanization is having on vegetation communities and local flora and fauna. Monitoring needs to expand to fill these informa-tion gaps.

Aquatic Ecology

Baseline Historic Spe-cies Sampling

Limited historic data in the Duffins, Humber, Carruthers and Petticoat watersheds.

TRCA does not have complete jurisdictional coverage, gaps exist in unsampled watercourses.

Identification of Mussel Species

To coincide with presence / absence and abundance surveys

Continuous Tempera-ture Data

Required for all watercourses in select watersheds (Humber, Carruthers and Etobicoke)

Human Characteriza-tion

Municipal and Private Treatment Facilities and Outfalls

Mapping and/or GIS layers required from MOE

Land Use Mapping Map requires verification to ensure consistent date (i.e., 2002) for mapping across TRCA’s jurisdiction

Mapping has been assembled from watershed plans in different years. Need to examine SOLRIS data for suit-ability.

Current and Historic Aggregate Extraction Locations

Mapping and/or GIS layers required from MNR

Brownfield Locations Mapping and/or GIS layers required from MOE



b2 sUrfaCe WaTer QUaliTY doCUMenTaTion

The attached report was prepared by TRCA staff and documents the surface water quality across the TRSPA based on output from the Regional Monitoring Program. This sampling program is funded by the Province of Ontario,TRCA’sregionalmunicipalities,andtheCityofToronto.

Source Water Protection: Surface Water Quality Update

November 2009

Watershed Monitoring and Reporting Section Ecology Division



Report prepared by: Angela Wallace, Watershed Monitoring and Reporting Section, Ecology Division

Reviewed by: Scott Jarvie, Manager Watershed Monitoring and Reporting, Ecology Division Tim VanSeters, Manager Sustainable Technologies Section, Ecology Division Don Ford, Manager Geoenvironmental, Ecology Division Deborah Martin-Downs, Director, Ecology Division

This report may be referenced as: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2009. Source Water Protection: Surface Water Quality Update. 53 pp.



i

Table of Contents

Page

1. Introduction......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Data Sources ................................................................................................................1 1.2 Indicator Variables ........................................................................................................3

2. Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Current Conditions .......................................................................................................6

2.1.1 Total Suspended Solids ................................................................................................. 7 2.1.2 Chloride .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.3 Total Phosphorus ......................................................................................................... 10 2.1.4 Nitrogen Compounds................................................................................................... 12 2.1.5 E. coli ............................................................................................................................ 16 2.1.6 Copper.......................................................................................................................... 17 2.1.7 Iron................................................................................................................................ 19 2.1.8 Nickel ............................................................................................................................ 20 2.1.9 Zinc ............................................................................................................................... 21 2.1.10 Pesticides ..................................................................................................................... 22

2.2 Trends.........................................................................................................................24 2.2.1 By Parameter ................................................................................................................ 24 2.2.2 By Watershed Mouths .................................................................................................. 28

3. Summary ........................................................................................................... 34

4. References ........................................................................................................ 37 List of Figures Figure 1: Current PWQMN/RWMP Water Quality Monitoring Station Locations......................................... 2 Figure 2. Example box plot graphic ......................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3. TSS concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007) .................................... 7 Figure 4. Median TSS concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover ................................ 8 Figure 5. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007) ........................... 10 Figure 6. Median chloride concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover ........................ 10 Figure 7. Phosphorus concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007) ..................... 11 Figure 8. Median total phosphorus concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover.......... 12 Figure 9. Nitrate concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007) .............................. 13 Figure 10. Median nitrate concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover ........................... 13 Figure 11. Nitrite concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007)................................ 14 Figure 12. Median nitrite concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover ............................ 14 Figure 13. Unionized ammonia concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007)......... 15 Figure 14. Median unionized ammonia concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land

cover ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 15. E. coli concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007) ............................... 17 Figure 16. Median E. coli counts (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover ........................................ 17 Figure 17. Copper concentrations (μg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007).............................. 18 Figure 18. Median copper concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover.......................... 19



Table o f Contents

ii

Figure 19. Iron concentrations (μg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007).................................... 19 Figure 20. Median iron concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover............................... 20 Figure 21. Nickel concentrations (μg/L) in the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007) ........................................ 21 Figure 22. Zinc concentrations (μg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007) ................................... 22 Figure 23. Median zinc concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover............................... 22 Figure 24. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) over time............................................................................... 26 Figure 25. Total phosphorus concentrations (mg/L) over time............................................................... 26 Figure 26. Total suspended solids (TSS) concentration (mg/L) over time .............................................. 28 Figure 27. Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations for the mouths of the Humber River

(83019), Don River (85014), Highland Creek (94002), and Duffins Creek (104001) over time.................................................................................................................................. 29

Figure 28. Median total suspended solids (TSS) trend over time at the mouths of the Humber River, Don River, Highland Creek, and Duffins Creek............................................................. 29

Figure 29. Chloride concentrations for the mouth of the Humber River, Don River, Highland Creek, Rouge River and Duffins Creek over time.................................................................... 30

Figure 30. Median chloride trends over time at the mouths of the Humber River (83019), Don River (85014), Highland Creek (94002), Rouge River (97011), and Duffins Creek (104011) .................................................................................................................................. 31

Figure 31. Total phosphorus concentrations for the mouth of the Humber River (83019), Don River (85014), Highland Creek (94002), Rouge River (97011) and Duffins Creek (104001) over time................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 32. Median total phosphorus trends over time at the mouths of the Humber River, Don River, Highland Creek, Rouge River, and Duffins Creek......................................................... 33

List of Tables Table 1. Standard suite of water quality parameters analyzed for stream samples ............................... 3 Table 2. Significance, sources and guidelines for key surface water parameters.................................. 4 Table 3. Chloride trend analyses over time........................................................................................... 25 Table 4. Total phosphorus trend analyses over time............................................................................ 27 Table 5. Total suspended solids (TSS) trend analyses over time......................................................... 27 Table 6. Mann-Kendall and regression statistics for TSS trend analysis.............................................. 29 Table 7. Mann-Kendall and regression statistics for chloride trend analysis based on median

values at 5-year intervals ......................................................................................................... 31 Table 8. Mann-Kendall and regression statistics for total phosphorus trend analysis based on

median values at 5-year intervals ............................................................................................ 33 Appendices A. Surface Water Quality Site Descriptions



SS uu rr ff aa cc ee WW aa tt ee rr QQ uu aa ll ii tt yy UU pp dd aa tt eeNovember 2009

1

1. Introduction

This report provides a summary of the surface water quality across TRCA’s jurisdiction. Both trends over time and spatial variations in water quality are described. Where applicable, water quality results are compared to numerical objectives (e.g. Provincial Water Quality Objectives) to determine if surface water quality within the jurisdiction is meeting these targets. 1.1 Data Sources

Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network/Regional Watershed Monitoring Program The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE) Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) was started in 1964 to collect surface water quality information from rivers and streams at strategic locations throughout Ontario. Over time, stations were added and discontinued in response to changing OMOE and program-specific needs (OMOE 2003). Previously, the OMOE monitored water quality throughout the Toronto region but the PWQMN program was substantially scaled back due to funding issues in the 1990s. Only two stations continued to operate in the Toronto region (06008501402 at the mouth of the Don River, 06008301902 at the mouth of the Humber River). In 2002, TRCA began sampling 11 additional stations as part of the PWQMN, for a total of 13 PWQMN stations in the Toronto Region. The 11 stations are sampled eight times per year on a monthly basis during the ice-free period. Up until the end of 2008, the other two PWQMN stations were sampled by OMOE staff on a minimum bi-weekly basis (and often more frequently), year round. A standard set of water quality indicators (Table 1) is monitored at each PWQMN station, including chloride, nutrients, suspended solids, trace metals and other general chemistry parameters. Disease-causing substances, pesticides and other contaminants are monitored in detailed water quality surveys in priority watersheds. In addition to the PWQMN stations, TRCA collects water quality samples as part of the Regional Watershed Monitoring Program (RWMP). The RWMP is a comprehensive ecological monitoring program which monitors aquatic habitat and fish community, terrestrial habitats, communities and species, surface water quality and quantity, fluvial geomorphology, groundwater quality and quantity and West Nile virus mosquito vector monitoring. Since 2002, TRCA has partnered with the City of Toronto to monitor 23 additional surface water quality stations for a total of 36 stations (PWQMN+RWMP) in the TRCA’s region (Figure 1). Station location information is provided in Appendix A. The number of stations in each watershed is proportional to the size of the watershed. These sites are sampled for the same standard set of water quality indicators used by the PWQMN (Table 1). In 2004, the TRCA increased its water quality sampling frequency to be year round. This includes sampling the nine PWQMN stations during the four months not covered under the agreement with the OMOE. The RWMP also collects E. coli samples from all sites (both RWMP and PWQMN) year round which are analyzed by a private laboratory.



SSuu

rr ffaa

ccee

WWaa

tt eerr

QQuu

aall ii

tt yyUU

ppdd

aatt ee

No

vem

ber

200

9

SSuu

rr ffaa

ccee

WWaa

tt eerr

QQuu

aall ii

tt yyUU

ppdd

aatt ee

2

No

vem

ber

200

9

Fig

ure

1: C

urre

nt P

WQ

MN

/RW

MP

Wat

er Q

ualit

y M

oni

tori

ng S

tatio

n Lo

catio

ns

Fig

ure

1: C

urre

nt P

WQ

MN

/RW

MP

Wat

er Q

ualit

y M

oni

tori

ng S

tatio

n Lo

catio

ns

2




3

In the spring of 2009, two water quality stations were added to the RWMP in the Petticoat Creek and Frenchman’s Bay watersheds. Due to laboratory upgrades at the City of Toronto, RWMP samples are currently (April 2009 onwards) being sent to York-Durham Environmental laboratory during the interim.

Table 1. Standard suite of water quality parameters analyzed for stream samples

Temperature, Water Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Solids, Suspended

Solids, Dissolved

Conductivity Hardness Magnesium Dissolved Oxygen

Sodium Calcium Chloride Potassium

General Chemistry

Alkalinity Turbidity pH

Microbiological Escherichia coli

Aluminum Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Manganese Molybdenum Nickel

Metals

Strontium Titanium Vanadium Zinc Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl

Phosphorus, Total Phosphate Ammonia Nutrients

Nitrate Nitrite Note: Additional parameters may be analyzed on a site/project specific basis

Pesticide Data Pesticide data is not collected as part of TRCA’s routine water quality monitoring (i.e. RWMP). The report Occurrence of Lawn Care and Agricultural Pesticides in the Don and Humber River Watersheds (1998-2002) (EC et al. 2008b) summarizes results from several sites in the Don and Humber River watersheds during both baseflow and rainfall events from 1998 through 2002. 1.2 Indicator Variables

Surface water quality parameters were selected for analysis based on their relevance to common water use concerns. Table 2 outlines the indicator parameters, its sources as well as the effects on the aquatic environment, and the applicable water quality guidelines for comparison.




4

Table 2. Significance, sources and guidelines for key surface water parameters

Parameter Significance Sources (examples) Guideline

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

TSS represents the amount of particulate matter (e.g. silt, clay, organic and inorganic matter, etc) suspended in water. TSS can act as a transport vector for contaminants (e.g. metals). Elevated concentrations of TSS can affect aquatic organisms such as fish by reducing water clarity which can inhibit the ability of aquatic organisms to find food. TSS can cause clogging and abrasion of fish gills. TSS can cause habitat changes such as smothering fish spawning and nursery areas.

• Construction sites • Farm fields • Lawns and gardens • Eroding stream

channels • Grit accumulation on

roads

CWQG1: 30 mg/L (background + 25 mg/L)

Total Phosphorus

At elevated concentrations, phosphorus can have unfavourable effects on receiving waters such as eutrophication (enrichment of a waterbody with nutrients). Phosphorus stimulates plant and algae productivity and biomass. Past a certain point, this can cause reduced biodiversity, changes in the dominant biota, decreases in ecologically sensitive species, increases in tolerant species, anoxia, and increases in toxins (e.g. cyanobacteria).

• Fertilizers • Animal wastes • Sanitary sewage

Interim PWQO2: 0.03 mg/L

Nitrogen Compounds

Nitrogen compounds (nitrate, nitrite, unionized ammonia) are nutrients with sources and effects similar to phosphorus. Nitrite and unionized ammonia can be potentially toxic to aquatic organisms. The toxicity of unionized ammonia is dependent on pH and water temperature.

• Industrial discharge • Septic tanks • Agricultural runoff • Urban runoff • Fertilizers • Landfill leachate

CWQG1: 2.93 mg/L for nitrate PWQO: 0.02 mg/L for unionized ammonia

Chloride Chloride can be toxic to aquatic organisms with acute effects at high concentrations and chronic effects at lower concentrations.

• Road salt application • Fertilizers • Wastewater treatment • Industrial discharge

BC MOE3: 150 mg/L

Escherichia coli (E. coli)

E. coli are a large and diverse group of bacteria that are commonly found in the intestines of warm-blooded animals. E. coli are used to indicate the presence of fecal waste in water. Some strains of E. coli can cause human illness (e.g. diarrhea, urinary tract infections).

• Illegal sewer connections

• Combined sewer overflows (CSO)

• Inputs from wildlife, livestock and domestic animals

• Organic fertilizers

PWQO: 100 CFU/100 mL

Metals

Several heavy metals are toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms at varying concentrations. Most metals enter waterways though surface runoff. Metals bind to sediment and can affect fish (e.g. clogging of gills) and benthic invertebrates (e.g. habitat changes, smothering food sources).

• Urban runoff • Industrial discharge • Sewage treatment • Pesticides • Fertilizers • Atmospheric

deposition

PWQO: • Copper – 5

μg/L (interim) • Iron – 300

μg/L • Nickel – 25

μg/L • Zinc – 20 μg/L

(interim)

Pesticides

Pesticides consist of various compounds used to control unwanted pests such as weeds and insects. The most obvious effect of pesticides on fish and other wildlife is acute poisoning. Certain pesticides can affect the reproductive potential of certain fish and wildlife. Pesticides can cause health effects in humans such as reproductive effects and cancer.

• Insecticides • Herbicides • Fungicides

CWQG/PWQO: • MCPP – 4

μg/L • Diazinon –

0.08 μg/L • 2,4-D – 4 μg/L

1CWQG = Canadian Water Quality Guideline 2PWQO = Provincial Water Quality Objective 3BC MOE = British Columbia Ministry of the Environment




5

2. Data Analysis Statistical analysis was completed using JMP 8.0 (SAS Institute, Carrey, North Carolina). When results were below the laboratory detection limit (trace amounts), these values were set conservatively at the laboratory detection for analysis purposes. The OMOE (2003) recommends that for statistical summaries of routine monitoring data a minimum sample size of 30 or greater. Sampling results are presented in box plots (e.g. Figure 2) which summarize the distribution of samples for each site. The ends of the box are the 25th and 75th quartiles. The difference between the quartiles is the interquartile range. The line across the middle of the box identifies the median sample value. “Whiskers” extend from the ends of the box to the outermost data point which is not considered an outlier (upper quartile+1.5*(interquartile range), lower quartile-1.5*(interquartile range)). Sampling stations are arranged along the x-axis by watershed (west to east) from headwaters to outlet.

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

Objective

Con

cent

ratio

n (u

nits

)

80002 80004 80006

Station

75th quantile

Water quality objective (e.g. PWQO)

median 25th quantile

“whisker”

Figure 2. Example box plot graphic

Surface water quality results were compared to the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO; OMOEE 1994). The PWQO are a set of numerical and narrative criteria which serve as chemical and physical indicators representing a satisfactory level for surface waters which is protective of all forms of aquatic life and all aspects of the aquatic life cycles during indefinite exposure to the water. There are also some PWQO which are set for the protection of recreational water uses based on public health and aesthetic considerations. When PWQO were not available, other objectives such as the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic (CWQG; CCME 2007) were used. The relationships between median surface water quality results and urban (urban + urbanizing) land cover were also examined using regression analysis. The percentages of rural, urbanizing and urban land cover in the upstream catchment were determined using a Geographic Information System (GIS). Urban land cover was based on 2002 orthoimagery, urbanizing land cover was based on various regional Official Plans (2002-2004) and rural land cover was the remaining areas.




6

For sites where historical data were available, analysis was completed using Mann-Kendal non-parametric test to determine if temporal trends were significant. The Mann-Kendall test is a non-parametric test for identifying trends in time series data. The test compares the relative magnitude of sample data rather than the data values themselves (Gilbert, 1987). The data values are evaluated as an ordered time series. Each value is compared to each subsequent data values. The initial value of the Mann-Kendall statistic, S, is assumed to be zero (e.g., no trend). If a value from a later time period is higher than a value from an earlier time period, S is incremented by one. On the other hand, if the value from a later time period is lower than a value sampled earlier, S is decremented by one. The net result of all such increments and decrements yields the final value of S. For example, a very high positive value of S is an indicator of an increasing trend, and a very low negative value indicates a decreasing trend. Because of the wide range of water quality values (i.e. includes baseflow, low flow and storm events), a significance level (α) of 0.1 was used to determine if temporal trends were significant. The alpha level (α, or significance level) indicates the odds that the observed result is due to chance. If a test of significance gives a p-value lower than the α-level, the null hypothesis (i.e. no difference between what is being tested) is rejected. For example, if the p-value for a Mann-Kendall test is 0.07, the p-value is less than the significance level (α=0.1), and the result is statistically significant. 2.1 Current Conditions

With the exception of the pesticide data, surface water quality results are for the 5-year period from 2003-2007. The pesticide data is for 1998-2002. Results are presented using RWMP station names which are often a derivative of the (current/historic) 11-digit OMOE PWQMN name. For example, PWQMN station 06008000202 is presented as station 80002. Stations which do not have corresponding PWQMN names have text names rather than numeric codes. Summary maps are presented in Appendix B. It is important to note that samples were collected on varying field dates, under a variety of weather conditions, and analyzed at several laboratories. Water quality samples collected as part of the PWQMN/RWMP are collected independent of weather conditions. Monthly water quality data should represent the range of water quality conditions that affect the aquatic system (e.g. streamflow conditions including snowmelt, runoff from rain events of varying magnitude and baseflow conditions during varying seasons). By proportion, low flow conditions predominate the samples, therefore, by using five years of monthly water quality data, median values should represent ambient water quality conditions. Since specific wet-weather events are not targeted, contaminant concentrations presented in this report may be significantly lower than what would be measured during a storm event. Urban runoff can contain high concentrations of contaminants (e.g. sediments, nutrients, road salts, heavy metals, petroleum products, bacteria) which are washed off impervious surfaces such as roads and parking lots. Agricultural runoff can also contain high levels of contaminants such a sediment, pesticides, nutrients and bacteria. In addition, winter water quality samples were not collected in 2003, collected periodically from 2004-2005 and collected monthly from 2006-2007. Therefore, interpretation of water quality results presented in this report should consider the above noted limitations regarding the frequency and timing of sample collections.




7

2.1.1 Total Suspended Solids

A total suspended solids (TSS) value represents the amount of particulate matter (e.g. silt, clay, organic and inorganic matter, soluble organic compounds, plankton, other microscopic organisms) suspended in water. Suspended sediments can act as a transport vector for a wide range of contaminants (e.g. metals are charged particles that can bind with sediment) and can affect aquatic organisms. Direct negative effects to fish include clogging and abrasion of gills, behavioural effects (e.g., movement and migration), blanketing of spawning gravels and other habitat changes, the formation of physical constraints disabling proper egg and fry development, and reduced feeding (CCME 2002). Effects to benthic invertebrates include physical habitat changes, smothering of benthic communities, clogging of interstices between gravel, cobbles, and boulders affecting invertebrate microhabitat, abrasion of respiratory surfaces, and interference of food intake for filter-feeding invertebrates (CCME 2002). TSS concentrations are presented in Figure 3 and Appendix B1. Currently, there is no PWQO for suspended sediments that can be easily applied to stream water quality samples. The CWQG’s contain a narrative guideline for TSS which recommends that during periods of “clear flow” water (ambient, baseflow conditions), the maximum increase of TSS should be no more than 25 mg/L from background levels for any short-term exposure (e.g. 24-h period) and only a maximum average increase of 5 mg/L from background levels for longer term exposures (e.g., inputs lasting between 24 h and 30 d). During periods of “high flow” (e.g. after a precipitation event), the guideline recommends a maximum increase of 25 mg/L from background levels at any time when background levels are between 25 and 250 mg/L or levels should not increase more than 10% of background levels when background is >250 mg/L (CCME 2002). For this report, an objective of 30 mg/L was used which assumes a background TSS concentration of 5 mg/L.

Figure 3. TSS concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007)

Figure 3 shows that no stations had median TSS concentrations higher than the 30 mg/L objective but many stations did have individual readings which were over this objective. The




8

highest median TSS concentrations were in the Humber and Rouge River watersheds. Stations 83103, HU010WM, 83002, 83020 are located in the mid-reaches of the Humber River watershed near or just north of Highway 7. This area underwent (and continues to undergo) large scale development (change from agricultural to urban) which may have contributed to the sediment in the streams. Station 97003 is located in the Little Rouge subwatershed. Sources of suspended sediment in at this station may include agriculture, in-stream erosion, and development (e.g. Town of Stouffville). The predominance of highly erodible soils at these stations may also influence TSS concentrations. There was no significant relationship between TSS and urban land cover (F=0.14, p=0.71) as shown in Figure 4. Finkenbine et al. (2000) found that the age of urban land use may influence sediment loads (e.g. sediment loads may decline in streams draining older urban areas).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Med

ian TSS Co

ncen

tration (m

g/L)

% Urban Land Cover

Note: % Urban land cover = urban + urbanizing land use

Figure 4. Median TSS concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover

2.1.2 Chloride

Chloride can be toxic to aquatic organisms with acute affects at high concentrations and chronic effects (e.g. growth, reproduction) at lower concentrations (OMOE 2003). Chloride in our waterways is due to the use of road salts which are mainly used as de-icing and anti-icing agents during winter road maintenance. The predominant chloride salt used as a de-icer in North America is sodium chloride, which is composed of about 40% sodium and 60% chloride by weight. Trace elements, including trace metals, may represent up to 5% of the total salt weight. Additional sources of chloride include waterwater treatment, industry discharge and fertilizers (OMOE 2003). Natural background concentrations of chloride in water are generally no more than a few milligrams per litre, with some local or regional instances of higher natural salinity (EC & HC 2001). Chloride is a highly soluble and mobile ion that does not volatilize or easily precipitate or adsorb onto surfaces of particulates. Road salts enter the environment through runoff/melt-water, losses at salt storage and snow disposal sites, or from the release of salts stored in surface soils. There are no major removal mechanisms, such as volatilization, degradation (photodegradation,




9

biodegradation), sorption (to particulates) or oxidation, that would remove the salts from surface waters. Because chloride ions are persistent and are entrained in the hydrological cycle, all chloride ions applied to roadways as road salts and/or released from storage yards or snow disposal sites can be expected to be ultimately found in surface water. Presently, there is no Provincial or Canadian water quality guideline for chloride. A comprehensive five-year scientific assessment by Environment Canada and Health Canada (EC & HC 2001) determined that in sufficient concentrations, road salts pose a risk to plants, animals and the aquatic environment. The report noted that an estimated 5% of aquatic species would be affected (median lethal concentration) at chloride concentrations of about 210 mg/L, and 10% of species would be affected at chloride concentrations of about 240 mg/L. It also noted that changes in populations or community structure can occur at lower concentrations. The British Columbia Ministry of the Environment (BC MOE) has a chloride guideline which states that the average concentration of chloride (mg/L as NaCl) should not exceed 150 mg/L (based on an arithmetic mean computed from five samples collected over a 30-day period) to protect freshwater aquatic life from acute and lethal effects, the maximum concentration of chloride (mg/L as NaCl) at any time should not exceed 600 mg/L (BC MOE 2003). The 150 mg/L value includes a safety factor of five because chronic effects data in the literature are limited and the 600 mg/L acute value includes a safety factor of two because of the relative strength of the data set. Nationally, water quality is summarized as part of the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) report series (e.g. EC et al. 2008) produced by the Government of Canada (Environment Canada, Statistics Canada, Health Canada). The CESI report authors have interpreted the aforementioned studies and used an objective of 150 mg/L to protect aquatic life (EC 2005). An objective concentration of 150 mg/L was used for this report. Chloride concentrations for the 5-year period of 2003-2007 are presented in Figure 5 and Appendix B2. Only limited winter sampling was conducted for this period. There is also limited data on small order streams which have low dilution potential due to their limited volume. Keeping these data limitations in mind, the chloride concentrations presented in Figure 5 suggest that only the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek watersheds are meeting the 150 mg/L chloride objective. In general, chloride concentrations are highest near the outlets of the systems and decrease toward the headwaters. Seven sites (80006, MM003WM, 82003, HU1RWMP, 83012, DM 6.0, 94002) had over 90% of the samples collected exceed the objective of 150 mg/L. Six sites (80006, 82003, DM 6.0, 94002, 97011, HU1RWMP) had maximum individual concentrations greater than 5000 mg/L. Of the 36 sites sampled, the 75th percentile at 11 sites (30%) was greater than the 600 mg/L upper limit suggested by the BC MOE. This includes two sites (82003: mouth of Mimico Creek, HU1RWMP: mid-Humber River) which had median concentrations above the suggested 600 mg/L upper limit. Six sites (83018, 83009, 97018, 104008, 104029, 104025) had maximum concentrations below 150 mg/L. These stations are located in the upper reaches of the Humber River, Rouge River and Duffins Creek.




10

Figure 5. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007)

The relationship between urban land cover and 2003-2007 median chloride concentrations is presented in Figure 6. There is a significant increasing linear relationship (F=73.15, p<0.01) and the model is quite tight (R2=0.69) between these two variables. The relationship is very tight along the lower spectrum of urban land cover. The relationship weakens above 75% urban land cover. This may be an artifact of the method used to determine urbanizing land cover. Because urbanizing land cover was based on future planning zones, some area may not actually be built out (i.e. these areas will be urbanized in the future) but have been counted in the urbanizing category.

R² = 0.69

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Med

ian Ch

lorid

e Co

ncen

tration (m

g/L)

% Urban Land Cover


Figure 6. Median chloride concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover

2.1.3 Total Phosphorus

Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for all living organisms but in excess, it can have unfavorable effects. Phosphorus is associated with eutrophication – the enrichment of a water body with




11

nutrients. Water bodies containing low phosphorus concentrations typically support relatively diverse and abundant aquatic life that are self-sustaining and support various water uses. However, elevated phosphorus concentrations can adversely affect aquatic ecosystems (CCME 2004). Additional inputs of phosphorus to an aquatic system can cause increased plant and algal productivity and biomass. Although this may be desirable in some cases, beyond a certain point, further phosphorus additions may cause undesirable effects such as decreased biodiversity and changes in dominant biota, decline in ecologically sensitive species, increase in tolerant species, increase in plant and animal biomass, and anoxic conditions (EC 2004). When the excessive plant growth includes certain species of cyanobacteria, toxins may be produced, causing increased risk to aquatic life, livestock, and human health (CCME 2004). The potential human quality of life concerns that may relate to eutrophication include difficulties treating potable water which can lead to increased cost, drinking water taste or odour problems, decreased aesthetic/ recreational value, excessive macrophyte growth that may impede water flow and navigation, and a decrease in commercial and recreational fish (EC 2004). The interim PWQO for total phosphorus is 0.03 mg/L. This concentration is intended to prevent excessive plant growth in rivers and streams. Phosphorus results for 2003-2007 are presented in Figure 7 and Appendix B3. The results show that all stations exceed the PWQO of 0.03 mg/L for phosphorus on a regular basis. Only 8 sites had median phosphorous concentrations at or below 0.03 mg/L, of which, 5 stations were in the Duffins Creek watershed. The highest median phosphorous concentration (0.16 mg/L) was measured at station 85014 at the mouth of the Don River and had a maximum concentration of 0.91 mg/L measured on October 11, 2006. Station 85014 is located downstream of the North Toronto wastewater treatment plant.

Figure 7. Phosphorus concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007)

A significant exponential relationship exists between the median total phosphorus concentrations and urban land cover (F=18.60, p<0.01) and is presented in Figure 8. Although significant, there is a lot of scatter amongst the data points (R2=0.36) indicating that some data does not fit the exponential model.




12

R² = 0.36

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0.16

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Med

ian To

tal Pho

spho

rus Co

ncen

tration (µg/L)

% Urban Land Cover


Figure 8. Median total phosphorus concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover

2.1.4 Nitrogen Compounds

In the majority of water bodies, phosphorus is normally the limiting nutrient for algal growth but nitrogen compounds can also play a role in the eutrophication process. Three nitrogen compounds are analyzed as part of the PWQMN/RWMP: nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2) and total ammonia (NH3 + NH4

+). Anthropogenic discharges of nitrogen can include municipal and industrial wastewaters, septic tanks, agricultural runoff, feedlot discharges, urban runoff, lawn fertilizers, landfill leachate, nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide from vehicular exhaust, and storm sewer overflow (CCME 2003). Natural sources of ammonia include the decomposition or breakdown of organic waste matter, gas exchange with the atmosphere, forest fires, animal waste, human breath, the discharge of ammonia by biota, and nitrogen fixation processes (CCME 2003). Nitrate serves as the primary source of nitrogen for aquatic plants in well oxygenated systems, and as nitrate levels increase, there is an increasing risk of algal blooms and eutrophication in surface waters. Nitrite and unionized ammonia can be toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms at relatively low concentrations. Nitrate results are presented in Figure 9 and Appendix B4. CESI (EC et al. 2008) interpreted the interim CWQG for nitrate as 2.93 mg/L (EC 2005). All stations had median water quality values below the 2.93 mg/L objective. Several sites had individual sampling points which were above the objective. In particular, Station DM 6.0 at the outlet of Taylor-Massey Creek in the Don River watershed had the highest median nitrate value at 2.34 mg/L followed by station 104037 in Mitchell’s Creek (Duffins Creek watershed) with a median value of 2.06 mg/L. The reason for the high nitrate levels at DM 6.0 are unclear but Station 104037 is located less than 1 km downstream from John Evelyns Golf Club which may be influencing the nitrate concentrations at this station. Some of the nitrate values may be exaggerated as samples analyzed at the City of Toronto laboratory with nitrate concentrations greater than 1 mg/L were determined to be elevated in comparison to other laboratories when split sampling results were compared (TRCA, unpublished data).




13

Figure 9. Nitrate concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007)

The relationship between nitrate and urban land cover is presented in Figure 10. A significant exponential relationship exists between the two variables (F=7.69, p<0.01).

R² = 0.188

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Med

ian Nitrate Co

ncen

tration (m

g/L)

% Urban Land Cover

Figure 10. Median nitrate concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover

Nitrite results are presented in Figure 11. There is no PWQO or CWQG for nitrite in surface water. The BC MOE has an objective for nitrite which is chloride concentration dependent (BC MOE 2001). Since most sites (89%) had minimum chloride concentrations greater than 10 mg/L, the objective of 0.6 mg/L of nitrite was used for this study. Median nitrite concentrations for all stations were below the 0.6 mg/L objective. The highest median nitrite value was recorded at station 85014 at the mouth of the Don River with a value of 0.139 mg/L. Station 85014 is located downstream of the North Toronto Wastewater Treatment Plant.




14

Figure 11. Nitrite concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007)

The relationship between nitrite and urban land cover is presented in Figure 12. A strongly significant exponential relationship exists between the two variables (F=100.78, p<0.01).

R² = 0.758

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Med

ian Nitrite

Con

centratio

n (m

g/L)

% Urban Land Cover

Figure 12. Median nitrite concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover

Unionized ammonia is the only nitrogen compound which has a PWQO (0.02 mg/L). Unionized ammonia concentrations are presented in Figure 13 and Appendix B6. Unionized ammonia values are calculated from total ammonia values and depend on the pH and temperature of the water. Raising pH by one unit can cause the unionized ammonia concentration to increase nearly tenfold, while a 5°C temperature increase can cause an increase of 40-50% (CCME 2000). The median and 75th percentile of unionized ammonia concentrations at almost all stations were less than the PWQO. However, one station at the mouth of the Don River (85014) had significantly higher concentrations unionized ammonia. The median unionized ammonia concentration at this station was 0.06 mg/L which exceeds the PWQO of 0.02 mg/L. Station 85014 is located approximately 1.5 km downstream from the North Toronto Wastewater Treatment Plant. Several studies have determined that concentrations greater than 0.04 mg/L (CCME 2000) can cause pathological lesions in the gills, tissue degradation in the kidneys and




15

reduction in growth and reproduction in fish. The median concentration at station 85014 exceeded 0.04 mg/L of unionized ammonia and individual sampling concentrations often exceeded more than 5 times this amount.

Figure 13. Unionized ammonia concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction

(2003-2007)

The relationship between unionized ammonia and urban land cover is presented in Figure 14. The median concentration for Station 85014 located at the mouth of the Don River was removed from analysis because it was an obvious outlier. A significant exponential relationship exists between the two variables (F=18.71, p<0.01).

R² = 0.41

0

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.006

0.007

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Med

ian Union

ized

Ammon

ia Con

centration

(mg/L)

% Urban Land Cover


Figure 14. Median unionized ammonia concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover




16

2.1.5 E. coli

Escherichia coli (E. coli) are a large and diverse group of bacteria that are commonly found in the intestines of warm blooded animals. Although most strains of E. coli are harmless, others can cause human illness (e.g. diarrhea, urinary tract infections, respiratory illness, pneumonia) (CDC 2008). E. coli are often used to indicate the presence of fecal wastes and other harmful bacteria in lakes and streams. Bacteria enters waterways via a variety of sources including sewer systems (e.g. combined sewer overflows), septic systems, wildlife, livestock, pets, waterfowl, and organic fertilizers. E. coli results are presented in Figure 15 and Appendix B7. Samples were collected for the entire 2003-2007 period but it was determined that laboratory error overestimated E. coli counts from July 2003 through to May 2006 and therefore these data were not included in the analysis. The PWQO for E. coli is 100 colony forming units (CFU) per 100 mL. The PWQO for E. coli is a recreational water quality guideline for swimming. It is based upon a geometric mean of at least five samples per site taken within a one month period. Only one sample was collected monthly for this program and therefore median results are presented rather than geometric means. Maximum E. coli values were capped at 20000 CFU for analysis as this was the maximum value counted by one of the laboratories. This suggests that some sites may have higher median E. coli values than what are presented in Figure 15. In general, E. coli concentrations were lowest in the headwaters and increased downstream toward the stream outlets. Median E. coli levels at 89% of the sites monitored were above the PWQO of 100 CFU/100 mL. The highest E. coli concentrations were measured in the Don River watershed and high concentrations of E. coli were also found near the mouths of the other watersheds. Samples in the Don watershed and older urbanized portions of the Humber, Etobicoke and Mimico watersheds often receive untreated stormwater and some areas also have combined sewer overflow (CSO) sewer systems. Sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff are conveyed in a single pipe. This means that during precipitation events, the pipe can exceed capacity and flow directly into the river or waterfront. Four sites (83018, 83004, 97013, 104029) had median E. coli values less than the 100 CFU/100 mL objective. With the exception of 97013, these sites were located in the upper reaches of the Humber River and Duffins Creek watersheds. Station 97013 is located at the outlet of the Little Rouge Creek subwatershed, not far upstream from the mouth of the main Rouge River.




17

Figure 15. E. coli concentrations (mg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007)

The relationship between urban land cover and median E. coli counts is presented in Figure 16. A significant exponential relationship exists between the two variables (F=57.25, p<0.001). Areas with high levels of urban land cover usually have much higher counts of E. coli than areas with lower levels of urbanization.

R² = 0.63

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Med

ian E. coli Cou

nts (CFU

/100

mL)

% Urban Landuse


Figure 16. Median E. coli counts (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover

2.1.6 Copper

Copper is an essential trace element that can be toxic to aquatic biota at elevated concentrations. It enters aquatic systems through aerial deposition or surface runoff. Sources of copper include the weathering of copper minerals and numerous sources from human activities (e.g. copper pipe, metal alloys, wiring, fungicides and insecticides). Copper strongly adsorbs to particulate matter (e.g. soil particles), and tends to accumulate in sediments. Because a variety of organisms live in, or are in contact with, the stream bed, sediments act as an important route of exposure to aquatic organisms (CCME 1999a). High levels of copper in the aquatic environment are usually found in more urbanized and industrial areas (OMOE 2003).




18

Copper results are presented in Figure 17 and Appendix B8. The median results for most stations are below the interim PWQO of 5 μg/L. Three stations (MM003WM, HU1RWMP, 83012) had median copper concentrations exceeding the PWQO. MM003WM is located downstream of Pearson International Airport and HU1RWMP and 83012 are located in the Black Creek subwatershed which is part of the Humber River watershed. Three stations (DN008WM, DM6.0, 85014) in the Don River watershed had median concentrations at or approaching the PWQO. The lowest median copper concentrations were recorded at station 83104 and 97018 which are located in the headwaters of the Humber River and Rouge River, respectively.

Figure 17. Copper concentrations (μg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007)

The relationship between median copper concentrations and urban land cover are shown in Figure 18. There is a strong, significant increasing linear relationship between median copper concentrations and urban land cover (F=84.36, p<0.01). Much of the copper found in aquatic systems comes from human activities. This is evident in Figure 18 as the concentration of copper in streams increases significantly with increasing urban land cover.

R² = 0.72

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Med

ian Co

pper Con

centration

(µg/L)

% Urban Land Use



19

Figure 18. Median copper concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover

2.1.7 Iron

Iron is required for all forms of life but it can be potentially toxic at high concentrations. The relationship between the insoluble and soluble forms (bioavailable) depends on several factors including pH, dissolved oxygen, dissolved and total organic carbon, humic and other organic substances, exposure to light and chloride concentrations (BC MOE 2008). Anthropogenic sources of iron include mining activities, water purification and sewage treatment, pesticides, and fertilizers. Iron bound to other substances (e.g. sediment) can affect aquatic ecosystems. In fish, the clogging of gills which reduces respiratory potential and therefore overall survival can be caused by iron. It can also decrease the number of benthic invertebrates (which serve as the food supply for fish) directly or through changes to aquatic habitat. Iron results are presented in Figure 19 and Appendix B9. Several sites (13) had median iron concentration above the PWQO of 300 μg/L. Highland Creek, Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek did not have any sites where the median iron concentration exceeded the PWQO. The highest median iron concentration was measured at HU010WM with a concentration of 710 μg/L. The majority of the other sites which exceeded the PWQO were located in the mid to lower reaches of the watersheds.

Figure 19. Iron concentrations (μg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007)

The relationship between median iron concentrations and urban land cover is presented in Figure 20. There is a significant exponential relationship between these two variables (F=8.56, p<0.01) but there is quite a bit of scatter in the data (R2=0.21) indicating that the model does not fit all data points.




19


2.1.7 Iron





19


2.1.7 Iron







20

R² = 0.21

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Med

ian Iron

Con

centration

(µg/L)

% Urban Land Cover


Figure 20. Median iron concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover

2.1.8 Nickel

Nickel is an abundant element and is a naturally occurring chemical element, related to iron. It is naturally found in soils, waters, and foods, and is emitted from volcanoes. The metal is used extensively in corrosion-resistant alloys, such as stainless steel (US EPA 2006). Nickel is commonly alloyed with iron, copper, chromium, aluminum and zinc. Alloys are used in the making of metal coins and jewellery and, in industry, for making metal items. Nickel and nickel compounds are used for nickel electroplating, to colour ceramics, to make batteries, for permanent magnet materials, and as catalysts. Nickel is one of the most mobile of the heavy metals in the aquatic environment. The mobility of nickel is controlled largely by the capability of various sorbents (e.g. sediment, organic material) to bind with it and remove it from solution. Very small amounts of nickel have been shown to be essential for normal growth and reproduction in some species of animals but can be toxic at high concentrations. Nickel toxicity to aquatic organisms is determined by water hardness - the softer the water, the higher the toxicity.

Nickel results are presented in Figure 21 and Appendix B10. In a recent split sample comparison of various laboratories, results from the City of Toronto laboratory were significantly higher than other laboratories (TRCA, unpublished data), therefore, the data should be interpreted with caution. Despite the laboratory issues, all stations had median nickel concentrations lower than the PWQO of 25 μg/L. Because of the differing minimum detection limits, the relationship between median nickel concentrations and urban land cover was not analyzed.




21

Figure 21. Nickel concentrations (μg/L) in the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007)

2.1.9 Zinc

Zinc is an essential trace element that is toxic to aquatic organisms at elevated levels causing increased behavioural changes and mortality as well as decreased benthic invertebrate diversity and abundance (OMOE 2003). Zinc can enter aquatic systems through aerial deposition or surface runoff. The primary use of zinc is for galvanized products for the automotive and construction industry. Sources of anthropogenic zinc include electroplaters, smelting and ore processing, domestic and industrial sewage, combustion of solid wastes and fossil fuels, corrosion of zinc alloy and galvanized surfaces and soil erosion (OMOE 2003). Aquatic organisms are exposed to both particulate and dissolved (bioavailable) forms of zinc. Zinc has a strong affinity for aquatic particles (especially organic matter) and tends to accumulate in bed sediments. A wide variety of organisms live in contact with the sediments of aquatic systems. Sediments therefore act as an important route of exposure to zinc for aquatic organisms (CCME 1999b). Zinc results are presented in Figure 22 and Appendix B11. Three stations (MM003WM, HU1RWMP, 83012) had median zinc concentration above the interim PWQO of 20 μg/L. MM003WM is located in the Mimico Creek watershed, immediately downstream of the Pearson International Airport. HU1RWMP and 83012 are located in the Black Creek subwatershed within the Humber River watershed.




22

Figure 22. Zinc concentrations (μg/L) across the TRCA jurisdiction (2003-2007)

A significant increasing linear relationship exists between median zinc concentrations and urban land cover (F=26.31, p<0.01) and is shown in Figure 23. As urban land cover increases, the amount of zinc in the aquatic system also increases.

R² = 0.44

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Med

ian Zinc Co

ncentration (µ

g/L)

% Urban Land Cover


Figure 23. Median zinc concentrations (2003-2007) in relation to urban land cover

2.1.10 Pesticides

A pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. Though often misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term pesticide also applies to herbicides, fungicides, and various other substances used to control pests. Examples of beneficial uses of pesticides include: disease prevention (e.g. killing of vector species (e.g. mosquitoes) which can transmit potentially deadly diseases such as West Nile virus, yellow fever, and malaria) and increased agricultural crop yield. Although there are




23

benefits to the use of pesticides, there are also drawbacks, such as potential toxicity to humans and other animals.

Pesticide samples for the Don River and Humber River were collected from 1998-2002 as part of the Occurrence of Lawn Care and Agricultural Pesticides in the Don and Humber River Watersheds (1998-2002) report (EC et al. 2008). Four sites were sampled in each of the watersheds with a total of 262 samples collected over the 5-year period. Sampling frequency varied from year to year and of the 262 samples, 139 samples were described as dry events and 123 samples were wet events. Samples were analyzed at the University of Guelph for phenoxy acid herbicides, organophosphorus insecticides and carbamate pesticides. Many of these pesticides are used in both lawn care and agricultural pest control programs. In addition, samples were also analyzed for triazine herbicides which are used exclusively in agriculture.

Eleven pesticides and one metabolite were detected in surface waters of the Don and Humber Rivers or their tributaries. These included 2,4-D, atrazine, bromacil, carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, diazinon, dicamba, MCPP, metolachlor, metribuzin, and an atrazine metabolite (des-ethyl atrazine). Approximately 72% of samples contained at least one pesticide attributed to lawn care. Water quality criteria (CWQG or PWQO) were exceeded for four pesticides: diazinon, atrazine, carbofuran, and chlorpyrifos. Diazinon exceeded the PWQO for 28% of the samples taken. For the other three pesticides, less than 1% of the samples taken exceeded their respective objectives. Since diazinon was the pesticide most frequently detected above its water quality criteria, it can be suggested that the occurrence of this pesticide could have the greatest potential to impact the health of aquatic organisms. Statistical analysis showed that concentrations and frequency of detection of pesticides were not significantly different between the upstream and downstream locations on the Don and Humber Rivers with the exception of atrazine in the Humber River watershed. Atrazine, which is used only in agriculture, was significantly elevated in the Humber River watershed at upstream locations compared to downstream locations. Atrazine was also found at statistically significant higher concentrations and more frequently in the Humber River watershed compared to the Don River watershed. The difference in watersheds may reflect land use patterns as the Humber River has more agricultural area than the Don River. Diazinon was the only pesticide to be detected more frequently during wet events compared to dry events. Several regulatory changes have come into effect since this study was conducted. Sale of diazinon was ended in 2004 by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada. Use of the product was allowed for one year after the end of sales, therefore, 2006 was the first year where diazinon was no longer in use for urban lawn care. The City of Toronto passed a municipal by-law that restricts the use of pesticides by both homeowners and professional applicators for cosmetic purposes (except under circumstances of infestations) in 2004 and the Province of Ontario passed a cosmetic pesticides ban in March 2009 which came into effect in April 2009. The provincial ban prohibits the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes on lawns, vegetable and ornamental gardens, patios, driveways, cemeteries, and in parks and school yards. There are no exceptions for pest infestations (insects, fungi or weeds) in these areas, as




24

lower risk pesticides, biopesticides and alternatives to pesticides exist. More than 250 pesticide products are banned for sale and over 80 pesticide ingredients are banned for cosmetic uses (OMOE 2009) 2.2 Trends

The following section examines historical water quality trends within the TRCA’s jurisdiction. The trend analysis is broken down into two sections: trends by parameter and trends at sentinel sites (river mouths). In both cases, data for chloride, total phosphorus and TSS are presented. Results for metals are not presented due to changes in analytical laboratory methodologies over time. Trend analysis was completed using the Mann-Kendall non-parametric test with a significance level of p<0.1. 2.2.1 By Parameter

Data were broken down into 5-year intervals (beginning at 2007 and working backwards) and median values for the 5-year intervals are presented. Sites with data for four or more time periods are presented. Trends were analyzed using the Mann-Kendall test with significance set as p<0.1. Chloride Trend analysis data for chloride is presented in Table 3 and Figure 24. All stations (12 of 12) showed an increasing trend for chloride concentrations (S>0) with 7 of the 12 stations having a statistically significant increasing trend. There were four stations with sufficient data in the Humber River watershed. The sites range from the mouth of the Humber River to mid-way up the watershed. All sites showed an increasing trend for chloride with the trends at stations 83002 and 83004 being significant. These stations are located in the middle of the watershed. Station 83012, located at the mouth of the Black Creek, had the highest chloride concentrations of all the stations during each time period monitored. Median chloride values ranged from 276-429 mg/L from 1974-2007. These values are 4 to 7 times higher than other stations in the watershed and 8 to 15 times the median concentrations in the other watersheds sampled. Three stations in the Don River watershed had sufficient surface water quality data for trend analysis. Two stations (85003, 85004) are located in the middle of the watershed and one station (85014) is located at the mouth of the Don River. All three stations showed an increasing trend in median chloride concentrations over time but the trends were not significant. Station 85004 showed a major increase in median chloride concentrations during the 2003-2007 sampling period. From 1968-1987, median chloride concentrations were less than 165 mg/L but the median chloride concentration more than doubled during the 2003-2007 sampling period to over 300 mg/L. This site is downstream of the Canadian Pacific Rail Vaughan Intermodal Terminal which opened in 1991 and underwent a major expansion in 2001 (Old Time Trains 2009). In addition, the area has undergone considerable urbanization over the past few decades.




25

There were three stations (97003, 97013, 97011) in the Rouge River watershed which had adequate chloride data for trend analyses. All three stations showed a significant increase in median chloride concentrations over time. The Highland Creek and Duffins Creek had one station in each watershed with sufficient chloride data for trend analysis. Station 94002 at the mouth of Highland Creek and Station 104001 at the mouth of the Duffins Creek showed a significant increase in median chloride concentrations over time. The Duffins Creek site has continually had the lowest median chloride concentrations of all the sites with information. This watershed was and continues to be mainly rural (76% rural in 2002).

Table 3. Chloride trend analyses over time

Median Chloride Concentrations in mg/L (N)

Watershed Station 63-67 68-72 73-77 78-82 83-87 88-92 93-97 98-02 03-07 S p R2

83004 29 (46) 41 (53) 43 (36) 54 (54) 103 (45) 2.21 0.03* 0.98

83002 39 (47) 41 (52) 48 (36) 61 (55) 148 (41) 2.21 0.03* 0.94

83012 288 (45) 308 (45) 276 (54) 429 (43) 0.34 0.73 0.83 Humber

83019 100 (236) 114 (273) 113 (105) 160 (111) 1.02 0.31 0.77

85004 145 (47) 165 (53) 106 (43) 111 (54) 332 (42) 0.25 0.81 0.64

85003 73 (47) 110 (53) 88 (46) 68 (53) 172 (42) 0.25 0.81 0.64 Don

85014 158 (250) 177 (278) 148 (101) 207 (111) 0.34 0.73 0.35

Highland 94002 140 (67) 155 (62) 199 (58) 209 (58) 306 (41) 2.21 0.03* 0.98

97003 55 (34) 64 (48) 55 (57) 64 (59) 80 (52) 1.71 0.09* 0.62

97013 39 (54) 40 (58) 56 (58) 81 (31) 1.70 0.09* 0.97 Rouge

97011 63 (56) 69 (59) 82 (58) 167 (46) 1.70 0.09* 0.95

Duffins 104001 14 (44) 15 (87) 20 (67) 21 (57) 22 (58) 36 (59) 39 (33) 53 (37) 3.34 <0.01* 0.92 Notes: * = significant p<0.1

Bolded values indicate exceedance of 150 mg/L objective

Total Phosphorus Trend analyses for total phosphorus are presented in Table 4 and Figure 25. With the exception of two stations (83004, 97013), the remaining stations showed a decrease in total phosphorus over time (S<0). Seven of the ten stations with decreasing trends had statistically significant trends (p<0.1). Station 830045, located at the mouth of the East Humber River, had relatively similar median total phosphorus concentrations from 1965-2008 (0.02-0.04 mg/L).



SS uu rr ff aa cc ee WW aa tt ee rr QQ uu aa ll ii tt yy UU pp dd aa tt eeOctober 2009

26

Figure 24. Chloride concentrations (mg/L) over time

Figure 25. Total phosphorus concentrations (mg/L) over time




27

The East Humber subwatershed continues to be mainly agricultural and the total phosphorus concentrations may not have decreased over time due to the use of fertilizers in this area. Station 97013 located at the mouth of Little Rouge Creek, near the outlet of the Rouge River, showed a slight increasing trend over time but the trend was not significant. The median chloride concentrations at this site were quite similar over time ranging from 0.02 to 0.03 mg/L. The majority of the median values are above the PWQO of 0.03 mg/L. In general, total phosphorous concentrations have decreased over time. Most stations are currently only slightly above the PWQO with three stations (97013, 97011, 104001) at the PWQO. Station 85014 near the mouth of the Don River is an exception to this. The median total phosphorous concentration for 2003-2007 was 0.15 mg/L which is 5 times the PWQO. Station 85014 is located downstream of the North Toronto wastewater treatment plant.

Table 4. Total phosphorus trend analyses over time

Median Total Phosphorus Concentrations in mg/L (N) Watershed Station 63-67 68-72 73-77 78-82 83-87 88-92 93-97 98-02 03-07 S p R2 Etobicoke 80004 0.10 (47) 0.12 (37) 0.09 (54) 0.07 (56) -1.02 0.30 0.71

83002 0.14 (47) 0.11 (52) 0.07 (45) 0.09 (55) 0.08 (62) -1.23 0.22 0.42 83004 0.04 (46) 0.02 (53) 0.03 (45) 0.02 (54) 0.04 (66) 0.00 1.00 0.13 83012 0.23 (45) 0.23 (46) 0.08 (55) 0.06 (65) -1.70 0.09* 0.68

Humber

83019 0.08 (116) 0.07 (108) 0.06 (263) 0.05 (272) 0.04 (106) 0.04 (134) -2.25 0.02* 0.94 85004 0.69 (47) 0.89 (53) 0.17 (43) 0.09 (54) 0.06 (60) -1.71 0.09* 0.53 85003 0.34 (47) 0.38 (54) 0.31 (46) 0.05 (53) 0.06 (62) -1.22 0.22 0.65 Don

85014 0.43 (114) 0.23 (102) 0.18 (267) 0.19 (275) 0.16 (101) 0.15 (121) -2.25 0.02* 0.66 Highland 94002 0.04 (67) 0.07 (62) 0.03 (57) 0.03 (58) 0.04 (60) -0.73 0.46 0.10

97003 0.50 (35) 0.28 (48) 0.10 (57) 0.06 (59) 0.05 (52) -2.20 0.03* 0.85 97013 0.03 (59) 0.02 (55) 0.02 (59) 0.03 (58) 0.03 (49) 0.73 0.46 0.43 Rouge

97011 0.32 (62) 0.06 (56) 0.04 (59) 0.03 (58) 0.03 (67) -1.71 0.09* 0.41 Duffins 104001 0.05 (45) 0.09 (88) 0.09 (67) 0.07 (57) 0.04 (58) 0.03 (59) 0.02 (34) 0.03 (40) -1.86 0.06* 0.54

Notes: * = significant p<0.1

Bolded values indicate exceedance of 0.03 mg/L objectiveTotal Suspended Solids Trend analyses for TSS concentrations are presented in Table 5 and Figure 26. With the exception of one site (85003), the remaining stations showed a decreasing trend in TSS concentrations (S<0). Station 83019 at the mouth of the Humber River and Station 85014 at the mouth of the Don River both had statistically significant decreasing trends in TSS concentrations.

Table 5. Total suspended solids (TSS) trend analyses over time

Median TSS Concentrations in mg/L (N)

Watershed Station 63-67 68-72 73-77 78-82 83-87 88-92 93-97 98-02 03-07 S p R2

Humber 83019 24 (114) 23 (107) 19 (266) 20 (272) 10 (104) 8 (109) -2.25 0.02* 0.85

85004 30 (47) 35 (45) 10 (43) 0.00 1.00 0.90

85003 20 (47) 28 (46) 25 (31) 6 (43) -0.34 0.73 0.73 Don

85014 22 (113) 18 (101) 17 (254) 14 (278) 11 (99) 11 (108) -2.25 0.02* 0.94

Highland 94002 22 (56) 24 (59) 7 (56) 9 (54) 4 (43) -1.22 0.22 0.68

Duffins 104001 20 (45) 19 (87) 22 (63) 20 (36) 9 (36) -0.49 0.62 0.79

Notes: * = significant p<0.1 Bolded values indicate exceedance of 30 mg/L objective




28

Figure 26. Total suspended solids (TSS) concentration (mg/L) over time

2.2.2 By Watershed Mouths

Data (n>30 for 5-year intervals) were available for five sites located at the mouths of Humber River (83019), Don River (85014), Highland Creek (94002), Rouge River (97011) and Duffins Creek (104001). Watershed mouths are important sentinel sites because the incorporate the water quality of all the incoming tributaries at a single point before the water enters Lake Ontario.

Total Suspended Solids

TSS results are the mouths of the Humber River, Don Diver, Highland Creek and Duffins Creek are presented in Figure 27. All stations had median values below the CCME derived guideline of 30 mg/L for all time periods. All stations showed decreasing trend in TSS concentrations over time (Figure 28) but only the Humber and Don River mouths trends were statistically significant (Table 6). The non-significant trend at the Duffins Creek site was most likely due to the lack of data from 1983-2002.




29

Figure 27. Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations for the mouths of the Humber

River (83019), Don River (85014), Highland Creek (94002), and Duffins Creek (104001) over time

Table 6. Mann-Kendall and regression statistics for TSS trend analysis

Mann-Kendall Regression Watershed Station S p R2

Humber River 83019 -2.25 0.02* 0.85 Don River 85014 -2.25 0.02* 0.94 Highland Creek 94002 -1.22 0.22 0.68 Duffins Creek 104001 -0.49 0.62 0.81

* = significant (p<0.1)

R² = 0.845

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Med

ian

TSS

(mg/

L)

Year

Station 83019 - Humber River

R² = 0.940

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Med

ian

TSS

(mg/

L)

Year

Station 85014 - Don River

R² = 0.675

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Med

ian

TSS

(mg/

L)

Year

Station 94002 - Highland Creek

R² = 0.807

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Med

ian

TSS

(mg/

L)

Year

Station 104001 - Duffins Creek

Note: Y-axis values differ amongst stations

Figure 28. Median total suspended solids (TSS) trend over time at the mouths of the Humber River, Don River, Highland Creek, and Duffins Creek




30

Chloride

Chloride results are presented in Figure 29 for the mouths of the Humber River (83019), Don River (85014), Highland Creek (94002), Rouge River (97011), and Duffins Creek (104001). All five stations showed an increasing trend in chloride concentrations (Figure 30). Highland Creek, Rouge River and Duffins Creek all had statistically significant increasing trends. The lack of significance at the Humber River and Don River sites is most likely due to the lack of data (only four sampling points). With the exception of the Duffins Creek watershed, the median chloride concentration exceeded the BC MOE water quality objective of 150 mg/L for at least one time period. The first watersheds to exceed the median chloride concentrations of 150 mg/L were the Don River (1988-1992) and Highland Creek (1978-1982) stations. Figure 29 shows that the 2003-2007 time period was the first time that the mouths of the Humber and Rouge Rivers exceeded the 150 mg/L objective. The median chloride concentration at the Duffins Creek site ranged from 14 mg/L from 1963-1967 to 53 mg/L from 2003-2007. It is important to note that winter samples (when chloride concentrations are expected to be the highest due to road salting activities) were not collected during every time period. At the Duffins Creek site, winter sampling began in 1965. Winter samples were collected at the Rouge River and Highland Creek beginning in the mid-1970s and winter sampling did not start at the Humber River and Don River stations until 1990. This suggests that median chloride concentrations may be higher than what is presented in Figures 29 and 30 during periods when winter sampling did not occur.

Figure 29. Chloride concentrations for the mouth of the Humber River, Don River,

Highland Creek, Rouge River and Duffins Creek over time




31

R² = 0.771

020406080

100120140160180

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Med

ian

Chl

orid

e (m

g/L)

Year


R² = 0.350

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Med

ian

Chl

orid

e (m

g/L)

Year


R² = 0.923

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Med

ian

Chl

orid

e (m

g/L)

Year


R² = 0.940

020406080

100120140160180200

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Med

ian

Chl

orid

e (m

g/L)

Year

Station 97011 - Rouge River

R² = 0.925

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Med

ian

Chl

orid

e (m

g/L)

Year


Note: Both X- and Y-axis values differ amongst stations

Figure 30. Median chloride trends over time at the mouths of the Humber River (83019), Don River (85014), Highland Creek (94002), Rouge River (97011), and Duffins Creek

(104011)

Table 7. Mann-Kendall and regression statistics for chloride trend analysis based on median values at 5-year intervals


Humber River 83019 1.02 0.31 0.77 Don River 85014 0.34 0.73 0.35 Highland Creek 94002 2.20 0.03* 0.93 Rouge River 97011 1.70 0.09* 0.94 Duffins Creek 104001 3.34 <0.01* 0.93





32

Total Phosphorus

Total phosphorus concentrations for the mouth of the Humber River (83019), Don River (85014), Highland Creek (94002), Rouge River (97011) and Duffins Creek (104001) are presented in Figure 31. All five watersheds have shown significant decreases in phosphorous since the 1970s and 1980s (Figure 32). With the exception of Highland Creek, the decreasing trends in phosphorus concentrations at the other four stations were significant (Table 8). The reduction in phosphorus is associated with the decommissioning of several sewage treatment plants within the TRCA’s jurisdiction. Total phosphorus concentrations at the Don River station (85014) were significantly higher than those recorded at any other station. This is due to the North Toronto wastewater treatment plant (operated by the City of Toronto) which is located upstream of the monitoring station. The Duffins Creek station (104001) was the only station to have a median total phosphorus concentration below the PWQO of 0.03 during the most recent time period (2003-2007).

Nutrient enrichment continues to be a significant problem in Lake Ontario. Historically, large phosphorus loads were contributed to the lake water which had limited assimilative capacity. Previously (prior to the 1980s), there was a problem with lake shore fouling with the green alga Cladophora. Recently, Cladophora problems have returned and it is possible that phosphorus levels are increasing locally along some areas of shoreline and contributing to the enhanced growth of algae (OMOE 2009). This appears to be the case for the mouth of the Highland Creek, Rouge River and Duffins Creek which all showed slight increases in median phosphorus concentrations during the 2003-2007 time period. Caution should be taken when interpreting these results as several laboratories conducted the phosphorus analysis and may have had varying analytical detection limits.

Figure 31. Total phosphorus concentrations for the mouth of the Humber River (83019),

Don River (85014), Highland Creek (94002), Rouge River (97011) and Duffins Creek (104001) over time




33

R² = 0.941

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Med

ian

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)Year


R² = 0.663

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Med

ian

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)

Year


R² = 0.101

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Med

ian

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)Year


R² = 0.393

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010Med

ian

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)

Year

Station 97011 - Rouge River

R² = 0.584

0.000.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.10

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Med

ian

Tota

l Pho

spho

rus

(mg/

L)

Year


Note: Both X- and Y-axis values differ amongst stations

Figure 32. Median total phosphorus trends over time at the mouths of the Humber River, Don River, Highland Creek, Rouge River, and Duffins Creek

Table 8. Mann-Kendall and regression statistics for total phosphorus trend analysis based on median values at 5-year intervals


Humber River 83019 -2.25 0.02* 0.94 Don River 85014 -2.25 0.02* 0.66 Highland Creek 94002 -0.73 0.46 0.10 Rouge River 97011 -1.71 0.09* 0.39 Duffins Creek 104001 -2.10 0.04* 0.58





34

3. SummarySurface water quality for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s jurisdiction has been analyzed several times (e.g. TRCA 1998, TRCA 2003) with the general conclusion that water quality issues are correlated to the amount of urbanization within a watershed. The 2003-2007 results are consistent with this broad finding. The Duffins Creek watershed along with the upper Humber River and Rouge River continue to exhibit the best water quality within the TRCA’s jurisdiction; lower levels of urbanization, larger riparian buffers, and groundwater contributions may play a role in the water quality in these areas. TSS • TSS concentrations were elevated in the mid-reaches of the Humber River and Rouge River • There was no relationship between TSS concentrations and urban land cover • TSS concentrations have decreased (↓) over time Chloride • Median chloride concentrations for 44% of the sites monitored exceeded the suggested 150

mg/L objective • The median at two sites (5% of total) exceeded the BC MOE 600 mg/L maximum objective • Numerous individual sampling points often exceeded the maximum 600 mg/L objective • Median chloride concentrations were highest at station 82003 at the mouth of the Mimico

Creek and lowest in the Duffins Creek watershed and the upper reaches of the Humber River • Chloride concentrations have increased (↑) over time Total Phosphorus • Median phosphorus concentrations for 77% of the sites monitored exceeded the interim

PWQO of 0.03 mg/L • High levels of total phosphorus and unionized ammonia were measured at the mouth of the

Don River (station 85014), downstream of the North Toronto wastewater treatment plant • There was an exponential relationships between total phosphorus and urban land cover • Total phosphorus has decreased (↓) over time Nitrogen Compounds • All stations had nitrate values less than the CWQG of 2.93 mg/L • Median nitite concentrations at all stations were below the BC MOE objective of 0.6 mg/L • With the exception of one site, all stations had median unionized ammonia values less than

the PWQO of 0.02 mg/L • Station 85014, located at the mouth of the Don River, had elevated concentrations of nitrite

and unionized ammonia which can be toxic to aquatic organisms • An exponential relationship existed between all three nitrogen compounds (nitrate, nitrite and

unionized ammonia) and urban land cover




35

E. coli • Median E. coli levels at 89% of the sites monitored were above the PWQO of 100 CFU/100

mL • Individual sampling points often exceeded 20 000 CFU/100 mL at many sites; high E. coli

loadings from tributaries may contribute to waterfront beach closings • The lowest E. coli concentrations were in the Duffins Creek and the upper reaches of the

Humber River and Rouge River where urbanization is lowest • E. coli had exponential relationships with urban land cover Metals • Iron was the metal which most commonly exceeded its PWQO with 55% of the median values

exceeding the PWQO • Nickel was below the PWQO for all sites • Median copper and zinc concentrations exceeded their respective PWQO at three sites:

MM003WM in the Mimico watershed downstream of Pearson International Airport and HU1RWMP and 83012 which are both in the Black Creek subwatershed of the Humber River watershed

• Copper and zinc had positive linear relationships with urban land cover • Iron had exponential relationships with urban land cover Pesticides • Eleven pesticides and one metabolite were detected in the surface waters of the Don and

Humber Rivers from 1998-2002 • Approximately 72% of the samples contained at least one pesticide attribute to lawn care • Diazinon exceeded the PWQO of 0.08 μg/L for 28% of samples and diazinon was detected

more frequently during wet events compared to dry events General The assessment of long-term water quality changes across a large region is a challenging task. Differences in the number of samples collected, the parameters analyzed, the analytical capabilities of laboratories completing the analysis, improvements in laboratory analysis techniques (e.g. lower detection levels) and varying stream flow complicate water quality analysis. Several of these factors confounded water quality analysis within the TRCA’s jurisdiction. For example, the majority of the results for lead and cadmium, two metals commonly associated with urbanization, did not have low enough detection limits to compare against the PWQO. Storm runoff is one of the main contributors to degraded water quality. Separation of wet weather flow (i.e. storm flow) from base flow samples should be completed to quantify and characterize the inputs from non-point source pollution (e.g. storm runoff). Currently only 14 of




36

the 36 monitoring sites have associated with stream flow monitoring. Sampling is completed more frequently at the mouth of the Humber and Don Rivers, two stations which do have associated flow monitoring. These stations could be used as sentinel stations for the TRCA’s jurisdiction. Detailed water quality and quantity analysis could be performed at these two stations to help determine the success of investments and efforts by governments, industry and individuals to protect the water quality in the Toronto region. For example, several initiatives including watershed planning, natural channel design, erosion controls, and stormwater management have all been instituted within the last twenty years. In essence, several multi-disciplinary actions have been taken to address the quality and quantity of urban runoff as it reaches our stream and rivers. By performing detailed water quality and quantity analysis at these two sites, responses to these efforts to protect water quality in the Toronto region may be revealed. In 2008/2009, the City of Toronto in partnership with the TRCA, installed several wet weather flow monitoring stations. These stations consist of automated water samplers which are triggered by flow events. This project will increase the understanding of wet weather flow within the City of Toronto and help to assess the benefits of initiatives being carried out through the Wet Weather Flow Management Master Plan. Overall, the monitoring results presented in this report show that water quality is linked to the amount of urbanization upstream of a monitoring station. Non-point sources of contamination from urbanization continue to be the largest contaminant contributor to water within the TRCA’s jurisdiction. Point sources of contamination such as wastewater treatment plants and Pearson International Airport also contribute to the degradation of water quality in the Toronto area. Certain contaminants (e.g. TSS, total phosphorus) have decreased over the past twenty years while chloride concentrations show an increasing trend. Continued routine efforts such as the treatment of urban runoff via stormwater ponds as well as innovative actions (e.g. biophosphorus removal at wastewater treatment) are required to maintain and improve the water quality in the Toronto region.




37

4. ReferencesBritish Columbia Ministry of the Environment (BC MOE). 2008. Ambient Water Quality Guidelines for

Iron. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/iron/iron_tech.pdf. Accessed April 8, 2008. British Columbia Ministry of the Environment (BC MOE). 2003. Ambient Water Quality Guidelines for

Chloride - Overview Report. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/chloride/chloride.html. Accessed March 30, 2008.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2007. Summary of Canadian water

quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 2007, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), 2004. Canadian water quality

guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Phosphorus. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, 2004, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.


guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Nitrate Ion. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.


guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Total particulate matter. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.


guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: Ammonia. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1999a. Canadian sediment quality guidelines

for the protection of aquatic life: Copper. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. 1999b. Canadian sediment quality guidelines

for the protection of aquatic life: Zinc. In: Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg.

Centre for Disease Control (CDC). 2008. U.S. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.

Atlanta, GA. http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/dfbmd/disease_listing/stec_gi.html. Accessed April 2, 2009. Environment Canada, Health Canada, Statistics Canada. 2008a. Canadian Environmental

Sustainability Indicators 2007: Freshwater Quality Indicator Data Sources and Methods. Ottawa, ON.

Environment Canada, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, City of Toronto. 2008b. Occurrence

of Lawn Care and Agricultural Pesticides in the Don and Humber River Watersheds (1998-2002). Prepared for the 2002 Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. Toronto, ON.




38

Environment Canada (EC). 2004. Canadian Guidance Framework for the management of phosphorus in freshwater systems. Scientific Supporting Document, National Guidelines and Standards Office, Water Policy and Coordination Directorate, Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON.

Environment Canada (EC). 2005. Recommended Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of

Aquatic Life for Use in the 2005 National Water Quality Indicators under the Canadian Environmental Sustainability Indicators (CESI) Initiative [draft]. National Guidelines and Standards Office, Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec. June 23, 2005.

Environment Canada & Health Canada (EC & HC). 2001. Priority Substance List Assessment

Report: Ammonia in the Aquatic Environment. ISBN: 0-662-29192-1. Finkekenbine JK, Atwater JW, Mavinic DS. 2000. Stream health after urbanization. Journal of the

American Water Resources Association 36:1149-1160. Gilbert, RO. 1987. Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Van Nostrand

Reinhold: New York, NY. Old Time Trains. 2007. http://trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/CPR_Bruce/vaughan.htm. Accessed October 5, 2009. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2009. Water Quality in Ontario Report 2008.

Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Toronto, ON. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2009. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/news/2009/030401mb.php.

Accessed September 23, 2009. Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). 2003. Water Sampling and Data Analysis Manual

for Partners in the Ontario Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network. Ontario Ministry Environment and Energy (OMOEE). 1994. Policies Guidelines and Provincial

Water Quality Objectives of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Toronto, ON.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 2003. A Summary of Water Quality Data in

the Region from 1996 to 2002. Toronto, ON. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). 1998. 1990-1996 Water Quality Data for the

Toronto RAP Watershed. Toronto, ON. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006. Technical Fact Sheet: Nickel.

http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/dwh/t-ioc/nickel.html. Accessed April 8, 2009.



SSuu

rr ffaa

ccee

WWaa

tt eerr

QQuu

aall ii

tt yyUU

ppdd

aatt ee

Oct

ob

er 2

009

App

endi

x B

Ap

pen

dix

A –

Cur

rent

Site

Des

crip

tions

Wat

ersh

ed

Sta

tion

Alte

rnat

e N

ame

No

rth

ing

E

astin

g

Sub

wat

ersh

ed

Tow

nsh

ip

Mun

icip

ality

Lo

catio

n D

escr

iptio

n F

low

S

tatio

n P

rop

riet

or

Per

iod

of

Rec

ord

Lo

nges

t C

on

tinuo

us

Rec

ord

(A

pp

rox.

Y

ears

)1

Str

eam

O

rder

2

% U

rban

La

nd

Co

ver3

8000

7 06

0080

0070

2/E

14.9

48

3674

6 60

6933

U

pper

Eto

bico

ke C

reek

M

issi

ssau

ga

Pee

l N

orth

wes

t of D

erry

Rd

and

Dix

ie R

d,

Mis

siss

auga

PW

QM

N

2003

-200

9 6

6 40

8000

6 06

0080

0060

2/E

2.8

4829

016

6162

34

Low

er E

tobi

coke

Cre

ek

Toro

nto

Toro

nto

Sou

thw

est o

f the

QE

W a

nd B

row

n's

Line

02

HC

030

PW

QM

N

2002

-200

9 7

6 (m

outh

) 72

E

tobi

coke

C

reek

8000

4 M

ayfie

ld/0

6008

0004

02/E

28.2

48

4348

8 59

5028

U

pper

Eto

bico

ke C

reek

B

ram

pton

P

eel

Sou

thea

st o

f May

field

Roa

d an

d H

wy

10

R

WM

P

1973

-198

8, 1

991-

1995

, 200

2-20

09

15

6 1

MM

003W

M

MM

003W

M

4837

916

6138

49

Low

er M

imic

o To

ront

o To

ront

o S

outh

wes

t of D

ixon

Rd.

and

Hw

y 27

, in

Roy

al W

oodb

ine

Gol

f Clu

b

City

of

Toro

nto

2006

-200

9 3

3 10

0 M

imic

o C

reek

82

003

0600

8200

302/

M1.

4 48

3171

3 62

1585

Lo

wer

Mim

ico

Toro

nto

Toro

nto

Sou

thw

est o

f Par

k La

wn

Rd.

and

The

Q

ueen

sway

, Eto

bico

ke

P

WQ

MN

19

94-1

995,

200

1-20

09

8 3

(mou

th)

100

8300

2 06

0083

0020

2/H

W16

.9

4843

562

6104

59

Wes

t Hum

ber

Riv

er

Toro

nto

Toro

nto

Nor

thea

st o

f Hw

y 42

7 an

d Fi

nch

Ave

., do

wns

trea

m (

east

) of

Cla

irevi

lle

dam

out

let

02H

C03

4 C

ity o

f To

ront

o

1966

-198

8, 1

991-

1993

, 199

6-19

97,

2001

-200

9 22

6

40

8301

2 06

0083

0120

2/H

B5.

6 48

3684

5 62

0488

B

lack

Cre

ek

Toro

nto

Toro

nto

Nor

thea

st o

f Sca

rlett

Rd

. and

St.

Cla

ir A

ve.

02H

C02

7 C

ity o

f To

ront

o

1974

-198

8, 1

991-

1993

, 199

6-19

97,

2001

-200

9 14

3

100

HU

010W

M

HU

010W

M

4844

744

6150

27

Low

er M

ain

Hum

ber

Toro

nto

Toro

nto

Nor

thw

est o

f Fin

ch A

ve. a

nd Is

lingt

on

Ave

. in

Row

ntre

e M

ills

Par

k

City

of

Toro

nto

2006

-200

9 3

7 31

HU

1RW

MP

H

U1R

WM

P

4848

311

6186

78

Bla

ck C

reek

V

augh

an

Yor

k N

orth

wes

t of S

teel

es A

ve. a

nd J

ane

St.

C

ity o

f To

ront

o 20

06-2

009

3 3

100

8300

9 06

0083

0090

2/H

35.0

48

6024

3 60

2980

M

ain

Hum

ber

Kin

g Y

ork

Nor

thea

st o

f Kin

g R

d. a

nd C

aled

on-

Kin

g To

wnl

ine

02H

C02

3 P

WQ

MN

19

69-1

971,

200

2-20

09

7 6

22

8301

8 06

0083

0180

2/H

42.5

48

6432

9 59

5961

M

ain

Hum

ber

Cal

edon

P

eel

Sou

thw

est o

f Old

Chu

rch

Rd.

and

H

wy

50, d

owns

trea

m A

lbio

n H

ills

CA

02

HC

012

PW

QM

N

1975

-198

8, 1

991-

1997

, 200

1-20

09

13

6 11

8301

9 06

0083

0190

2/H

2.9

4834

265

6216

63

Low

er M

ain

Hum

ber

Toro

nto

Toro

nto

Nor

thw

est o

f Old

Mill

Dr.

and

Old

Mill

R

d. in

Eto

bico

ke

02H

C00

3 P

WQ

MN

19

79-2

009

30

7 (m

outh

) 43

8310

3 06

0083

1030

2/H

W22

.0

4845

870

6063

85

Wes

t Hum

ber

Riv

er

Bra

mpt

on

Pee

l N

orth

wes

t of H

wy

7 an

d M

cVea

n D

r,

upst

ream

(no

rth)

of C

laire

ville

02

HC

031

PW

QM

N

2002

-200

9 7

5 29

8310

4 06

0083

1040

2/H

43.9

48

6411

2 59

3560

M

ain

Hum

ber

Cal

edon

P

eel

Nor

thw

est o

f Old

Chu

rch

Rd.

and

H

wy

50, i

n A

lbio

n H

ills

CA

, at b

lue

gaug

e st

atio

n 02

HC

051

PW

QM

N

2002

-200

9 7

5 14

8300

4 06

0083

0040

2/H

E20

.7

4850

423

6141

48

Eas

t Hum

ber

Riv

er

Vau

ghan

Y

ork

At b

ridge

Pin

e G

rove

Rd

, wes

t of

Pin

e V

alle

y D

r, W

oodb

ridge

02

HC

009

RW

MP

19

65-1

988,

199

1-19

97, 2

001-

2009

23

6

28

Hum

ber

Riv

er

8302

0 06

0083

0200

2/H

23.9

48

5186

1 61

0386

M

ain

Hum

ber

Vau

ghan

Y

ork

Nor

thea

st o

f Rut

herfo

rd R

d. a

nd H

wy

27 a

t firs

t brid

ge

R

WM

P

1996

, 200

1-20

09

8 7

17

8500

3 06

0085

0030

2/D

E17

.9

4851

256

6289

54

Upp

er E

ast D

on

Mar

kham

Y

ork

Nor

thw

est o

f Ste

eles

Ave

. and

B

ayvi

ew A

ve.

C

ity o

f To

ront

o

1966

-198

8, 1

991-

1995

, 199

7, 2

001-

2009

22

3

90

8500

4 06

0085

0040

2/D

W20

.6

4851

207

6220

14

Upp

er W

est D

on

Vau

ghan

Y

ork

Nor

thw

est o

f Hw

y 7

and

Cen

tre

St.

C

ity o

f To

ront

o

1966

-198

8, 1

991-

1995

, 199

7, 2

001-

2009

22

4

85

DM

6.0

D

M 6

.0

4840

251

6343

78

Tayl

or/M

asse

y C

reek

To

ront

o To

ront

o W

est o

f the

DV

P a

nd e

ast o

f Don

M

ills

Rd

.

City

of

Toro

nto

2001

-200

9 8

3 10

0

DN

008W

M

DN

008W

M

4850

889

6302

36

Ger

man

Mill

s C

reek

To

ront

o To

ront

o N

orth

east

of C

umm

er A

ve. a

nd

Bay

view

Ave

.

City

of

Toro

nto

2006

-200

9 3

3 98

Don

Riv

er

8501

4 06

0085

0140

2/D

4.5

4838

576

6320

00

Low

er D

on

Toro

nto

Toro

nto

Pot

tery

Rd

, Tor

onto

02

HC

024

PW

QM

N

1979

-200

9 30

5

(mou

th)

100

Hig

hlan

d C

reek

94

002

0600

9400

202/

Hi2

.5

4849

056

6474

29

Mai

n H

ighl

and

Cre

ek

Toro

nto

Toro

nto

Sou

th o

f Kin

gsto

n R

d. a

nd C

olon

el

Dan

fort

h Tr

ail

02H

C01

3 C

ity o

f To

ront

o 19

72-1

995,

199

7,

2001

-200

9 23

4

(mou

th)

100

9700

3 R

G00

8WM

/060

0970

0302

48

5766

9 64

1985

Lo

wer

Rou

ge C

reek

M

arkh

am

Yor

k S

outh

wes

t of 9

th L

ine

and

14t

h A

ve.

02H

C02

2 C

ity o

f To

ront

o 19

68-1

995,

200

6-20

09

27

5 58

R

ouge

Riv

er

9700

7 R

G00

7WM

/060

0970

0702

/RL9

.0

4857

816

6443

00

Littl

e R

ouge

Cre

ek

Mar

kham

Y

ork

Sou

thw

est o

f 14t

h A

ve. a

nd R

eeso

r R

d.

C

ity o

f To

ront

o 19

72-1

974,

200

6-20

09

3 5

14



SSuu

rr ffaa

ccee

WWaa

tt eerr

QQuu

aall ii

tt yyUU

ppdd

aatt ee

Oct

ob

er 2

009

App

endi

x B

Wat

ersh

ed

Sta

tion

Alte

rnat

e N

ame

No

rth

ing

E

astin

g

Sub

wat

ersh

ed

Tow

nsh

ip

Mun

icip

ality

Lo

catio

n D

escr

iptio

n F

low

S

tatio

n P

rop

riet

or

Per

iod

of

Rec

ord

Lo

nges

t C

on

tinuo

us

Rec

ord

(A

pp

rox.

Y

ears

)1

Str

eam

O

rder

2

% U

rban

La

nd

Co

ver3

9701

3 06

0097

0130

2/R

4.2

4852

830

6482

43

Littl

e R

ouge

Cre

ek

Toro

nto

Toro

nto

Eas

t of T

wyn

Riv

ers

Dr.

City

of

Toro

nto

1973

-199

7, 2

001-

2009

24

5

16

9701

1 06

0097

0110

2/R

L4.1

48

5251

1 64

8007

Lo

wer

Rou

ge C

reek

To

ront

o To

ront

o S

outh

east

of T

wyn

Riv

ers

Dr.

and

S

hepp

ard

Ave

. 02

HC

103

PW

QM

N

1973

-199

6, 2

001-

2009

23

5

(mou

th)

61

9701

8 06

0097

0180

2/R

B20

.1

4861

770

6346

80

Bru

ce C

reek

M

arkh

am

Yor

k N

orth

wes

t of M

ajor

Mac

kenz

ie D

r.

and

Ken

nedy

Rd

.

PW

QM

N

2002

-200

9 7

3 5

9777

7 97

777/

R18

.4

4856

823

6342

14

Mid

dle

Rou

ge/B

eave

r M

arkh

am

Yor

k N

orth

wes

t of H

wy

407

and

War

den

Ave

.

RW

MP

20

01-2

009

8 4

76

9799

9 97

999/

RL1

7.4

4863

887

6405

89

Littl

e R

ouge

Cre

ek

Mar

kham

Y

ork

Nor

thw

est o

f Maj

or M

acke

nzie

Rd

. an

d 9t

h Li

ne

R

WM

P

1972

-197

7, 2

001-

2009

2

5 14

1040

01

0601

0400

102/

Ann

adal

e G

olf

Cou

rse/

Du2

.4

4855

880

6575

79

Low

er M

ain

Duf

fins

Aja

x D

urha

m

Sou

thw

est o

f Bay

ly S

t. an

d W

estn

ey

Rd.

PW

QM

N

1964

-199

7, 2

002-

2009

33

6(

mou

th)

24

1040

08

0601

0400

802/

DuE

17.5

48

6929

9 65

0372

E

ast D

uffin

s C

reek

P

icke

ring

Dur

ham

N

orth

wes

t of B

rock

Rd

and

8th

C

once

ssio

n 02

HC

045

PW

QM

N

1972

-197

6, 1

988,

19

95-1

996,

200

2-20

09

7 3

6

1040

25

Bro

ck R

idge

/060

1040

2502

/DuW

5.3

4857

115

6546

56

Wes

t Duf

fins

Cre

ek

Pic

kerin

g D

urha

m

Wes

t of B

rock

Rd

and

Nor

th o

f Fin

ch

Ave

RW

MP

19

73-1

974,

199

5-19

96, 2

002-

2009

7

5 14

1040

27

Pau

lyn

Par

k/06

0104

0270

2/D

uE6.

8 48

5941

9 65

5458

E

ast D

uffin

s C

reek

A

jax

Dur

ham

N

orth

of R

ossl

and

Rd

and

Wes

t of

Chu

rch

St

R

WM

P

1973

-197

4, 1

995-

1996

, 200

2-20

09

7 4

6

1040

29

7th

Con

cess

ion/

0601

0402

902/

DuE

15.4

48

6815

8 65

3641

E

ast D

uffin

s C

reek

P

icke

ring

Dur

ham

N

orth

east

of 7

th C

once

ssio

n an

d S

idel

ine

12

R

WM

P

1973

-197

4, 1

995-

1996

, 200

2-20

09

7 3

5

Duf

fins

Cre

ek

1040

37

8th

Con

cess

ion/

0601

0403

702/

DuW

19.3

48

6646

2 64

4191

W

est D

uffin

s C

reek

P

icke

ring

Dur

ham

S

outh

east

of Y

ork-

Dur

ham

Lin

e an

d 8t

h C

once

ssio

n

RW

MP

19

73-1

974,

199

5, -

2002

-200

9 7

4 23

Car

ruth

ers

Cre

ek

1070

02

Sho

al P

oint

/060

1070

0202

/C2.

8 48

5697

2 66

0850

C

arru

ther

s C

reek

A

jax

Dur

ham

N

orth

wes

t of B

ayly

St.

and

Sho

al

Poi

nt R

d.

R

WM

P

2002

-200

9 7

4 (m

outh

) 98

Cur

rent

as

of D

ecem

ber

2009

. 1 A

t lea

st o

ne p

aram

eter

mea

sure

d pe

r ye

ar

2 Str

ahle

r st

ream

ord

er

3 Urb

an +

urb

aniz

ing

land

cov

er



B3

G

RO

UN

DW

ATE

R Q

UA

LITY

DO

CU

ME

NTA

TIO

N

The

atta

ched

rep

ort w

as p

repa

red

by T

RC

A s

taff

and

doc

umen

ts th

e gr

ound

wat

er q

ualit

y ac

ross

the

TR

SPA

bas

ed o

n ou

tput

from

the

Reg

iona

l Mon

itori

ng

Prog

ram

. Thi

s sa

mpl

ing

prog

ram

is fu

nded

by

the

Prov

ince

of O

ntar

io, T

RC

A’s

regi

onal

mun

icip

aliti

es, a

nd th

e C

ity o

f Tor

onto

.

Tabl

e A

-3:

PG

MN

Wat

er Q

ualit

y R

esul

ts

Wel

lD

ate

Gen

eral

Che

mis

try

Maj

or C

atio

nsM

ajor

Ions

Nut

rient

sM

etal

s

pHH

ardn

ess

Alk

alin

ity

(as

CaC0

3)TD

SD

OC

CaM

gN

aK

ClF

SO4

NO

3

(as

N)

NO

2

(as

N)

PN

H4

Al

CoFe

PbM

nZn

OD

WS

6.5-

8.5

80-1

0030

0-50

050

05

200

250

1.5

500

101

0.02

0.1

10.

30.

010.

055

W-0

06

Oct

-03

7.7

300

241

336

85.0

21.2

9.7

1.7

1.12

<0.

005

0.01

<0.

02<

0.00

08<

0.00

020.

029

<0.

0006

0.03

480.

1810

Sep-

047.

833

023

635

60.

0008

80.6

20.3

11.3

1.8

0.43

<0.

005

0.04

<0.

02<

0.00

080.

002

0.43

80.

0010

0.04

000.

2060

Nov

-04

8.0

303

241

420

0.00

150.

73<

0.00

50.

03<

0.02

Dec-

0464

.716

.18.

91.

6<

0.02

<0.

0008

0.00

40.

338

0.00

080.

0280

0.16

30

Oct

-09

8.0

279

248

380

0.90

0077

.121

.09.

81.

531

.30.

0923

.90.

950.

0080

0.02

0.05

00.

0007

0.00

040.

420.

0002

0.02

570.

2090

W-0

10

Jul-0

49.

916

561

813.

32.

022

.03.

80.

007

<0.

005

0.06

0.02

<0.

0008

0.00

08<

0.00

10.

0010

0.00

020.

0590

Oct

-04

7.8

165

194

250

0.00

1049

.618

.724

.12.

3<

0.00

5<

0.00

50.

080.

58<

0.00

080.

003

0.46

9<

0.00

060.

0430

0.14

30

Jan-

057.

616

018

528

20.

0006

36.8

13.9

17.7

1.6

0.00

8<

0.00

50.

050.

56<

0.00

08<

0.00

02<

0.00

1<

0.00

060.

0249

0.10

20

Nov

-06

7.5

<0.

0008

<0.

0002

<0.

001

<0.

0006

0.01

140.

5300

Oct

-08

8.4

165

183

217

0.30

0043

.813

.46.

01.

81

0.1

30.

050.

005

0.02

0.05

0.00

450.

0001

0.04

6<

0.00

060.

0069

0.05

52

Oct

-09

8.3

159

201

234

0.70

0039

.214

.816

.91.

54.

80.

150.

50.

050.

005

0.02

0.40

0.00

040.

0001

0.31

00.

0281

0.04

22

W-0

11

Jul-0

49.

956

5458

7.6

8.9

7.5

4.3

<0.

005

<0.

005

0.01

0.14

<0.

0008

<0.

0002

0.00

1<

0.00

060.

0016

0.00

29

Jul-0

49.

933

5068

12.0

0.8

11.6

2.2

<0.

005

<0.

005

0.05

0.27

<0.

0008

0.00

040.

003

0.00

190.

0005

0.35

40

Oct

-04

8.4

376

171

199

<0.

0005

44.2

15.1

8.4

0.02

20.

01<

0.00

50.

020.

06<

0.00

080.

003

0.10

20.

0030

0.00

700.

2190

Jan-

057.

416

530

476

6<

0.00

0538

.912

.77.

62.

2<

0.00

5<

0.00

50.

010.

12<

0.00

10.

0006

40.

010

<0.

0006

0.00

600.

1650

Oct

-09

8.3

166

185

213

0.80

0042

.714

.46.

21.

80.

80.

094.

10.

050.

005

0.02

0.05

0.00

40.

0001

0.04

00.

0002

0.00

590.

1710

PGMN Water Quality Results



Wel

lD

ate

Gen

eral

Che

mis

try

Maj

or C

atio

nsM

ajor

Ions

Nut

rient

sM

etal

s

pHH

ardn

ess

Alk

alin

ity

(as

CaC0

3)TD

SD

OC

CaM

gN

aK

ClF

SO4

NO

3

(as

N)

NO

2

(as

N)

PN

H4

Al

CoFe

PbM

nZn

OD

WS

6.5-

8.5

80-1

0030

0-50

050

05

200

250

1.5

500

101

0.02

0.1

10.

30.

010.

055

W-0

12

Oct

-03

9.4

43.5

51.4

981.

2000

13.6

2.4

12.8

1.8

6.9

0.15

17.6

0.05

0.01

0.51

0.36

0.01

120.

0014

0.00

90.

0025

0.00

030.

2130

Oct

-04

9.4

158

42.5

89<

0.00

0515

.32.

614

.62.

00.

01<

0.00

50.

020.

32<

0.00

080.

0020

0.10

20.

0030

0.00

300.

7000

Jan-

059.

440

.147

.812

10.

0006

13.2

2.6

12.6

1.7

<0.

005

<0.

005

0.03

0.33

<0.

001

<0.

0002

<0.

001

<0.

0006

0.00

040.

0750

Nov

-09

9.3

45.2

49.2

104

1.00

0012

.53.

411

.51.

54.

10.

128

.60.

050.

005

0.02

0.05

0.00

530.

0001

00.

0026

0.00

070.

0701

W-0

17

Jun-

047.

729

331

835

079

.722

.919

.31.

8<

0.00

5<

0.00

50.

202.

3<

0.00

08<

0.00

020.

007

<0.

0006

0.09

670.

0019

Oct

-04

7.5

275

302

464

0.00

2972

.422

.425

.52.

5<

0.00

5<

0.00

50.

192.

0<

0.00

080.

0009

3.05

70.

0010

0.09

700.

0070

Dec-

047.

766

.488

.415

00.

0023

19.1

5.0

24.2

6.9

<0.

005

<0.

005

0.02

1.0

<0.

0008

0.00

4<

0.00

1<

0.00

060.

0560

0.00

10

W-0

21

Jun-

047.

342

230

651

862

.021

.314

.12.

00.

09<

0.00

5<

0.01

0.33

<0.

0008

<0.

0002

0.00

8<

0.00

060.

5240

0.00

17

Oct

-04

7.2

438

207

624

0.00

1510

2.6

33.4

27.8

3.5

0.03

<0.

005

0.03

0.20

<0.

0008

0.00

207.

937

<0.

0006

0.38

100.

0400

Jan-

058.

546

616

623

90.

0005

82.3

27.1

20.7

3.0

0.01

<0.

005

0.01

0.23

<0.

001

0.00

040.

130

<0.

0006

0.38

100.

0030

Oct

-09

7.7

471

331

728

1.40

0012

2.0

40.4

13.4

2.5

82.8

0.08

13.4

0.05

0.00

500.

020.

250.

0002

0.00

1214

.800

00.

3930

0.00

12

W-0

59

Apr-0

323

825

30.

6000

78.8

10.0

3.4

0.7

3.7

0.05

25.7

0.72

0.00

50.

020.

050.

0004

0.00

030.

013

0.00

001

0.00

360.

0017

Jun-

047.

930

921

529

096

.316

.77.

91.

30.

85<

0.00

50.

03<

0.02

<0.

0008

<0.

0002

0.00

7<

0.00

060.

0010

0.00

20

Sep-

047.

925

720

438

30.

0007

83.5

11.8

5.2

0.9

0.39

<0.

005

0.03

<0.

02<

0.00

080.

002

0.18

90.

0010

0.00

400.

0240

Dec-

048.

223

320

832

10.

0010

75.9

10.7

3.6

0.9

0.76

<0.

005

0.02

<0.

02<

0.00

080.

002

0.10

70.

0007

0.00

300.

0090

Oct

-09

8.2

241

227

293

0.50

0080

.49.

84.

50.

65.

30.

0519

.80.

630.

005

0.03

0.05

00.

0003

0.00

020

0.00

000.

0002

0.00

06



Wel

lD

ate

Gen

eral

Che

mis

try

Maj

or C

atio

nsM

ajor

Ions

Nut

rient

sM

etal

s

pHH

ardn

ess

Alk

alin

ity

(as

CaC0

3)TD

SD

OC

CaM

gN

aK

ClF

SO4

NO

3

(as

N)

NO

2

(as

N)

PN

H4

Al

CoFe

PbM

nZn

OD

WS

6.5-

8.5

80-1

0030

0-50

050

05

200

250

1.5

500

101

0.02

0.1

10.

30.

010.

055

W-0

60

Sep-

038.

226

925

334

40.

9000

4.6

70.

0840

.20.

050.

005

0.07

<0.

050

0.00

050.

0002

0.89

0.00

001

0.02

260.

0016

Jun-

047.

426

929

933

061

.125

.911

.11.

5<

0.00

5<

0.00

50.

463.

00.

0008

0.00

020.

006

0.00

060.

1080

0.00

04

Oct

-04

7.6

300

262

383

0.00

196.

30.

01<

0.00

50.

06<

0.02

<0.

0008

0.00

300.

919

0.00

100.

0300

0.00

60

Jan-

057.

629

924

734

6<

0.

0005

74.5

18.5

5.9

1.6

0.01

0.00

50.

01<

0.02

< 0

.001

0.00

09<

0.0

01<

0.00

060.

0260

0.00

07

Sep-

088.

325

226

235

81.

4067

.520

.35.

41.

38.

90.

0749

.50.

050.

005

0.02

0.05

0.00

020.

0003

1.08

<0.

0006

0.02

290.

0004

Nov

-09

8.2

307

265

355

1.10

89.5

20.3

5.5

1.3

8.9

0.08

40.8

0.05

0.00

50.

020.

180.

0003

0.00

020.

940

0.02

210.

0005

W-0

61

Apr-0

38.

326

530

632

12.

5061

.826

.811

.011

.03.

70.

150.

50.

045

0.00

50.

542.

40.

0018

0.00

021.

63<

0.00

060.

1320

0.00

18

Jun-

047.

528

625

534

182

.419

.44.

11.

0<

0.00

5<

0.00

50.

06<

0.02

0.00

08<

0.00

02<

0.00

10.

0007

0.01

320.

0004

Oct

-04

7.6

279

291

356

0.00

3012

.2<

0.00

5<

0.00

50.

592.

6<

0.00

080.

0020

1.33

0.00

20.

1390

0.00

50

Dec-

047.

647

727

811

52<

0.

0005

11.3

<0.

005

<0.

005

0.58

<0.

0008

0.00

040.

028

<0.

0006

0.11

200.

0020

Jan-

057.

627

929

036

30.

0016

55.5

22.7

13.5

2.0

0.01

<0.

005

0.58

2.5

< 0

.001

0.00

050.

003

<0.

0006

0.14

100.

0002

Sep-

088.

227

031

734

83.

5064

.226

.611

.01.

61.

30.

050.

50.

050.

005

1.37

3.6

0.00

050.

0003

1.91

<0.

0006

0.10

700.

0007

Nov

-09

8.2

275

316

345

3.00

66.3

26.7

10.8

1.7

1.5

0.11

0.5

0.05

0.00

60.

963.

20.

0009

0.00

021.

390

0.09

920.

0005

W-0

75

Jun-

037.

931

728

649

51.

0097

.218

.145

.61.

880

.20.

1545

.80.

590.

005

18.7

0.07

0.02

550.

0014

0.03

20.

0002

0.0

016

0.00

46

Dec-

047.

636

728

158

396

.820

.653

.44.

11.

1<

0.00

50.

02<

0.02

<0.

0008

0.00

10<

0.0

01<

0.00

060.

0030

0.00

20

Nov

-09

7.9

380

291

637

1.10

117.

021

.757

.02.

812

20.

0937

.70.

980.

005

0.02

0.05

0.00

070.

0003

00

0.00

030.

0081



Wel

lD

ate

Gen

eral

Che

mis

try

Maj

or C

atio

nsM

ajor

Ions

Nut

rient

sM

etal

s

pHH

ardn

ess

Alk

alin

ity

(as

CaC0

3)TD

SD

OC

CaM

gN

aK

ClF

SO4

NO

3

(as

N)

NO

2

(as

N)

PN

H4

Al

CoFe

PbM

nZn

OD

WS

6.5-

8.5

80-1

0030

0-50

050

05

200

250

1.5

500

101

0.02

0.1

10.

30.

010.

055

W-3

25

Jun-

046.

729

328

927

72.9

26.9

162.

86.

7<

0.00

5<

0.00

50.

281.

3<

0.00

08<

0.00

002

<0.

001

0.00

060.

0319

0.00

04

Sep-

047.

933

217

271

80.

0010

81.2

27.9

142.

39.

4<

0.00

5<

0.00

50.

041.

2<

0.00

080.

0010

2.04

0.00

100.

0480

0.01

80

Dec-

048.

122

317

388

9<

0.

0005

57.0

19.6

50.0

6.8

6.8

<0.

005

0.01

1.2

<0.

0008

0.00

401.

387

<0.

0006

0.03

100.

0140

Oct

-08

8.0

313

176

1050

0.50

0081

.129

.618

8.0

7.1

393

0.29

0.5

0.05

0.00

50.

021.

2<

0.00

080.

0003

1.93

<0.

0006

0.03

040.

0003

Oct

-09

8.1

324

172

929

0.70

0081

.129

.619

1.0

7.1

441

0.22

2.5

0.05

0.00

50.

241.

20.

0004

0.00

021.

640.

0002

0.00

330.

0005

W-3

26-2

Oct

-03

8.7

154

184

217

1.40

0027

.620

.819

.21.

00.

50.

213

.70.

050.

005

0.03

0.22

0.00

070.

0001

0.03

00.

0001

0.01

780.

0441

Jun-

048.

177

016

721

7023

8.0

42.6

242.

03.

7<

0.00

5<

0.00

50.

04<

0.02

<0.

0008

<0.

0002

0.09

4<

0.00

060.

0242

0.00

40

Oct

-04

7.2

847

324

1841

0.00

220.

01<

0.00

52.

310.

34

Dec-

047.

478

136

118

150.

0025

143.

115

.291

.50.

8<

0.00

5<

0.00

50.

06<

0.02

<0.

0008

0.00

40.

002

<0.

0006

0.00

300.

0200

Nov

-09

7.6

708

431

3020

2.60

0024

3.0

24.5

544.

01.

211

100.

0354

.60.

050.

0050

0.13

0.05

00.

0011

0.00

153.

50.

0004

0.24

000.

0013

W-3

26-3

Oct

-03

7.7

787

214

2150

2.50

0024

4.0

43.4

233

2.1

723

0.01

68.5

0.05

<0.

005

1.85

0.06

0.00

130.

0006

0.28

80.

0005

0.04

070.

1230

Jun-

047.

615

633

120

726

7.8

21.7

17.7

1.3

<0.

005

<0.

005

0.04

0.42

<0.

0008

<0.

0002

0.09

6<

0.00

060.

0178

0.00

60

Oct

-04

8.1

150

168

234

30.1

21.5

19.4

1.2

0.02

<0.

005

0.03

0.13

<0.

0008

0.00

40.

141

0.00

200.

0230

0.01

70

Dec-

047.

915

516

424

3<

0.00

0526

.917

.315

.61.

0<

0.00

5<

0.00

50.

040.

19<

0.00

080.

003

0.00

2<

0.00

060.

0150

0.08

40

Oct

-09

8.2

161

180

234

0.90

0028

.022

.116

.51.

03.

50.

0617

.80.

050.

005

0.02

0.05

0.00

060.

0002

0.06

00.

0142

0.00

74

W-3

27-3

Jul-0

47.

821

021

425

446

.022

.721

.32.

4<

0.00

5<

0.00

50.

120.

42<

0.00

08<

0.00

020.

002

<0.

0006

<0.

0001

< 0

.000

4

Oct

-04

8.0

216

205

324

0.00

1945

.522

.223

.42.

50.

01<

0.00

50.

030.

35<

0.00

080.

0030

0.75

20.

0020

0.02

500.

0005

Dec-

048.

020

321

926

50.

0017

35.5

16.4

16.1

1.8

<0.

005

<0.

005

0.02

0.24

<0.

0008

0.00

10<

0.0

01<

0.0

060.

0160

< 0

.000

4

Nov

-09

8.2

194

227

281

0.07

0042

.421

.517

.21.

915

.60.

152.

30.

050.

005

0.02

0.18

0.00

080.

0001

0.51

00.

0177

0.00

43



Wel

lD

ate

Gen

eral

Che

mis

try

Maj

or C

atio

nsM

ajor

Ions

Nut

rient

sM

etal

s

pHH

ardn

ess

Alk

alin

ity

(as

CaC0

3)TD

SD

OC

CaM

gN

aK

ClF

SO4

NO

3

(as

N)

NO

2

(as

N)

PN

H4

Al

CoFe

PbM

nZn

OD

WS

6.5-

8.5

80-1

0030

0-50

050

05

200

250

1.5

500

101

0.02

0.1

10.

30.

010.

055

W-3

28

Jun-

047.

834

729

349

710

7.0

19.3

50.1

1.7

1.67

<0.

005

0.01

<0.

02<

0.00

08<

0.00

020.

005

<0.

0006

0.00

810.

0160

Oct

-04

7.6

337

268

520

0.00

2010

4.0

21.2

81.3

3.4

1.8

<0.

005

0.04

<0.

02<

0.00

080.

0070

< 0

.001

<0.

0006

0.01

200.

0280

Dec-

047.

632

527

752

389

.419

.655

.13.

11.

1<

0.00

50.

27<

0.02

<0.

0008

0.00

300.

008

<0.

0006

0.03

000.

0130

Sep-

087.

932

626

250

81.

1098

.519

.351

.82.

593

.40.

0725

.11.

040.

005

0.02

0.05

0.00

040.

0023

0.02

4<

0.00

060.

0092

0.00

78

Oct

-09

8.1

321

284

492

0.80

97.2

19.0

53.9

2.1

93.2

0.08

22.6

1.24

0.00

50.

020.

050.

0003

0.00

060

0.00

020.

0022

0.01

03

W-3

29

Jun-

047.

448

524

812

1512

1.0

45.4

208

4.6

<0.

005

<0.

005

3.83

0.51

<0.

0008

<0.

0002

5.59

6<

0.00

060.

1270

0.00

48

Oct

-04

4.2

985

<2

1456

<0.

0005

221.

147

.617

88.

50.

02<

0.00

52.

420.

4710

.293

0.01

3042

.87

0.03

901.

1670

0.52

20

Dec-

047.

647

727

811

520.

0013

97.6

28.8

111

4.0

<0.

005

<0.

005

2.2

0.08

<0.

0008

0.00

040.

028

<0.

0006

0.11

200.

0020

Oct

-08

7.8

321

149

1180

0.50

0064

.139

.222

02.

841

60.

030.

50.

050.

005

0.02

0.05

0.00

050.

0003

15.7

<0.

0006

0.16

800.

0004

Nov

-09

7.9

358

160

1090

0.60

0080

.638

.121

12.

948

60.

0910

.90.

050.

005

2.13

0.05

0.00

040.

0005

11.6

0.00

020.

6260

0.00

07

W-3

30

Nov

-03

8.2

281

146

597

0.90

0073

.024

.154

.82.

00.

050.

0557

.10.

430.

025

4.66

0.05

0.00

120.

0004

0.29

7<

0.00

060.

0199

0.00

20

Jun-

047.

638

628

255

311

4.0

23.5

53.5

2.3

0.41

0.03

1.1

0.05

<0.

0008

<0.

0002

0.31

7<

0.00

060.

0204

0.00

47

Oct

-04

7.8

407

266

655

0.00

1311

5.5

24.3

63.3

2.9

0.42

<0.

005

2.8

0.2

0.00

080.

0003

0.56

30.

0010

0.03

600.

0040

Jan-

057.

928

724

944

30.

0009

81.0

16.7

43.0

1.8

1.9

0.04

0.72

<0.

02<

.001

0.00

020.

002

<0.

0006

0.02

500.

0040

Oct

-08

8.1

219

247

444

1.00

0060

.716

.538

.31.

454

0.06

40.4

2.2

0.00

53.

50.

050.

0006

10.

0002

60.

006

0.00

003

0.00

860.

0008

Oct

-09

8.0

293

250

454

0.60

0089

.317

.035

.71.

355

.10.

0537

.32.

570.

005

7.23

0.05

0.00

060.

0008

0.00

740.

0006



Wel

lD

ate

Gen

eral

Che

mis

try

Maj

or C

atio

nsM

ajor

Ions

Nut

rient

sM

etal

s

pHH

ardn

ess

Alk

alin

ity

(as

CaC0

3)TD

SD

OC

CaM

gN

aK

ClF

SO4

NO

3

(as

N)

NO

2

(as

N)

PN

H4

Al

CoFe

PbM

nZn

OD

WS

6.5-

8.5

80-1

0030

0-50

050

05

200

250

1.5

500

101

0.02

0.1

10.

30.

010.

055

W-3

66

Nov

-03

7.8

246

360

648

1.40

0053

.427

.213

.81.

428

.10.

0910

60.

005

0.00

50.

020.

130.

0016

0.00

060.

050

0.00

006

0.71

700.

0183

Jun-

047.

452

834

268

816

2.0

29.2

18.0

1.7

0.05

9<

0.00

5<

0.01

0.24

<0.

0008

<0.

0002

0.00

2<

0.00

060.

5240

0.01

10

Oct

-04

7.4

803

426

1175

0.00

0918

1.3

40.8

20.7

4.1

0.09

<0.

005

0.04

0.03

<0.

0008

0.00

800.

144

0.00

200.

7610

0.07

50

Dec-

047.

061

838

985

50.

0009

86.1

25.0

11.9

2.5

0.01

<0.

005

0.02

0.07

<0.

001

0.00

700.

006

<0.

0006

0.38

100.

0160

Oct

-08

7.7

386

315

483

0.90

0012

0.0

21.0

18.9

1.3

40.8

0.12

66.7

0.05

0.00

50.

020.

150.

0001

0.00

060.

051

<0.

0006

0.40

200.

0016

Oct

-09

7.8

380

313

512

1.30

0012

0.0

19.5

20.3

1.2

44.2

0.09

59.1

0.05

0.00

50.

020.

320.

0003

0.00

080.

020.

0001

0.45

100.

0022

W-3

67

Jun-

047.

519

723

239

928

.830

.491

.37.

81.

02<

0.00

50.

02<

0.02

<0.

0008

<0.

0002

0.01

4<

0.00

060.

0101

0.01

00

Oct

-04

8.0

122

229

437

0.00

1733

.629

.178

.09.

80.

01<

0.00

50.

03<

0.02

<0.

0008

0.00

900.

034

0.00

060.

0090

0.02

70

Dec-

047.

821

023

348

90.

0013

21.9

19.5

78.0

6.5

0.64

<0.

005

0.03

<0.

02<

0.00

080.

0090

0.03

4<

0.00

06<

0.00

010.

0290

Oct

-08

8.4

450

613

1.40

0.3

90.5

0.46

0.00

50.

020.

050.

0006

0.00

350.

018

0.00

005

0.00

140.

0237

Nov

-09

8.1

448

463

553

1.50

75.9

62.9

34.0

4.3

7.6

0.21

66.4

0.58

0.00

50.

020.

050.

0005

0.00

030.

020

0.00

260.

0038

W-3

82O

ct-0

88.

036

311

100.

0864

.87.

260.

005

0.02

0.05

0.00

050.

0003

10.

006

0.00

001

0.00

010.

0015

Oct

-09

8.0

536

174

1030

0.50

0015

5.0

36.1

67.6

1.8

260

0.06

58.2

7.11

0.00

50.

020.

060

0.00

040.

0003

00.

0002

0.00

010.

0008

Not

es:

OD

WS

- Ont

ario

Dri

nkin

g W

ater

Sta

ndar

ds



B4 MUNICIPAL WATER QUALITY DOCUMENTATION

The four regional municipalities that provide drinking water across the TRSPA provide annual documentation on water quality for their respective intakes. The most recent reports available are provided on the following pages.

Drinking-Water Systems Regulation O. Reg. 170/03

Drinking-Water Systems Regulations (PIBS 4435e01) February 2008

Page 1 of 6

OPTIONAL ANNUAL REPORT TEMPLATE

Drinking-Water System Number: 220002360Drinking-Water System Name: Kleinburg Water Supply System Drinking-Water System Owner: Regional Municipality of York Drinking-Water System Category: Large Municipal Residential Period being reported: January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009

Complete if your Category is Large Municipal Residential or Small Municipal Residential

Does your Drinking-Water System serve more than 10,000 people? Yes [ ] No [X]

Is your annual report available to the public at no charge on a web site on the Internet? Yes [X] No [ ]

Location where Summary Report required under O. Reg. 170/03 Schedule 22 will be available for inspection.

Complete for all other Categories.

Number of Designated Facilities served:

Did you provide a copy of your annual report to all Designated Facilities you serve?Yes [ ] No [ ]

Number of Interested Authorities you report to:

Did you provide a copy of your annual report to all Interested Authorities you report to for each Designated Facility? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Note: For the following tables below, additional rows or columns may be added or an appendix may be attached to the report

List all Drinking-Water Systems (if any), which receive all of their drinking water from your system: Drinking Water System Name Drinking Water System Number Kleinburg Distribution System 260006607

Did you provide a copy of your annual report to all Drinking-Water System owners that are connected to you and to whom you provide all of its drinking water? Yes [X] No [ ]

Regional Municipality of York Administrative Building Environmental Services Department 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, Ontario





Page 2 of 6

Indicate how you notified system users that your annual report is available, and is free of charge. [x] Public access/notice via the web [x] Public access/notice via Government Office [x] Public access/notice via a newspaper [x] Public access/notice via Public Request [ ] Public access/notice via a Public Library[ ] Public access/notice via other method _______________________________________

Describe your Drinking-Water System

York Region operates three production wells servicing Kleinburg in the City of Vaughan. One of these wells (well #2) is used as a standby well during emergencies or periods of high demand. Water withdrawal from each of the wells is regulated by a Permit to Take Water issued by the Ministry of the Environment.

Water Treatment for the Kleinburg wells includes the addition of chlorine for disinfection. Sodium silicate is also added to keep the iron in suspension so it does not precipitate out and stain plumbing fixtures and laundry. Fluoride is not added to the Kleinburg Water Supply.

Following treatment water can enter the distribution system from two points: well #2 and either well #3 or well #4. There is one storage tank servicing the community of Kleinburg.

York Region is the wholesale supplier of water to the community of Kleinburg in the City of Vaughan and is responsible for the supply, production, treatment and storage of water. The City of Vaughan owns and operates the distribution system that delivers the water from the regional watermains to homes in Kleinburg.

List all water treatment chemicals used over this reporting period Chlorine Gas Sodium Hypochlorite 12% Sodium Silicate

Were any significant expenses incurred to? [ ] Install required equipment [ ] Repair required equipment [ ] Replace required equipment

Please provide a brief description and a breakdown of monetary expenses incurred Some of the following expenditures represent only part of the total project costs.





Page 3 of 6

Provide details on the notices submitted in accordance with subsection 18(1) of the Safe Drinking-Water Act or section 16-4 of Schedule 16 of O.Reg.170/03 and reported to Spills Action Centre

IncidentDate

Parameter Result Unit of Measure

Corrective Action Corrective Action Date

Microbiological testing done under the Schedule 10, 11 or 12 of Regulation 170/03, during this reporting period.

Number of Samples

Range of E.Coli Or Fecal Results (min #)-(max #)

Range of Total Coliform Results(min #)-(max #)

Number of HPC Samples

Range of HPC Results(min #)-(max #)

Raw 151 0 0 Treated 97 0 0 97 1-29 Distribution

Operational testing done under Schedule 7, 8 or 9 of Regulation 170/03 during the period covered by this Annual Report.

Number of Grab Samples

Range of Results (min #)-(max #)

Turbidity(Treated)

8760 0.023 – 1.814

Turbidity (Raw) 24 0.147 – 19.6 Chlorine 8760 0.439 – 2.407 Fluoride (If the DWS provides fluoridation)

NOTE: Record the unit of measure if it is not milligrams per litre.

Summary of additional testing and sampling carried out in accordance with the requirement of an approval, order or other legal instrument.

Date of legal instrument issued

Parameter Date Sampled Result Unit of Measure

Summary of Inorganic parameters tested during this reporting period or the most recent sample results

NOTE: see attached results for Inorganic parameters.

NOTE: For continuous monitors use 8760 as the number of samples.





Page 4 of 6

Parameter Sample Date Result Value Unit of Measure Exceedance

Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Sodium Uranium Fluoride Nitrite Nitrate

Summary of lead testing under Schedule 15.1 during this reporting period (applicable to the following drinking water systems; large municipal residential systems, smallmunicipal residential systems, and non-municipal year-round residential systems)

Location Type Number of Samples

Range of Lead Results

(min#) – (max #)

Number of Exceedances

Plumbing Distribution

Summary of Organic parameters sampled during this reporting period or the most recent sample results

NOTE: see attached results for Organic parameters (THM values in table below).

Parameter Sample Date

Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Alachlor Aldicarb Aldrin + Dieldrin Atrazine + N-dealkylated metobolites Azinphos-methyl Bendiocarb Benzene Benzo(a)pyrene Bromoxynil





Page 5 of 6

Carbaryl Carbofuran Carbon Tetrachloride Chlordane (Total) Chlorpyrifos Cyanazine Diazinon Dicamba 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) + metabolites

1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride)

Dichloromethane 2-4 Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) Diclofop-methyl Dimethoate Dinoseb Diquat Diuron Glyphosate Heptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide Lindane (Total) Malathion Methoxychlor Metolachlor Metribuzin Monochlorobenzene Paraquat Parathion Pentachlorophenol Phorate Picloram Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCB) Prometryne Simazine THM(NOTE: show latest annual average)Well #2 Well #3,4

0.0150.011

Mg/LMg/L

Temephos





Page 6 of 6

Terbufos Tetrachloroethylene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol Triallate Trichloroethylene 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-T) Trifluralin Vinyl Chloride

York Region monitors another group of disinfection by-products called haloacetic acids (HAAs). There are no limits set for HAAs in Ontario Drinking Water Standards.

Haloacetic acid Well #2

Mg/LJune 30

Well #3 Mg/L

June 30

Bromochloroacetic acid <0.004 <0.004 Dibromoacetic acid <0.004 <0.004 Dichloroacetic acid <0.004 <0.004 Monobromoacetic acid <0.004 <0.004 Monochloroacetic acid <0.02 <0.02 Trichloroacetic acid <0.004 <0.004

“<” indicates the result is below the Method Detection Limit

List any Inorganic or Organic parameter(s) that exceeded half the standard prescribed in Schedule 2 of Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards.

Parameter Result Value Unit of Measure Date of Sample

(Only if DWS category is large municipal residential, small municipal residential, large municipal non residential, non municipal year round residential, large non municipal non residential)



Kleinburg Water Supply System

Inorganics Test Results

Kleinburg Well 2 TreatedWW220002360

Reading Units ODWS 19/01/2009 06/04/2009 06/07/2009 05/10/2009

Antimony as Sb mg/L 0.006 IMAC 0.0003 0.0007 0.0003 0.0007

Arsenic as As mg/L 0.025 IMAC 0.0003 0.0007 0.0008 0.0003

Barium as Ba mg/L 1 MAC 0.236

Boron as B mg/L 5 IMAC 0.047

Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.05 MAC 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Fluoride as F mg/L 0.8 MAC 0.06 0.08 0.114 0.057

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.01 MAC 0.0004 0.0008 0.0027 0.0014

Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.001 MAC < 0.00002

Nitrate + Nitrite as N mg/L 10 MAC < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.03

Nitrate as N mg/L 10 MAC < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005

Nitrite mg/L 1 MAC < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.01 MAC 0.0005 0.0011 0.002 0.0003

Sodium as Na mg/L 200 AO 11.9 14.8 18.2 10.3

Uranium as U mg/L 0.02 MAC < 0.0001"<": indicats the result is below Method Detection LimitODWS: Ontario Drinking Water StandardMAC: Ontario Drinking Water Standard - Health Related (Maximum Acceptable Concentration)AO: Ontario Drining Water Standard - Non Health Related (Aesthetic Objective)mg/L: milligrams per litre, parts permillion (ppm)




Organics Test Results



(DDT) + Metabolites mg/L 0.03 MAC < 0.000008

1,1-dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride) mg/L 0.014 MAC < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003

1,2-(o-dcb) Dichlorobenzene mg/L 0.2 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

1,2-Dichloroethane mg/L 0.005 IMAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

1,4-(p-dcb) Dichlorobenzene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol mg/L 0.1 MAC < 0.0005

2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) mg/L 0.28 MAC < 0.0005

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0005

2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/L 0.9 MAC < 0.0004

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) mg/L 0.1 IMAC < 0.0008

Alachlor mg/L 0.005 IMAC < 0.0004

Aldicarb mg/L 0.009 MAC < 0.006

Aldrin + Dieldrin mg/L 0.0007 MAC < 0.000006

Atrazine + N-dealkylated metabolites mg/L 0.005 IMAC < 0.0002

Azinphos-methyl mg/L 0.02 MAC < 0.0003

Bendiocarb mg/L 0.04 MAC < 0.003

Benzene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/L 0.00001 MAC < 0.00001

Bromoxynil mg/L 0.005 IMAC < 0.0004

Carbaryl mg/L 0.09 MAC < 0.003

Carbofuran mg/L 0.09 MAC < 0.003

Carbon Tetrachloride mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002

Chlordane (Total) mg/L 0.007 MAC < 0.000006

Chlorpyrifos mg/L 0.09 MAC < 0.0002

Cyanazine mg/L 0.01 IMAC < 0.0003

Diazinon mg/L 0.02 MAC < 0.0002

Dicamba mg/L 0.12 MAC < 0.0004

Dichloromethane mg/L 0.05 MAC < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

Diclofop-methyl mg/L 0.009 MAC < 0.0004

Dimethoate mg/L 0.02 IMAC < 0.0003

Dinoseb mg/L 0.01 MAC < 0.0005

Diquat mg/L 0.07 MAC < 0.0001

Diuron mg/L 0.15 MAC < 0.003

Glyphosate mg/L 0.28 IMAC < 0.025

Heptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide mg/L 0.003 MAC < 0.000008

Lindane mg/L 0.004 MAC < 0.000005

Malathion mg/L 0.19 MAC < 0.0002

Methoxychlor mg/L 0.9 MAC < 0.000009

Metolachlor mg/L 0.05 IMAC < 0.0002

Metribuzin mg/L 0.08 MAC < 0.0003

Monochlorobenzene mg/L 0.08 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Paraquat mg/L 0.01 IMAC < 0.0001

Parathion mg/L 0.05 MAC < 0.0002






Pentachlorophenol mg/L 0.06 MAC < 0.0004

Phorate mg/L 0.002 IMAC < 0.0002

Picloram mg/L 0.19 IMAC < 0.0007

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) mg/L 0.003 IMAC < 0.00002

Prometryne mg/L 0.001 IMAC < 0.0002

Simazine mg/L 0.01 IMAC < 0.0002

Temephos mg/L 0.28 IMAC < 0.003

Terbufos mg/L 0.001 IMAC < 0.0002

Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) mg/L 0.03 MAC < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003

Triallate mg/L 0.23 MAC < 0.004

Trichloroethene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Trifluralin mg/L 0.045 IMAC < 0.000006

Vinyl Chloride mg/L 0.002 MAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002"<": indicats the result is below Method Detection LimitODWS: Ontario Drinking Water StandardMAC: Ontario Drinking Water Standard - Health Related (Maximum Acceptable Concentration)AO: Ontario Drining Water Standard - Non Health Related (Aesthetic Objective)mg/L: milligrams per litre, parts permillion (ppm)





Kleinburg Well 3,4 TreatedWW220002360







Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.05 MAC 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001


Lead as Pb mg/L 0.01 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001




Nitrite mg/L 1 MAC < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005


























Benzene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001



















Lindane mg/L 0.004 MAC < 0.000005












Page 1 of 6


Drinking-Water System Number: 220002306Drinking-Water System Name: Nobleton Water Supply System Drinking-Water System Owner: Regional Municipality of York Drinking-Water System Category: Large Municipal Residential Period being reported: January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009











List all Drinking-Water Systems (if any), which receive all of their drinking water from your system: Drinking Water System Name Drinking Water System Number Nobleton Distribution System 260002577


Regional Municipality of York Administration Building Environmental Services Department 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, Ontario





Page 2 of 6


Describe your Drinking-Water System York Region operates two production wells servicing Nobleton in the Township of King. Water withdrawal from each of the wells is regulated by a Permit to Take Water, issued by the Ministry of the Environment.

Water Treatment for the Nobleton Wells includes the addition of chlorine for disinfection. Sodium silicate is added to the water following chlorination to reduce the potential for iron to stain plumbing fixtures and laundry in the serviced area. Fluoride is not added to the Nobleton water supply.

Following treatment, water enters the distribution system from two points: well #2 and well #3. There is one storage tank servicing the community of Nobleton.

York Region is the wholesale supplier of water to the community of Nobleton and is responsible for the supply, production, treatment and storage of water. The Township of King owns and operates the distribution system that delivers the water from the regional watermains to homes in Nobleton.









Page 3 of 6

IncidentDate




Number of Samples





Raw 104 0 0 Treated 104 0 0 104 1-2 Distribution




Turbidity(Treated) 8760 0.021 – 2.976 Turbidity (Raw) 24 0.125 – 10.1 Chlorine 8760 0.371 – 3.002 Fluoride (If the DWS provides fluoridation)






Note: See attached results for Inorganic parameters


Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium






Page 4 of 6

Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Sodium Uranium Fluoride Nitrite Nitrate




(min#) – (max #)




Note: See attached results for Organic parameters (THM values in table below)


Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Alachlor Aldicarb Aldrin + Dieldrin Atrazine + N-dealkylated metobolites Azinphos-methyl Bendiocarb Benzene Benzo(a)pyrene Bromoxynil Carbaryl Carbofuran Carbon Tetrachloride Chlordane (Total) Chlorpyrifos Cyanazine Diazinon Dicamba





Page 5 of 6

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) + metabolites


Dichloromethane 2-4 Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) Diclofop-methyl Dimethoate Dinoseb Diquat Diuron Glyphosate Heptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide Lindane (Total) Malathion Methoxychlor Metolachlor Metribuzin Monochlorobenzene Paraquat Parathion Pentachlorophenol Phorate Picloram Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCB) Prometryne Simazine THM(NOTE: show latest annual average)Well #2 Well #3

0.0070.008

Mg/LMg/L

Temephos Terbufos Tetrachloroethylene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol Triallate Trichloroethylene 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-T) Trifluralin Vinyl Chloride





Page 6 of 6


Haloacetic acid Well #2

Mg/L June 30

Well #3 Mg/L

June 30

Bromochloroacetic acid <0.004 <0.004 Dibromoacetic acid <0.004 <0.004 Dichloroacetic acid <0.004 <0.004 Monobromoacetic acid <0.004 <0.004 Monochloroacetic acid <0.02 <0.02 Trichloroacetic acid <0.004 <0.004







Nobleton Water Supply System


Nobleton Well 2 TreatedWW220002306







Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.05 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001


Lead as Pb mg/L 0.01 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0001 < 0.0001


Nitrate + Nitrite as N mg/L 10 MAC < 0.03 < 0.03 0.05 < 0.03

Nitrate as N mg/L 10 MAC < 0.03 < 0.03 0.047 0.013

Nitrite mg/L 1 MAC < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.01 MAC 0.0004 < 0.0001 0.0007 0.0004

























Benzene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001



















Lindane mg/L 0.004 MAC < 0.000005





















Lead as Pb mg/L 0.01 MAC 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001




Nitrite mg/L 1 MAC < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.01 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0005 0.0002

Sodium as Na mg/L 200 AO 17.9 18.2 15 17.9
























Benzene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001



















Lindane mg/L 0.004 MAC < 0.000005












Page 1 of 6


Drinking-Water System Number: 220002299Drinking-Water System Name: King City Water Supply System Drinking-Water System Owner: Regional Municipality of York Drinking-Water System Category: Large Municipal Residential Period being reported: January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009











List all Drinking-Water Systems (if any), which receive all of their drinking water from your system: Drinking Water System Name Drinking Water System Number King City Distribution System 260005138


Regional Municipality of York Administrative Building Environmental Services Department 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, Ontario





Page 2 of 6


Describe your Drinking-Water System York Region operates two production wells servicing King City in the Township of King. Water withdrawal from each of the wells is regulated by a Permit to Take Water issued by the Ministry of the Environment.

Water treatment for King City wells includes the addition of chlorine for disinfection. Sodium silicate is also added to keep the iron in suspension so it does not precipitate out and stain plumbing fixtures and laundry. Fluoride is not added to the King City water supply.

There are two sampling locations for treated water: well #3 and well #4. Following treatment, the water enters the distribution system from a combined location downstream of the contact tank. There is currently one storage tank servicing the community of King City.

York Region is the wholesale supplier of water to the community of King City in the Township of King and is responsible for the supply, production, treatment and storage of water. The Township of King owns and operates the distribution system that delivers the water from the regional watermains to homes in King City.

List all water treatment chemicals used over this reporting period Chlorine Gas Sodium Silicate


Please provide a brief description and a breakdown of monetary expenses incurred Some of the following expenditures represent only part of the total project cost.

King City ET and Watermain to Town $2,882,000





Page 3 of 6


Incident Date Parameter Result Unit of Measure Corrective Action Corrective Action Date


Number of Samples





Raw 104 0 0-0 Treated 156 0 0 156 1-2 Distribution










Note: See attached results for Inorganic parameters.






Page 4 of 6






(min#) – (max #)




Note: See attached results for Organic parameters (THM values in table below)


Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Alachlor Aldicarb Aldrin + Dieldrin Atrazine + N-dealkylated metobolites Azinphos-methyl Bendiocarb Benzene Benzo(a)pyrene Bromoxynil Carbaryl





Page 5 of 6

Carbofuran Carbon Tetrachloride Chlordane (Total) Chlorpyrifos Cyanazine Diazinon Dicamba 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) + metabolites


Dichloromethane 2-4 Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) Diclofop-methyl Dimethoate Dinoseb Diquat Diuron Glyphosate Heptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide Lindane (Total) Malathion Methoxychlor Metolachlor Metribuzin Monochlorobenzene Paraquat Parathion Pentachlorophenol Phorate Picloram Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCB) Prometryne Simazine THM(NOTE: show latest annual average)Well #3 Well #4

0.0050.006

Mg/LMg/L

Temephos Terbufos Tetrachloroethylene





Page 6 of 6

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol Triallate Trichloroethylene 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-T) Trifluralin Vinyl Chloride


Haloacetic acid Well #3 Mg/L June 30

Well #4Mg/L

June 30

Bromochloroacetic acid <0.004 <0.004Dibromoacetic acid <0.004 <0.004Dichloroacetic acid <0.004 <0.004Monobromoacetic acid <0.004 <0.004Monochloroacetic acid <0.02 <0.02 Trichloroacetic acid <0.004 <0.004







King Water Supply System


King City Well 3 TreatedWW220002299









Lead as Pb mg/L 0.01 MAC 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002




Nitrite mg/L 1 MAC < 0.01 < 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.01 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0004

























Benzene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001



















Lindane mg/L 0.004 MAC < 0.000005





















Lead as Pb mg/L 0.01 MAC 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 < 0.0001


Nitrate + Nitrite as N mg/L 10 MAC < 0.01 0.04 < 0.03 < 0.03

Nitrate as N mg/L 10 MAC < 0.01 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005

Nitrite mg/L 1 MAC < 0.01 < 0.03 < 0.005 0.014

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.01 MAC 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0003








Reading Units ODWS 21/01/2009 22/04/2009 08/07/2009 14/07/2009 21/10/2009

















Benzene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001



















Lindane mg/L 0.004 MAC < 0.000005












Reading Units ODWS 21/01/2009 22/04/2009 08/07/2009 14/07/2009 21/10/2009

















Drinking-Water Systems Regulations (PIBS 4435e01 February 2008

Page 1 of 6


Drinking-Water System Number: 220002333Drinking-Water System Name: Stouffville Water Supply System Drinking-Water System Owner: Regional Municipality of York Drinking-Water System Category: Large Municipal Residential Period being reported: January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009


Does your Drinking-Water System serve more than 10,000 people? Yes [X] No [ ]









List all Drinking-Water Systems (if any), which receive all of their drinking water from your system: Drinking Water System Name Drinking Water System Number Stouffville Distribution System 260003162


Regional Municipality of York Administrative Building Transportation and Works Department 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, Ontario





Page 2 of 6


Describe your Drinking-Water System York Region operates five production wells servicing Stouffville in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. Well #1 and well #2 are located on Main Street, well #3 is located on the Tenth Line, and well #5 and well #6 are located on Highway 48 between Bethesda Side Road and Bloomington Road.

Water treatment for the Stouffville wells includes the addition of chlorine for disinfection. Sodium silicate is also added to keep the iron in suspension so it does not precipitate out and stain plumbing fixtures and laundry. Due to very low iron levels found in wells #5 and #6, sodium silicate is not added to these wells. A new UV system was installed at Stouffville Wells #5 and #6 in the spring of 2006.

Following treatment, water enters the distribution system from three points: wells #1 and #2 combined, well #3, and well #5 and well #6 combined.

There are two storage tanks and two reservoirs servicing the community of Stouffville. The Stouffville Zone 1 Elevated Tank is a new tank that was serviced in the fall of 2006 and is located on the Tenth Line and Bethesda Road. York Region also operates three booster stations. One is a small High Lift booster pumping station in Stouffville which supplies water to a number of homes in the Highway #48 / Bloomington area, Hwy 48 Booster Pumping Station was serviced in the fall of 2006 and is located on the Tenth Line near Stouffville Well #3 and Zone 1 Booster Pumping Station was serviced in 2009.

York Region is the wholesale supplier of water to the community of Stouffville in the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and is responsible for the supply, production, treatment and storage of water. The Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville owns and operates the distribution system that delivers the water from the regional watermains to homes in Stouffville.







Page 3 of 6


Stouffville Zone 2 Pumping Station (Markham Reservoir Watermain) $2,890,000


IncidentDate Parameter Result Unit of

Measure Corrective Action Corrective Action Date


Number of Samples





Raw 260 0 0-1 Treated 156 0 0 156 1-60 Distribution














Page 4 of 6


NOTE: see attached results for Inorganic parameters.






(min#) – (max #)




NOTE: see attached results for Organic parameters (THM values in table below).


Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Alachlor Aldicarb Aldrin + Dieldrin Atrazine + N-dealkylated metobolites Azinphos-methyl





Page 5 of 6

Bendiocarb Benzene Benzo(a)pyrene Bromoxynil Carbaryl Carbofuran Carbon Tetrachloride Chlordane (Total) Chlorpyrifos Cyanazine Diazinon Dicamba 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) + metabolites


Dichloromethane 2-4 Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) Diclofop-methyl Dimethoate Dinoseb Diquat Diuron Glyphosate Heptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide Lindane (Total) Malathion Methoxychlor Metolachlor Metribuzin Monochlorobenzene Paraquat Parathion Pentachlorophenol Phorate Picloram Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCB) Prometryne Simazine





Page 6 of 6

THM(NOTE: show latest annual average)Wells #1, #2 Well #3 Wells #5, #6

0.0210.003

0.015

Mg/LMg/LMg/L

Temephos Terbufos Tetrachloroethylene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol Triallate Trichloroethylene 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-T) Trifluralin Vinyl Chloride

York Region monitors another group of disinfection by-products called haloacetic acids (HAAs). There are no limits set for HAAs in the Ontario Drinking Water Standards.

Haloacetic Acid Wells #5, #6

Mg/LJune 30

Well #1, #2Mg/L

June 30

Well #3Mg/L

June 30 Bromochloroacetic acid <0.004 <0.004 <0.004Dibromoacetic acid <0.004 <0.004 <0.004Dichloroacetic acid <0.004 <0.004 <0.004Monobromoacetic acid <0.004 <0.004 <0.004Monochloroacetic acid <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 Trichloroacetic acid <0.004 <0.004 <0.004







Stouffville Water Supply System


Stouffville Well 1,2 TreatedWW220002333









Lead as Pb mg/L 0.01 MAC 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004


Nitrate + Nitrite as N mg/L 10 MAC 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.01

Nitrate as N mg/L 10 MAC 0.01 0.01 0.027 0.014

Nitrite mg/L 1 MAC < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.002 < 0.002


Sodium as Na mg/L 200 AO 26 23.5 24.8 25.6












1,4-(p-dcb) Dichlorobenzene mg/L 0.005 MAC 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001












Benzene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001



















Lindane mg/L 0.004 MAC < 0.000005












Stouffville Well 3 TreatedWW220002333





Boron as B mg/L 5 IMAC < 0.009



Fluoride as F mg/L 0.8 MAC < 0.08 < 0.08 0.04 0.03

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.01 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001




Nitrite mg/L 1 MAC < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.01 < 0.01


Sodium as Na mg/L 200 AO 37.5 37 37.9 38

Uranium as U mg/L 0.02 MAC 0.0029"<": indicats the result is below Method Detection LimitODWS: Ontario Drinking Water StandardMAC: Ontario Drinking Water Standard - Health Related (Maximum Acceptable Concentration)AO: Ontario Drining Water Standard - Non Health Related (Aesthetic Objective)mg/L: milligrams per litre, parts permillion (ppm)























Benzene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001



















Lindane mg/L 0.004 MAC < 0.000005

















Boron as B mg/L 5 IMAC < 0.009



Fluoride as F mg/L 0.8 MAC < 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.026

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.01 MAC 0.0002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0001




Nitrite mg/L 1 MAC < 0.03 < 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005



Uranium as U mg/L 0.02 MAC 0.0023"<": indicats the result is below Method Detection LimitODWS: Ontario Drinking Water StandardMAC: Ontario Drinking Water Standard - Health Related (Maximum Acceptable Concentration)AO: Ontario Drining Water Standard - Non Health Related (Aesthetic Objective)mg/L: milligrams per litre, parts permillion (ppm)























Benzene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001



















Lindane mg/L 0.004 MAC < 0.000005











Reading Units ODWS 10 Year Deep Sentry TW2009-01-28

10 Year Deep Sentry TW2009-08-04

10 Year Shallow Sentry TW2009-08-05



Stouffville Gravel Pit TW2009-07-30

Antimony as Sb mg/L 0.006 IMAC 0.0004 0.0004 0.0005 0.0003 0.0003

Arsenic as As mg/L 0.025 IMAC 0.0002 0.0002 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001

Barium as Ba mg/L 1 MAC 0.08 0.0488 0.396 0.0564 0.0722

Boron as B mg/L 5 IMAC < 0.009 < 0.009 < 0.009 < 0.009 < 0.009

Cadmium as Cd mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Chromium as Cr mg/L 0.05 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0004 0.0002

Fluoride as F mg/L 0.8 MAC < 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.024 0.028 0.02

Lead as Pb mg/L 0.01 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0002

Mercury as Hg mg/L 0.001 MAC 0.00008 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002

Nitrate + Nitrite as N mg/L 10 MAC 1.26 1.82 0.97 4.2 6.34 9.87

Nitrate as N mg/L 10 MAC 1.26 1.82 0.968 4.2 6.34 9.87

Nitrite mg/L 1 MAC < 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.01

Selenium as Se mg/L 0.01 MAC 0.0006 0.0004 0.0004 < 0.0001 0.0001

Sodium as Na mg/L 200 AO 8.7 28.3 3.6 350 2.7 28.4

Uranium as U mg/L 0.02 MAC 0.0004 0.0004 0.0002 0.0004 0.0003"<": indicats the result is below Method Detection LimitODWS: Ontario Drinking Water StandardMAC: Ontario Drinking Water Standard - Health Related (Maximum Acceptable Concentration)AO: Ontario Drining Water Standard - Non Health Related (Aesthetic Objective)mg/L: milligrams per litre, parts permillion (ppm)









(DDT) + Metabolites mg/L 0.03 MAC < 0.000008 < 0.000008 < 0.000008 < 0.000008 < 0.000008

1,1-dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride) mg/L 0.014 MAC < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003

1,2-(o-dcb) Dichlorobenzene mg/L 0.2 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

1,2-Dichloroethane mg/L 0.005 IMAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

1,4-(p-dcb) Dichlorobenzene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol mg/L 0.1 MAC < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) mg/L 0.28 MAC < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

2,4-Dichlorophenol mg/L 0.9 MAC < 0.0007 < 0.0007 < 0.0007 < 0.0007 < 0.0007

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) mg/L 0.1 IMAC < 0.0008 < 0.0008 < 0.0008 < 0.0008 < 0.0008

Alachlor mg/L 0.005 IMAC < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004

Aldicarb mg/L 0.009 MAC < 0.0045 < 0.0045 < 0.0045 < 0.0045 < 0.0045

Aldrin + Dieldrin mg/L 0.0007 MAC < 0.000006 < 0.000006 < 0.000006 < 0.000006 < 0.000006

Atrazine + N-dealkylated metabolites mg/L 0.005 IMAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002

Azinphos-methyl mg/L 0.02 MAC < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003

Bendiocarb mg/L 0.04 MAC < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003

Benzene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/L 0.00001 MAC < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001 < 0.00001

Bromoxynil mg/L 0.005 IMAC < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004

Carbaryl mg/L 0.09 MAC < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003

Carbofuran mg/L 0.09 MAC < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003

Carbon Tetrachloride mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002

Chlordane (Total) mg/L 0.007 MAC < 0.000006 < 0.000006 < 0.000006 < 0.000006 < 0.000006

Chlorpyrifos mg/L 0.09 MAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002

Cyanazine mg/L 0.01 IMAC < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003

Diazinon mg/L 0.02 MAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002

Dicamba mg/L 0.12 MAC < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004

Dichloromethane mg/L 0.05 MAC < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

Diclofop-methyl mg/L 0.009 MAC < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004

Dimethoate mg/L 0.02 IMAC < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003

Dinoseb mg/L 0.01 MAC < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

Diquat mg/L 0.07 MAC < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Diuron mg/L 0.15 MAC < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003

Glyphosate mg/L 0.28 IMAC < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025 < 0.025

Heptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide mg/L 0.003 MAC < 0.000008 < 0.000008 < 0.000008 < 0.000008 < 0.000008

Lindane mg/L 0.004 MAC < 0.000005 < 0.000005 < 0.000005 < 0.000005 < 0.000005

Malathion mg/L 0.19 MAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002

Methoxychlor mg/L 0.9 MAC < 0.000009 < 0.000009 < 0.000009 < 0.000009 < 0.000009

Metolachlor mg/L 0.05 IMAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002

Metribuzin mg/L 0.08 MAC < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003









Monochlorobenzene mg/L 0.08 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Paraquat mg/L 0.01 IMAC < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Parathion mg/L 0.05 MAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002

Pentachlorophenol mg/L 0.06 MAC < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004

Phorate mg/L 0.002 IMAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002

Picloram mg/L 0.19 IMAC < 0.0007 < 0.0007 < 0.0007 < 0.0007 < 0.0007

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) mg/L 0.003 IMAC < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002 < 0.00002

Prometryne mg/L 0.001 IMAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002

Simazine mg/L 0.01 IMAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002

Temephos mg/L 0.28 IMAC < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003 < 0.003

Terbufos mg/L 0.001 IMAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002

Tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene) mg/L 0.03 MAC < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 < 0.0003

Triallate mg/L 0.23 MAC < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004 < 0.004

Trichloroethene mg/L 0.005 MAC < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Trifluralin mg/L 0.045 IMAC < 0.000006 < 0.000006 < 0.000006 < 0.000006 < 0.000006

Vinyl Chloride mg/L 0.002 MAC < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002 < 0.0002"<": indicats the result is below Method Detection LimitODWS: Ontario Drinking Water StandardMAC: Ontario Drinking Water Standard - Health Related (Maximum Acceptable Concentration)AO: Ontario Drining Water Standard - Non Health Related (Aesthetic Objective)mg/L: milligrams per litre, parts permillion (ppm)



2008 Annual Report Ontario Regulation 252/05

Drinking-Water Systems Regulations Page 1 of 3 Uxville

Drinking-Water System Number: 260001302 Drinking-Water System Name: Uxville Water Supply System Drinking-Water System Owner: Regional Municipality of Durham Drinking-Water System Category: Large Municipal Non-Residential System Period being reported: January 1 to December 31, 2008

Indicate how you notified system users that your annual report is available, and is free of charge. [ ] Public access/notice via the web [ ] Public access/notice via Government Office – Durham Region Works Dept. [ ] Public access/notice via a newspaper [ ] Public access/notice via Public Request [ ] Public access/notice via a Public Library [ ] Public access/notice via other method

Describe your Drinking-Water System

List all water treatment chemicals used over this reporting period Sodium hypochlorite (disinfectant)


Please provide a brief description and a breakdown of monetary expenses incurred Elevated tank recoating and inspection $258,293

Provide details on the notices submitted in accordance with subsection 18(1) of the Safe Drinking-Water Act and reported to Spills Action Centre

Incident Date Parameter Result Unit of Measure


June 26 Total Coliforms (distribution)

Presence P/A Flushed, resampled, plus, 2 vicinity points taken.

June 26

NOTE: Sample results under detection limit will be listed as ND.

The Uxville Water Supply System is a groundwater treatment facility that supplies quality drinking water to commercial and industrial consumers in the Uxville Industrial development in the Township of Uxbridge. The production well is approved for a capacity of 1,898m3/day. A standby well is located at the same site. The treatment process includes chlorination at the main well building. The distribution system delivers the treated water through 3.8 kilometers of watermains and includes a 1,132m3

elevated tank for storage and pressure equalization.





Microbiological testing done under the Schedule 2 or 3 of Regulation 252/05 during this reporting period.NumberofSamples

Range ofE.ColiMF

Range of Total ColiformMF

NumberofSamples

E.ColiP/A

Total ColiformP/A

Numberof HPC Samples

Range of HPCResults

Raw 94 ND ND-220 - - - - -Treated 2 ND ND 48 A A 50 ND-3Distribution 5 ND ND 104 A A-P(1)* 109 ND-190

MF: Membrane Filter; P/A: Presence/Absence; HPC: Heterotrophic Plate Count Units for MF are CFU/100mL and HPC are CFU/mL *Number in parentheses represents number of exceedance(s).

Operational testing done during the period covered by this Annual Report. Number ofSamples

Range of Results Unit of Measure

Turbidity – raw water 93 0.09-0.51 NTU Free Chlorine – Plant 259 0.79-1.92 mg/LFree Chlorine - Distribution 477 0.54-1.80 mg/L




-- -- -- -- --

Summary of Inorganic parameters tested during this reporting period or the most recent sample results Parameter Sample Date Result Unit of

Measure Exceedance Number of

Samples Antimony Feb 21 0.0003 mg/L No 1Arsenic Feb 21 0.0002 mg/L No 1Barium Feb 21 0.063 mg/L No 1Boron Feb 21 ND mg/L No 1Cadmium Feb 21 ND mg/L No 1Chromium Feb 21 0.0001 mg/L No 1Lead (distribution) Feb 21 0.0001 mg/L No 1Mercury Feb 21 ND ug/L No 1Selenium Feb 21 0.0002 mg/L No 1Sodium Feb 21 4.42 mg/L No 1Uranium Feb 21 0.001 mg/L No 1Fluoride Feb 21-Nov 26 ND-0.06 mg/L No 4Nitrite Feb 21-Nov 26 ND mg/L No 4Nitrate Feb 21-Nov 26 0.45-0.67 mg/L No 4

Summary of Organic parameters sampled during this reporting period or the most recent sample results Parameter Sample Date Result Unit of

Measure Exceedance Number

ofSamples

Alachlor August 20 ND ug/L No 1Aldicarb August 20 ND ug/L No 1Aldrin + Dieldrin August 20 ND ug/L No 1Atrazine + N-dealkylated metobolites August 20 ND ug/L No 1Azinphos-methyl August 20 ND ug/L No 1Bendiocarb August 20 ND ug/L No 1Benzene August 20 ND ug/L No 1Benzo(a)pyrene August 20 ND ug/L No 1





Parameter Sample Date Result Unit of Measure

Exceedance Numberof

Samples Bromoxynil August 20 ND ug/L No 1Carbaryl August 20 ND ug/L No 1Carbofuran August 20 ND ug/L No 1Carbon Tetrachloride August 20 ND ug/L No 1Chlordane (Total) August 20 ND ug/L No 1Chlorpyrifos August 20 ND ug/L No 1Cyanazine August 20 ND ug/L No 1Diazinon August 20 ND ug/L No 1Dicamba August 20 ND ug/L No 11,2-Dichlorobenzene August 20 ND ug/L No 11,4-Dichlorobenzene August 20 ND ug/L No 1Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) + metabolites

August 20 ND ug/L No 1

1,2-Dichlooethane August 20 ND ug/L No 11,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride)

August 20 ND ug/L No 1

Dichloromethane August 20 ND ug/L No 12,4-Dichlorophenol August 20 ND ug/L No 12,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) August 20 ND ug/L No 1Diclofop-methyl August 20 ND ug/L No 1Dimethoate August 20 ND ug/L No 1Dinoseb August 20 ND ug/L No 1Diquat August 20 ND ug/L No 1Diuron August 20 ND ug/L No 1Glyphosate August 20 ND ug/L No 1Heptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide August 20 ND ug/L No 1Lindane (Total) August 20 ND ug/L No 1Malathion August 20 ND ug/L No 1Methoxychlor August 20 ND ug/L No 1Metolachlor August 20 ND ug/L No 1Metribuzin August 20 ND ug/L No 1Monochlorobenzene August 20 ND ug/L No 1Paraquat August 20 ND ug/L No 1Parathion August 20 ND ug/L No 1Pentachlorophenol August 20 ND ug/L No 1Phorate August 20 ND ug/L No 1Picloram August 20 ND ug/L No 1Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCB) August 20 ND ug/L No 1Prometryne August 20 ND ug/L No 1Simazine August 20 ND ug/L No 1THM – Distribution (annual average) Feb 21-Nov 26 3.25 ug/L No 4Temephos August 20 ND ug/L No 1Terbufos August 20 ND ug/L No 1Tetrachloroethylene August 20 ND ug/L No 12,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol August 20 ND ug/L No 1Triallate August 20 ND ug/L No 1Trichloroethylene August 20 ND ug/L No 12,4,6-Trichlorophenol August 20 ND ug/L No 12,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-T) August 20 ND ug/L No 1Trifluralin August 20 ND ug/L No 1Vinyl Chloride August 20 ND ug/L No 1



This page is intentionally left blank.



Drinking Water Systems2008 Annual Report




Drinking-Water Systems Regulations – R.C. Harris WTP Annual Report (PIBS 4435e01) February 2008

Page 1 of 9

Part III Form 2 Section 11. ANNUAL REPORT.

Drinking-Water System Number: R. C. Harris WTP – 220002262Drinking-Water System Name: Toronto (R.C. Harris) Water Treatment Plant Drinking-Water System Owner: City of Toronto Drinking-Water System Category: Large Municipal Residential Period being reported: January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008


Does your Drinking-Water System serve more than 10,000 people? Yes [ x ] No [ ]

Is your annual report available to the public at no charge on a web site on the Internet? Yes [ x ] No [ ]


Complete for all other Categories.NOT APPLICABLE






List all Drinking-Water Systems (if any), which receive all of their drinking water from your system: Drinking Water System Name Drinking Water System Number Region of York – receives some of their water from Toronto

260001929

Did you provide a copy of your annual report to all Drinking-Water System owners that are connected to you and to whom you provide all of its drinking water? Yes [ x ] No [ ]

Indicate how you notified system users that your annual report is available, and is free of charge.

Metro Hall, 18th Floor 55 John Street Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6





Page 2 of 9

[ x ] Public access/notice via the web [ x ] Public access/notice via Government Office [ ] Public access/notice via a newspaper [ ] Public access/notice via Public Request [ ] Public access/notice via a Public Library[ x ] Public access/notice via other method______________________________________

Describe your Drinking-Water System - Toronto Water Supply System consists of four water filtration plants, 18 pumping

stations, 10 major underground storage reservoirs, four elevated storage tanks and approximately 510 kilometers of trunk watermains and 5,015 kilometers of distribution watermains.

The R.C. Harris Water Treatment Plant is a conventional water treatment, has a capacity of 950 ML/d and is located at 2701 Queens Street East, Toronto.The other three Toronto Water Treatment plants are as follows:

- R.L. Clark Water Treatment Plant (capacity 615 ML/d) located at 45 Twenty Third Street, Etobicoke;

- F.J. Horgan Water Treatment Plant (capacity 570 ML/d) located at 201 Copperfield Road, Toronto; and

- Island Water Treatment Plant (capacity 410 ML/d) located on Centre Island, Toronto

List all water treatment chemicals used over this reporting period Alum, chlorine, sulphur dioxide, sodium bisulphite, hydrofluosilicic acid and aqua ammonia.

Were any significant expenses incurred to? [ x ] Install required equipment [ x ] Repair required equipment [ x ] Replace required equipment

Please provide a brief description and a breakdown of monetary expenses incurred Please note the following amounts relate to various projects during 2008 and do not represent the total Project cost. These numbers do not include normal operating and maintenance cost. - Residual management Facilities $1.1 Million - Rehabilitation of buildings $4 Million - Intake repairs $450,000





Page 3 of 9

Provide details on the notices submitted in accordance with subsection 18(1) of the Safe Drinking-Water Act or section 16-4 of Schedule 16 of O.Reg.170/03 and reported to Spills Action Centre for the R.C. Harris Water Treatment Plant.

Incident Date

Parameter Result Unit of Measure Corrective Action Corrective ActionDate

6-Sep-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample

The test results of subsequent output samples taken at 12:00 and 18:00 on Sept. 6 indicated absence of total coliforms

7-Sep-08

Notices submitted in accordance with subsection 18(1) of the Safe Drinking-Water Act or section 16-4 of Schedule 16 of O.Reg.170/03 and reported to Spills Action Centre for the Distribution System (which is included under the R.C. Harris Drinking Water System Name and Number).

Incident Date


9-Jan-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal

Not Applicable Communication restored, chlorine residual checked

9-Jan-08

22-Jan-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal

Not Applicable Communication restored, chlorine residual checked

22-Jan-08

16-Feb- 08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample

Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples- 17-Feb-08

04-Mar-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample

Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples- 04-Mar-08

06-Mar-08 Incorrect Reading

<0.25 mg/L Analyzer repaired and calibrated 06-Mar-08

10-Mar-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal

mg/L Communication Restored. Residual checked

10-Mar-08

11-Mar-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample

Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples- 14-Mar-08

23-Mar-08 Incorrect Reading

<0.25 mg/L Analyzer repaired and calibrated 26-Mar-08

22-Apr-08 Incorrect Reading

<0.25 mg/L Analyzer repaired and calibrated 23-Apr-08

23-Apr-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal

Not Applicable Communication Restored. Residual checked

24-Apr-08

26-Apr-08 Incorrect Reading

<0.25 mg/L Analyzer repaired and calibrated 26-Apr-08

29-Apr-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal


29-Apr-08

29-Apr-08 Total Chlorine <0.04 mg/L Flushed, resampled 29-Apr-08 7-May-08 Incorrect

Reading<0.25 mg/L Analyzer repaired and calibrated 9-May-08

8-May-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample

Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples- 9-May-08

9-May-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal


9-May-08

22-May-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample

Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples 23-May-08

4-June-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample

Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples 5-June-08

6-June-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample

Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples 7-June-08

10-Jun-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal


10-Jun-08





Page 4 of 9

Incident Date


28-Jun-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal


28-Jun-08

1-Jul-08 Incorrect Reading

<0.25 mg/L Analyzer repaired and calibrated 1-Jul-08

8-Jul-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal


8-Jul-08


NoSignal


8-Jul-08

14-Jul-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample L

Hydrant replacement. Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples

16-Jul-08

19-Jul-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample


21-Jul-08


NoSignal


20-Jul-08


NoSignal


20-Jul-08

30-Jul-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample

Water Quality Inquiry. Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples

31-Jul-08

11-Aug-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample


12-Aug-08

12-Aug-08 E. Coli Presence result in 100 mL sample


15-Aug-08

14-Aug-08 Total Coliform 1 cfu/100mL Hydrant replacement. Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples

15-Aug-08

15-Aug-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal


15-Aug-08



16-Aug-08


Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples 20-Aug-08



21-Aug-08

21-Aug-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal

Not Applicable Communication Restored. Residual checked.

21-Aug-08



4-Sep-08


Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples 6-Sep-08

5-Sep-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal


5-Sep-08


NoSignal


7-Sep-08

8-Sep-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample L



NoSignal


11-Sep-08


NoSignal


13-Sep-08


NoSignal


14-Sep-08


NoSignal


14-Sep-08



18-Sep-08



22-Sep-08



22-Sep-08







Page 5 of 9

Incident Date




21-Oct-08

1-Oct-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample


3-Oct-08

2-Oct-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample


5-Oct-08

3-Oct-08 Total Coliform 4 cfu/100mL Hydrant replacement. Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples

18-Oct-08


20-Oct-08


20-Oct-08


1 3-Oct-08


20-Oct-08


20-Oct-08

16-Oct-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal


16-Oct-08


20-Oct-08

5-Nov-08 Total Coliform Presence result in 100 mL sample


10-Nov-08



12-Nov-08



8-Nov-08



9-Nov-08

8-Nov-08 Total Coliform 1 cfu/100mL Hydrant replacement. Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples

12-Nov-08


13-Nov-08


13-Nov-08


. Resampled plus 2 vicinity samples 15-Nov-08

20-Nov-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal


20-Nov-08

10-Dec-08 Loss of Communication

NoSignal


10-Dec-08


NoSignal


21-Dec-08


NoSignal


24-Dec-08





Page 6 of 9


Number of Samples





Raw 365 0-16 0-120 363 0-826 Treated 1460 1460 A (100 % A) 1459 A, 1 P (99.9 %A) 1460 0-1482 Distribution 4915 4915 A (100 % A) 4905 A, 10 P (99.8 %A) 4885 0 -310

A = Absence P = Presence




Turbidity 8760 0.00 – 1.28 NTU Chlorine 8760 0.90 – 1.91 mg/L Fluoride (If the DWS provides fluoridation)

8760 0.02 – 2.00 mg/L

Chlorine for Distribution System

4915 0.25 – 1.56

Operational testing for Lead and THMs for End of the Line Distribution System done under Schedule 13 of Regulation 170/03 during the period covered by this Annual Report.



THMs 6 0.0108 – 0.0164







Page 7 of 9



Parameter Date Sampled Annual Average

Unit of Measure

4171-6YCTDD (CofA issued Aug 22 2007)

Suspended solids 1-May-08 – 31-Dec-08 15.125 mg/L

Chlorine Residual

1-May-08 – 31-Dec-08 0.005 mg/L



Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Antimony 1/22 - 10/14 0 mg/L No Arsenic 1/22 - 10/14 0 mg/L No Barium 1/22 - 10/14 0.021-0.023 mg/L No Boron 1/22 - 10/14 0.023-0.031 mg/L No Cadmium 1/22 - 10/14 0 mg/L No Chromium 1/22 - 10/14 0 mg/L No Lead 1/22 - 10/14 0 mg/L No Mercury 1/22 - 10/14 0 mg/L No Selenium 1/22 - 10/14 0 mg/L No Sodium 2/12 - 10/14 12.0-15.2 mg/L No Uranium 1/22 - 10/14 0.0003-

0.0004 mg/L No

Fluoride 1/01 - 12/31 0.10-0.60 mg/L No Nitrite 1/22 - 12/09 0 mg/L No Nitrate 1/22 - 12/09 0.32-0.50 mg/L No



Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Alachlor 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoAldicarb 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoAldrin + Dieldrin 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoAtrazine + N-dealkylated metabolites 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoAzinphos-methyl 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoBendiocarb 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoBenzene 1/07 - 12/22 0 - 0 μg/L NoBenzo(a)pyrene 2/19 - 8/06 0 - 0 μg/L No





Page 8 of 9


Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Bromoxynil 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoCarbaryl 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoCarbofuran 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoCarbon Tetrachloride 1/07 - 12/22 0 - 0 μg/L NoChlordane (Total) 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoChlorpyrifos 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoCyanazine 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoDiazinon 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoDicamba 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L No1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1/07 - 12/22 0 - 0 μg/L No1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1/07 - 12/22 0 - 0 μg/L NoDichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) + metabolites

2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L No

1,2-Dichloroethane 1/07 - 12/22 0 - 0 μg/L No1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride)

1/07 - 12/22 0 - 0 μg/L No

Dichloromethane 1/07 - 12/22 0 - 0 μg/L No2-4 Dichlorophenol 2/19 - 2/19 0 - 0 μg/L No2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoDiclofop-methyl 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoDimethoate 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoDinoseb 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoDiquat 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoDiuron 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoGlyphosate 2/19 - 2/19 0 - 0 μg/L NoHeptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoLindane (Total) 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoMalathion 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoMethoxychlor 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoMetolachlor 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoMetribuzin 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoMonochlorobenzene (chlorobenzene) 1/07 - 12/22 0 - 0 μg/L NoParaquat 2/19 - 2/19 0 - 0 μg/L NoParathion 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoPentachlorophenol 2/19 - 2/19 0 - 0 μg/L NoPhorate 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoPicloram 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoPolychlorinated Biphenyls(PCB) 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoPrometryne 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoSimazine 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoTHM(NOTE: show latest annual average)

1/07 - 12/22 10.2 μg/L No

Temephos 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoTerbufos 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoTetrachloroethylene 1/07 - 12/01 0 - 0 μg/L No2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 2/19 - 2/19 0 - 0 μg/L NoTriallate 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoTrichloroethylene 1/07 - 12/22 0 - 0 μg/L No2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2/19 - 2/19 0 - 0 μg/L No





Page 9 of 9


Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-T) 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoTrifluralin 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoVinyl Chloride 1/07 - 12/22 0 - 0 μg/L No

Availability of the Report

This report along with a copy of the Summary Report (to be available after March 31, 2009) prepared under Schedule 22 of O. Reg. 170/03 will be posted on the City’s website at www.toronto.ca/water.

These reports will also be available for inspection at the Toronto Water offices in Metro Hall, 18th Floor, 55 John Street, Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 or by calling (416) 392-8222.

Report Prepared: February 27, 2009




Drinking-Water Systems Regulations – R.L. Clark WTP Annual Report (PIBS 4435e01) February 2008

Page 1 of 5


Drinking-Water System Number: R.L. Clark WTP - 220002253 Drinking-Water System Name: Toronto (R.L. Clark) Water Treatment Plant Drinking-Water System Owner: City of Toronto Drinking-Water System Category: Large Municipal Residential Period being reported: January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008












260001929








Page 2 of 5

[ x ] Public access/notice via the web [ x ] Public access/notice via Government Office [ ] Public access/notice via a newspaper [ ] Public access/notice via Public Request [ ] Public access/notice via a Public Library[ x ] Public access/notice via other method _______________________________________

Describe your Drinking-Water System Toronto Water Supply System consists of four water treatment plants, 18 pumping stations, 10 major underground storage reservoirs, four elevated storage tanks and approximately 510 kilometers of trunk watermains and 5,015 kilometers of distribution watermains.

The R.L. Clark Water Treatment Plant is a conventional water treatment plant, has a rated capacity of 615 ML/d and is located at 45 Twenty-Third Street, Etobicoke.

The other three Toronto water treatment plants are as follows:

- R.C. Harris Water Treatment Plant (capacity 950 ML/d) located at 2701 Queen Street East, Toronto;

- F.J. Horgan Water Treatment Plant (capacity 570 ML/d) located at 201 Copperfield Road, Toronto; and


List all water treatment chemicals used over this reporting period Alum, chlorine, sulphur dioxide, hydrofluosilicic acid, aqua ammonia and powdered activated carbon.






Page 3 of 5

Please provide a brief description and a breakdown of monetary expenses incurred Please note that the following amounts related to various projects outline expenditures during 2008 and do not represent the total project costs at the R.L. Clark Water Treatment Plant. - Residue Management Facilities $ 2.19 Million - Equipment Replacement/Repair/Rehab $ 580,000 - HVAC Rehabilitation $ 520,000 - Electrical Upgrades $ 510,000 - Diesel Storage Tank $ 440,000 - Process Equipment Upgrades $ 440,000 - Administration Building Rehabilitation $ 180,000


IncidentDate



16-Jan-08 Total Coliforms

Presence Confirmed

P.A./100 mL Reviewed treatment records. Resampled.

18-Jan-08


Number of Samples


Range of Total Coliform Results (min #)-(max #)



Raw 351 0 - 32 0 – 660 350 0 – 855 Treated 1405 1405 A (100 % A) 1404 A, 1 P (99.9 % A) 1405 0 - 103





Turbidity 8760 0.12 – 0.30 NTU Chlorine 8760 1.21 – 0.91 mg/L Fluoride (If the DWS provides fluoridation) (Plant output spot samples)

7214 0.50 – 0.67 mg/L







Page 4 of 5



Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Antimony 3/07 – 11/14 0-0 mg/L Arsenic 3/07 – 11/14 0-0 mg/L Barium 3/07 – 11/14 0.022-0.024 mg/L Boron 3/07 – 11/14 0.023-0.027 mg/L Cadmium 3/07 – 11/14 0-0 mg/L Chromium 3/07 – 11/14 0-0 mg/L Lead 3/07 – 11/14 0-0 mg/L Mercury 3/07 – 11/14 0-0 mg/L Selenium 3/07 – 11/14 0-0 mg/L Sodium 1/05 – 9/19 11.4-19.6 mg/L Uranium 3/07 – 11/14 0.0003-

0.0003 mg/L

Fluoride 1/01 – 12/31 0.14-0.90 mg/L Nitrite 1/17 – 12/12 0-0 mg/L Nitrate 1/17 – 12/12 0.32-0.54 mg/L



Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Alachlor 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Aldicarb 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Aldrin + Dieldrin 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Atrazine + N-dealkylated metabolites 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Azinphos-methyl 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Bendiocarb 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Benzene 1/09-11/20 0-0 µg/L Benzo(a)pyrene 3/06-11/20 0-0 µg/L Bromoxynil 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Carbaryl 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Carbofuran 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Carbon Tetrachloride 1/09-11/20 0-0 µg/L Chlordane (Total) 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Chlorpyrifos 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Cyanazine 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Diazinon 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Dicamba 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1/09-11/20 0-0 µg/L 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1/09-11/20 0-0 µg/L Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) + metabolites

3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L

1,2-Dichloroethane 1/09-11/20 0-0 µg/L 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride)

1/09-11/20 0-0 µg/L

Dichloromethane 1/09-11/20 0-0 µg/L 2-4 Dichlorophenol 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Diclofop-methyl 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Dimethoate 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Dinoseb 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L





Page 5 of 5


Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Diquat 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Diuron 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Glyphosate 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Heptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Lindane (Total) 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Malathion 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Methoxychlor 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Metolachlor 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Metribuzin 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Monochlorobenzene 1/09-11/20 0-0 µg/L Paraquat 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Parathion 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Pentachlorophenol 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Phorate 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Picloram 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCB) 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Prometryne 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Simazine 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L THM(NOTE: show latest annual average)

1/09-11/20 10.9 µg/L

Temephos 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Terbufos 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Tetrachloroethylene 1/09-11/20 0-0 µg/L 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Triallate 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Trichloroethylene 1/09-11/20 0-0 µg/L 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-T) 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Trifluralin 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L Vinyl Chloride 3/06-7/24 0-0 µg/L



These reports will also be available for inspection at Toronto Water offices in Metro Hall, 18th Floor, 55 John Street, Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 or by calling (416) 392-8222.





Drinking-Water Systems Regulations – F.J. Horgan WTP Annual Report (PIBS 4435e01) February 2008

Page 1 of 6


Drinking-Water System Number: F. J. Horgan WTP – 220004536Drinking-Water System Name: Toronto (F.J. Horgan) Water Treatment Plant Drinking-Water System Owner: City of Toronto Drinking-Water System Category: Large Municipal Residential Period being reported: January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008












260001929








Page 2 of 6


Describe your Drinking-Water System Toronto Water Supply System consists of four water filtration plants, 18 pumping stations, 10 major underground storage reservoirs, four elevated storage tanks and approximately 510 kilometers of trunk watermains and 5,015 kilometers of distribution watermains.

The F.J. Horgan Water Treatment Plant is a direct water treatment plant, has a rated capacity of 570 ML/d and is located at 201 Copperfield Road, Toronto.


- R.C. Harris Water Treatment Plant (capacity 950 ML/d) located at 2701 Queens Street East, Toronto;

- R.L. Clark Water Treatment Plant (capacity 615 ML/d) located at 45 Twenty Third Street, Etobicoke; and


List all water treatment chemicals used over this reporting period

Alum, poly aluminum chloride, MagnaFloc LT7996, chlorine, sulphur dioxide, hydrofluosilicic acid and aqua ammonia. Anionic polymer was used for wastewater treatment.






Page 3 of 6

Please provide a brief description and a breakdown of monetary expenses incurred

Please note that the following amounts related to various projects outline expenditures during 2008 and do not represent the total project costs at the F.J. Horgan Water Treatment Plant. - Plant expansion $ 2.7 Million - Facility HVAC replacement $ 2.4 Million - Facility building improvements $ 271,000 - Facility electrical equipment $ 160,000 - Facility Process Equipment $ 31,000 - Facility instrumentation equipment $ 10,600


IncidentDate



13-May-08 Fluoride 1.5 mg/L High fluoride levels were noted in the chemical mixing channel but not in the plant output water. Increased residual as a result of returning of chemical feed equipment into service. All process data indicated treatment parameters were within acceptable limits.

22-May-08

13-Nov-08 Fluoride 1.80 mg/L High fluoride levels were noted in the chemical mixing channel. Increased residual in the Output water was due to the return of the feed system into service after completion of tracer study.

24-Nov-08





Page 4 of 6


Number of Samples

Range of E.Coli Or FecalResults (min #)-(max #)

Range of Total Coliform Results (min #)-(max #)



Raw 367 0 - 3 0 – 34 365 0 – 46 Treated 1456 1456 A (100 % A) 1456 A (100 % A) 1457 0 - 12




Range of Results(min #)-(max #)

Turbidity 8760 0.03 – 0.10 NTU Chlorine 8760 0.47 – 1.67 Fluoride (If the DWS provides fluoridation) (Plant output spot samples)

2183 0.14 – 1.80





Date of order or C of A Parameter Date Sampled Result

(Average) Unit of Measure

F.J. Horgan Water Treatment Plant – All data presented was in accordance with the requirements of C of A #4847 -72BJXC dated August 22, 2007. Note that as of December 19, 2008 the requirements of the Amended C of A # 0945-7JUYF were adhered to. Clarifier Effluent Suspended Solids 1/06 – 12/07 9.58 mg/L



Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Antimony 1/22 - 10/24 0 mg/L No Arsenic 1/22 - 10/24 0 mg/L No Barium 1/22 - 10/24 0.021-0.023 mg/L No Boron 1/22 - 10/24 0.017-0.031 mg/L No Cadmium 1/22 - 10/24 0 mg/L No






Page 5 of 6


Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Chromium 1/22 - 10/24 0 mg/L No Lead 1/22 - 10/24 0 mg/L No Mercury 1/22 - 10/24 0 mg/L No Selenium 1/22 - 10/24 0 mg/L No Sodium 2/12 - 10/24 12.5-15.3 mg/L No Uranium 1/22 - 10/24 0.0003-

0.0004 mg/L No

Fluoride 1/01 - 12/31 0.13-0.62 mg/L No Nitrite 1/22 - 12/09 0 mg/L No Nitrate 1/22 - 12/09 0.34-0.52 mg/L No



Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Alachlor 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoAldicarb 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoAldrin + Dieldrin 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoAtrazine + N-dealkylated metabolites 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoAzinphos-methyl 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoBendiocarb 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoBenzene 1/07 - 12/01 0 - 0 μg/L NoBenzo(a)pyrene 2/19 - 8/05 0 - 0 μg/L NoBromoxynil 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoCarbaryl 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoCarbofuran 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoCarbon Tetrachloride 1/07 - 12/01 0 - 0 μg/L NoChlordane (Total) 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoChlorpyrifos 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoCyanazine 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoDiazinon 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoDicamba 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L No1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1/07 - 12/01 0 - 0 μg/L No1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1/07 - 12/01 0 - 0 μg/L NoDichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) + metabolites

2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L No

1,2-Dichloroethane 1/07 - 12/01 0 - 0 μg/L No1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride)

1/07 - 12/01 0 - 0 μg/L No

Dichloromethane 1/07 - 12/01 0 - 0 μg/L No2-4 Dichlorophenol 5/05 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L No2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoDiclofop-methyl 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoDimethoate 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoDinoseb 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoDiquat 2/19 - 2/19 0 - 0 μg/L NoDiuron 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoGlyphosate 2/19 - 2/19 0 - 0 μg/L NoHeptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L No





Page 6 of 6


Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Lindane (Total) 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoMalathion 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoMethoxychlor 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoMetolachlor 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoMetribuzin 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoMonochlorobenzene (chlorobenzene) 1/07 - 12/01 0 - 0 μg/L NoParaquat 2/19 - 2/19 0 - 0 μg/L NoParathion 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoPentachlorophenol 5/05 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoPhorate 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoPicloram 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoPolychlorinated Biphenyls(PCB) 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoPrometryne 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoSimazine 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoTHM(NOTE: show latest annual average)

1/07 - 12/01 10.0 μg/L No

Temephos 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoTerbufos 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoTetrachloroethylene 1/07 - 12/01 0 - 0 μg/L No2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 5/05 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoTriallate 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoTrichloroethylene 1/07 - 12/01 0 - 0 μg/L No2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L No2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-T) 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoTrifluralin 2/19 - 11/03 0 - 0 μg/L NoVinyl Chloride 1/07 - 12/01 0 - 0 μg/L No



These reports will also be available for inspection at Toronto Water offices in Metro Hall, 18th Floor, 55 John Street, Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 or by calling (416) 392-8222.





Drinking-Water Systems Regulations – Island WTP Annual Report (PIBS 4435e01) February 2008

Page 1 of 6


Drinking-Water System Number: Island. WTP – 220002244Drinking-Water System Name: Toronto (Island) Water Treatment Plant Drinking-Water System Owner: City of Toronto Drinking-Water System Category: Large Municipal Residential Period being reported: January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008












260001929








Page 2 of 6


Describe your Drinking-Water System - Toronto Water Supply System consists of four water filtration plants, 18 pumping

stations, 10 major underground storage reservoirs, four elevated storage tanks and approximately 510 kilometers of trunk watermains and 5,015 kilometers of distribution watermains.

The Island Water Treatment Plant is a direct water treatment plant, has a capacity 410 ML/d and is located on Centre Island, Toronto.


- R.C. Harris Water Treatment Plant (capacity 950 ML/d) located at 2701 Queens Street East, Toronto;

- R.L. Clark Water Treatment Plant (capacity 615 ML/d) located at 45 Twenty Third Street, Etobicoke; and

- F.J. Horgan Water Treatment Plant (capacity 570 ML/d) located at 201 Copperfield Road, Toronto.

List all water treatment chemicals used over this reporting period

Alum, poly aluminum chloride, chlorine, sulphur dioxide, hydrofluosilicic acid, and aqua ammonia.


Please provide a brief description and a breakdown of monetary expenses incurred

Please note the following amounts relate to various projects during 2008 and do not represent the total project cost. These numbers do not include normal operating and maintenance cost. - Residue Management $1.6 Million - Filter Rehabilitation $2.9 Million - Winterization of facility $200,000





Page 3 of 6


IncidentDate



28-Jan-08 Island Distribution

Chlorine Residual

<0.25 mg/L The low residual is caused by SO2 injector failure. The secondary injector was placed in service. Distribution Chlorine Total Residual back to 1.08mg/L at 10:00am

28-Jan-08

19-Apr-08 Total Coliforms Presence result in 100 mL sample

The test results of subsequent output samples taken at 06:00am and 12:00pm of Apr 19 indicated total Coliforms absence

19-Apr-08

3-Oct-08 Fluoride Residual

>1.5 mg/L High Fluoride residual due to mechanical failure at the service water line. 2.5L of concentrated FL entered the clear well. Since this concentration entered a large volume of water (5ML) at the clear well, it will be diluted by the time it reaches output channel. FL feed pump was taken out of service immediately.

3-Oct-08

11-Oct-08 Fluoride Residual

>1.5 mg/L High FL residual due to mechanical failure at the service water line. 2.0L of concentrated FL entered the clear well. Since this concentration entered a large volume of water (5ML) at the clear well, it will be diluted by the time it reaches output channel. FL feed pump was taken out of service immediately.

11-Oct-08

21-Dec-08 Island Distribution

Chlorine Residual

0.02 mg/L At 05:33 a rapid shut down of the Island Treatment Plant supply to John St occurred causing an over dechlorination in the channel. Started out flow at 11:40. At 11:45 started to apply trim chlorination in anticipation of low residual. The Island Distribution residual dropped below 0.25mg/L between 12:08 to 12:14 with a minimum residual of 0.02mg/L.

21-Dec-08





Page 4 of 6


Number of Samples





Raw 307 0 - 7 0 - 80 306 0 -57 Treated 1217 1217 A (100 % A) 1216 A, 1 P (99.9 %A) 1216 0 - 7





Turbidity 7280 0.04 – 0.43 Chlorine 7280 0.29 – 2.00 Fluoride (If the DWS provides fluoridation) 6928 0.02 – 2.00



None


Parameter Sample Date Result Value

Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Antimony 1/22 - 10/14 0-0 mg/L No Arsenic 1/22 - 10/14 0-0 mg/L No Barium 1/22 - 10/14 0.022-

0.023 mg/L No

Boron 1/22 - 10/14 0.022-0.026

mg/L No

Cadmium 1/22 - 10/14 0-0 mg/L No Chromium 1/22 - 10/14 0-0 mg/L No Lead 1/22 - 10/14 0-0 mg/L No Mercury 1/22 - 10/14 0-0 mg/L No Selenium 1/22 - 10/14 0-0 mg/L No Sodium 4/01 - 10/14 13.0-16.0 mg/L No Uranium 1/22 - 10/14 0.0003-

0.0004 mg/L No

Fluoride 1/01 – 12/31 0.13-0.63 mg/L No Nitrite 1/22 – 12/09 0-0 mg/L No Nitrate 1/22 – 12/09 0.40-0.52 mg/L No






Page 5 of 6



Unit of Measure

Exceedance

Alachlor 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Aldicarb 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Aldrin + Dieldrin 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Atrazine + N-dealkylated metabolites 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Azinphos-methyl 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Bendiocarb 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Benzene 1/07 - 12/01 0-0 µg/L No Benzo(a)pyrene 5/05 - 8/06 0-0 µg/L No Bromoxynil 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Carbaryl 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Carbofuran 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Carbon Tetrachloride 1/07 - 12/01 0-0 µg/L No Chlordane (Total) 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Chlorpyrifos 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Cyanazine 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Diazinon 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Dicamba 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1/07 - 12/01 0-0 µg/L No 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 1/07 - 12/01 0-0 µg/L No Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) + metabolites

5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No

1,2-Dichloroethane 1/07 - 12/01 0-0 µg/L No 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride)

1/07 - 12/01 0-0 µg/L No

Dichloromethane 1/07 - 12/01 0 - 12.8 µg/L No 2-4 Dichlorophenol 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Diclofop-methyl 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Dimethoate 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Dinoseb 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Diquat 4/07 - 4/07 0-0 µg/L No Diuron 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Glyphosate 4/07 - 4/07 0-0 µg/L No Heptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Lindane (Total) 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Malathion 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Methoxychlor 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Metolachlor 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Metribuzin 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Monochlorobenzene 1/07 - 12/01 0-0 µg/L No Paraquat 4/07 - 4/07 0-0 µg/L No Parathion 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Pentachlorophenol 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Phorate 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Picloram 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCB) 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Prometryne 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Simazine 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No





Page 6 of 6


Unit of Measure

Exceedance

THM(NOTE: show latest annual average)

1/07 - 12/01 10.3 µg/L No

Temephos 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Terbufos 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Tetrachloroethylene 1/07 - 12/01 0-0 µg/L No 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Triallate 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Trichloroethylene 1/07 - 12/01 0-0 µg/L No 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-T)

5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No

Trifluralin 5/05 - 11/03 0-0 µg/L No Vinyl Chloride 1/07 - 12/01 0-0 µg/L No



These reports will also be available for inspection at the Toronto Water offices in Metro Hall, 18th Floor, 55 John Street, Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6 or by calling (416) 392-8222.




This page is intentionally left blank.



2009 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report

Regional Municipality of Durham Works Department

1

The Regional Municipality of Durham’s 2009 Drinking Water Quality Report is submitted to satisfy the requirement of Section 11 of Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 170/03 under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As owner and operator of drinking water systems, the Region must prepare an annual report for each system that includes the following information:

• A brief description of the drinking water system; • A list of water treatment chemicals used; • A summary of the test results covered under the reporting period; • A summary of adverse test results and other issues, including corrective actions

taken;• A description of major expenses incurred to install, repair or replace equipment.

The Regional Municipality of Durham owns and operates thirteen (13) drinking water systems, twelve (12) of which are covered by this report. The drinking water system supplying water to the Uxbridge Industrial Park (Uxville) is no longer covered by this report as it is now regulated by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, O. Reg. 318/08.

Water for the Region’s municipal water supply systems comes from three sources: Lake Ontario, Lake Simcoe and groundwater wells. The Region is responsible for operating and maintaining every component of the water supply system; treatment, storage and distribution of potable water to consumers in Ajax, Pickering, Oshawa, Courtice, Whitby, Brooklin, Bowmanville, Newcastle, Newtonville, Orono, Blackstock, Port Perry, Uxbridge, Greenbank, Sunderland, Cannington and Beaverton.

The Region operates and maintains:

• 6 surface water supply plants • 22 water storage facilities • 16 pumping stations • 22 groundwater wells • 2,387km of watermains

The booster pumping stations and water storage facilities are located throughout the distribution systems to pump and store water at sufficient pressure. There must be adequate pressure and water storage throughout the system to meet peak water consumption demands, as well as extraordinary demands, such as fire emergencies.

Drinking Water QualityDrinking water quality is monitored extensively at each stage of the water treatment process. In-plant samples are collected and tested on site throughout the day by licensed operators, while on-line analyzers continuously monitor chlorine residual, turbidity and other quality-related parameters. In addition to on-site quality control, the Region collects and tests samples for bacteriological, inorganic and organic parameters, as required by O. Reg. 170/03. These samples are analyzed at the Regional



2009 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report

Regional Municipality of Durham Works Department

2

Environmental Laboratory in Pickering. The laboratory is accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation and licensed by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE).

Monitoring the bacteriological quality of water is imperative as the presence of disease-causing bacteria, protozoa and viruses in drinking water can be a significant threat to public health. Bacteriological quality is monitored on a daily basis, with samples being collected at three (3) stages of the drinking water system; the raw water entering the drinking water system, the treated water leaving the system and the treated water in the distribution system. Inorganic parameters can be naturally occurring in the environment or be present as a result of industrial or agricultural activities. Organic parameters are present as a result of industrial and municipal waste, urban and agricultural runoff, and the natural decomposition of biological matter.

Bacteriological, inorganic and organic parameters must be less than their standard or objective, as listed in the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards, O. Reg. 169/03, under the Safe Drinking Water Act. All inorganic and organic results listed in this report are from treated water samples.

Drinking Water Quality ManagementAll of the Region's drinking water systems are accredited to the Environmental Management Standard ISO 14001:2004, the Quality Management Standard ISO 9001:2008 and the MOE Drinking Water Quality Management Standard (DWQMS). DWQMS has been developed to integrate quality management into the operation of all municipal drinking water systems in Ontario. DWQMS specifies the minimum requirements for a quality management system in an effort to protect the health of individuals who consume Ontario's drinking water.

As a result of recommendations made after the Walkerton Inquiry, Ontario is currently implementing a new approvals program; the Municipal Drinking Water Licensing Program. The program has five components:

• Drinking Water Works Permit; • Accepted Operational Plan, which includes a quality management system that is

based on Ontario’s DWQMS; • Accredited Operating Authority; • Approved Financial Plan; • Permit to Take Water.

For more information on the licensing program visit the MOE Drinking Water Ontario website at: www.ene.gov.on.ca/en/water/



The Regional Municipality of Durham 2009 Annual Report

Drinking Water System Number: 220008890

Municipal Drinking Water License Number: 003-111

Drinking Water System Name: Ajax Drinking Water System

Drinking Water System Owner: The Regional Municipality of Durham

Drinking Water System Category: Large Municipal Residential

This Annual Drinking Water Quality Report for calendar year 2009 is designed to inform you about your drinking water quality. This report has been prepared to satisfy Section 11 of Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 170/03. O. Reg. 170/03 sets requirements for drinking water systems with regard to sampling and testing, levels of treatment, licensing of staff, and notification of authorities and the public about water quality. Copies of this report can be found in hard copy at the Regional Municipality of Durham Headquarters building located at 605 Rossland Road East, Whitby or on our website at www.durham.ca. Further information on the Drinking Water Regulations can be found on the Ministry of the Environment website at www.ene.gov.on.ca.

Drinking Water System Process Description Ajax Drinking Water System

GeneralThe Ajax Drinking Water System is a surface water treatment facility that supplies potable water to consumers in the Town of Ajax and City of Pickering. The plant is a Class IV, direct filtration design water treatment plant with a rated capacity of 163,500m3/day. Ajax Water Supply Plant feeds a Class II distribution system, and a Class III trunk distribution system. The distribution and supply system is owned and operated by the Regional Municipality of Durham.

The source water for the treatment process is drawn from Lake Ontario (surface water). The water supply system includes:

Zebra mussel control (sodium hypochlorite) Screening Pre-chlorination

Ajax page 1



Low lift pumping pH adjustment (sulphuric acid) Coagulation (aluminum sulphate) Flocculation Filtration Post chlorination/dechlorination (sodium bisulphite)

• Fluoridation (hydrofluosilicic acid) Water storage and high lift pumping Distribution

Raw Water SupplyRaw water is drawn from Lake Ontario through a 2,100mm diameter intake pipe extending 2,506m into the lake. The intake structure is located at a depth of 18m.Five (5) 100mm diameter lines are located outside the intake pipe. Three (3) lines are used for raw water sampling and two lines are dedicated to the delivery of chlorine solution to a zebra mussel chlorine diffuser that is used for disinfection and control of zebra mussels. The chlorine residual and turbidity are continuously monitored by analyzers. Sulphuric acid can be added for pH adjustment to enhance disinfection, coagulation and flocculation.

Coagulation/FlocculationThe water flows through a traveling screen to remove large solids and continues towards the low lift pumps. Aluminum sulphate (alum) is added to the incoming water upstream from the flocculation tanks. Gentle mixing of the alum with the water occurs as the water passes through the six (6) sets of hydraulic spiral up-flow flocculation tanks. Each tank contains three (3) flocculation cells.

FiltrationParticulate matter that is present in the raw water is captured by the flocculation particles and deposited on the top of the filters. The water supply plant has six (6) dual media filters to remove floc particles. Four (4) of the filters use granulated activated carbon (GAC) and two (2) use anthracite. GAC is used to assist taste and odour control. Three vertical centrifugal pumps are available for backwashing the filters. The backwashed water is discharged to two tanks and two sedimentation tanks to allow for settling of the suspended solids. The settled solids are pumped to the sanitary sewer. The dechlorinated clear supernatant is discharged back to Lake Ontario.

Disinfection and FluoridationFiltered water passes through the filter under-drain into the reservoir. The water in the reservoir then enters the clear well and eventually the high lift pump suction well. The high lift pumps deliver pressurized, treated water to the distribution system. Disinfection is controlled by the addition of chlorine and sodium bisulphite at multiple application points throughout the plant. Sodium bisulphite is used to manage chlorine residuals. Consistent disinfection is ensured by continuous online monitoring of the chlorine residual throughout the

Ajax page 2



water supply plant. Fluoride (hydrofluosilicic acid) is added to water for the prevention of tooth decay.

Distribution SystemThe distribution system delivers the treated water through 701km of watermains in six (6) pressure zones. The distribution system has five (5) booster stations, one (1) elevated tank and three (3) reservoirs with a combined water storage capacity of 84,780m3. The Ajax distribution system has the capability to receive water from the Whitby distribution system if required.

Monetary expenses incurred during this reporting period

Under Section 11 of O. Reg. 170/03, a description of any major expenses incurred during this reporting period must be included in the annual report.The details of major expenses for this drinking water system are as follows:

Watermain rehabilitation project – Cathodic protection - $163,273 Watermain rehabilitation project – Cement mortar lining - $49,212 Rebuild transfer pump #2 - $13,950

Ajax page 3



Incident Date Result

May 28 Positive

July 5 0

July 10 0.0 mg/L

August 24 0.0 mg/L

September 10 0.02 mg/L

September 19 30 CFU/100mL

September 30 Positive

October 8 1 CFU/100mL

October 31 16 CFU/100mL

Number of Samples Range of E.Coli MF

Raw 205 ND - 11Treated 2 NDDistribution 216 ND

Number of Samples E. Coli P/A

Raw - -Treated 205 ADistribution 1752 A


Range of HPC Samples

Raw - -Treated 207 ND - 120Distribution 1028 ND - 260*Number in parentheses represents number of exceedence(s).

Number of Samples Range of Results Unit of Measure

Turbidity - Filter Effluent 8760 0.015 - 0.506 NTU

Fluoride - Plant 8760 0.09 - 1.31* mg/L

Free Chlorine - Plant 8760 0.01 - 2.02 mg/L

Free Chlorine - Distribution 8760 0.11 - 2.11 mg/L

Total Coliforms (distribution) Resample and 2 vicinity samples collected. September 30

Turbidity is a measure of particles in water.

Must be sufficient to ensure disinfection has been achieved.

Recommended level of at least 0.20 mg/L in distribution system to maintain microbiological quality, 0.05 mg/L is the minimum.

Chlorine (plant) Flushed, samples collected. September 10

Total Coliforms (distribution) Resample and 2 vicinity samples collected. September 19

Chlorine (plant) Flushed, samples collected. July 10

Chlorine (plant) Flushed, samples collected. August 24

Resample and 2 vicinity samples collected. May 28

Low Pressure (distribution) Pressure restored, system flushed. July 5

Corrective Action Date

October 8

October 31Total Coliforms (distribution)

Corrective Action

Resample and 2 vicinity samples collected.

Resample and 2 vicinity samples collected.

Parameter

Total Coliforms (distribution)

Total Coliforms (distribution)

Parameter Description

ND - 2200ND

ND - 30

A - P(2)*

Operational testing done under Schedule 7, 8 or 9 of O. Reg. 170/03 during the period covered by this Annual Report.

Fluoride is added to water to prevent tooth decay.*Indicates instrument malfunction, reading may not be accurate.

Summary of all adverse water quality incidents reported to Spills Action Centre in accordance with Subsection 18(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act or Section 16-4 of Schedule 16 of O. Reg. 170/03.

For a description of terms and abbreviations, refer to the glossary at the end of the report.

Microbiological testing done under Schedule 10, 11 or 12 of O. Reg. 170/03, during the period covered by this Annual Report.

Range of Total Coliform MF

Total Coliform P/A

-A

Ajax page 4



Date of legal instrument issued Parameter Date Sampled Result Unit of

Measure

Gross Beta Jan - Nov 0.09 - 0.13 Bq/LTritium Jan - Nov 1.2 - 12.8 Bq/L

Gross Alpha Jan - Nov <0.4 Bq/LGross Beta Jan - Nov 0.06 - 0.07 Bq/L

Tritium Jan - Dec <5.0 - 12.0 Bq/LCesium-134 Jan - Nov <0.3 Bq/LCesium-137 Jan - Nov <0.3 Bq/LCobalt-60 Jan - Nov <0.3 Bq/LIodine-131 Jan - Nov <0.3 Bq/L

Chlorine Jan - Dec 0.00 - 0.67 mg/LSuspended Solids Jan - Dec 5.5 - 24.8 mg/L

Parameter Number of Samples Results Range Unit of Measure MACExceedance

Antimony 5 0.0004 - 0.0008 mg/L No

Arsenic 5 0.0005 - 0.0009 mg/L No

Barium 2 0.021 - 0.024 mg/L No

Boron 2 0.019 - 0.022 mg/L No

Cadmium 5 ND mg/L No

Chromium 5 ND mg/L No

Mercury 2 ND ug/L No

Selenium 5 ND - 0.0009 mg/L No

Sodium 4 16.3 - 17.2 mg/L No

Uranium 2 0.0003 mg/L No

Nitrite 16 ND mg/L No

Nitrate 16 0.20 - 0.46 mg/L No

* All parameters occur naturally in the environment.

Location Type Number of Samples Range of Lead Results Unit of Measure

Plumbing 228 ND - 6.5 ug/LDistribution 29 ND - 2.7 ug/L

Samples taken from plumbing do not need to be reported to Spills Action Centre as per Section 18 of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Schedule 16 of O. Reg. 170/03.

Fertilizer.

Runoff from road salt.

Summary of treated water inorganic parameters tested under Schedule 13 and 23 of O. Reg. 170/03 during the period covered by this Annual Report.


00

Power generation.

Agrigulture runoff, landfill leachate and animal waste.

Refineries, mines, chemical manufacturing.

Industrial.

Industrial.

Metal refineries, oil drilling.

Potential Sources*

Fire retardants, ceramics, electronics, solder.

Mining.

Industrial.

Summary of lead testing under Schedule 15.1 of O. Reg. 170/03 during the period covered by this Annual Report.

Industrial.

Not all radionuclide results were available at the time of printing.


May 25, 2006 Raw Water

Treated Water

Residue Management

Ajax page 5




Alachlor 2 ND ug/L No

Aldicarb 2 ND ug/L No

Aldrin + Dieldrin 2 ND ug/L No

Atrazine + N-dealkylatedmetobolites

2 ND ug/L No

Azinphos-methy1 2 ND ug/L No

Bendiocarb 2 ND ug/L No

Benzene 2 ND ug/L No

Benzo(a)pyrene 2 ND ug/L No

Bromoxynil 2 ND ug/L No

Carbaryl 2 ND ug/L No

Carbofuran 2 ND ug/L No

Carbon Tetrachloride 2 ND ug/L No

Chlordane (Total) 2 ND ug/L No

Chlorpyrifos 2 ND ug/L No

Cyanazine 2 ND ug/L No

Diazinon 2 ND ug/L No

Dicamba 2 ND ug/L No

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 2 ND ug/L No

Summary of treated water organic parameters tested under Schedule 24 of O. Reg. 170/03 during the period covered by this Annual Report.

Agricultural herbicide.

Chemical and industrial factories.

Residue from banned insecticide.

Agricultural, household insecticide.

Agricultural, residential herbicide.

Agricultural, livestock, operation, residential insecticide.


Agricultural, forestry, household insecticide.

Agricultural insecticide.

Chemical and industrial activities.

Insecticide.

Insecticide.

Plastics manufacturing, leaking fuel tanks.

Formed from the incomplete burning of organic matter.



Potential Sources



Ajax page 6




1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2 ND ug/L No

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) + metabolites

2 ND ug/L No

1,2-Dichloroethane 2 ND ug/L No

1,1-Dichloroethylene(vinylidene chloride) 2 ND ug/L No

Dichloromethane 2 ND ug/L No

2,4-dichlorophenol 2 ND ug/L No

2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) 2 ND ug/L No

Diclofop-methy1 2 ND ug/L No

Dimethoate 2 ND ug/L No

Dinoseb 2 ND ug/L No

Diquat 2 ND ug/L No

Diuron 2 ND ug/L No

Glyphosate 2 ND ug/L No

Heptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide 2 ND ug/L No

Lindane (Total) 2 ND ug/L No

Malathion 2 ND ug/L No

Methoxychlor 2 ND ug/L No

Metolachlor 2 ND ug/L No

Metribuzin 2 ND ug/L No

Monochlorobenzene 2 ND ug/L No

Paraquat 2 ND ug/L No

Parathion 2 ND ug/L No


Industrial and agricultural chemical factories and dry cleaning facilities.

Agricultural, aquatic herbicide.


Agricultural, pharmaceutical insecticide.

Pest control insecticide.



Agricultural, aquatic herbicide.

Agricultural, industrial herbicide.

Agricultural, forestry, household herbicide.


Agricultural, residential herbicide.



Herbicide residue.

Industrial chemical factories.

Industrial chemical factories.

Pharmaceutical and chemical factories.

Industrial contamination, reaction with chlorine.

Chemical and industrial factories.


Potential Sources

Ajax page 7




Pentachlorophenol 2 ND ug/L No

Phorate 2 ND ug/L No

Picloram 2 ND ug/L No

PolychlorinatedBiphenyls(PCB) 2 ND ug/L No

Popometryne 2 ND ug/L No

Simazine 2 ND ug/L No

THM - Distribution (annual average) 12 28.6 ug/L No

Temephos 2 ND ug/L No

Terbufos 2 ND ug/L No

Tetrachloroethylene 2 ND ug/L No

2,3,4,6 - Tetrachlorophenol 2 ND ug/L No

Triallate 2 ND ug/L No

Trichloroethylene 2 ND ug/L No

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2 ND ug/L No

2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T)

2 ND ug/L No

Trifluralin 2 ND ug/L No

Vinyl Chloride 2 ND ug/L No

Not Applicable - -

Potential Sources

-

Inorganic or organic parameter(s) that exceed half the standard prescribed in Schedule 2 of the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards.

Unit of MeasureParameter Result Date of Sample

Metal degreasing sites and other factories.

Pesticide manufacturing.

Industrial herbicide residue.

Leaching from PVC pipes; discharge from plastics factories.



Leaching from PVC pipes; discharge from factories; dry cleaners and auto shops (metal degreaser).

Wood preservative.




By-product of chlorination of drinking water.

Insecticide for mosquito, black fly control.

Pesticide, wood preservative rseidue.


Industrial herbicide.

Residue from various industrial uses.

Ajax page 8

Approved January 18, 2012TOC-1

Appendix C: Conceptual Water Budget

Table of ConTenTs

WaTer budgeT and sTress assessMenT

C1 ConCepTual WaTer budgeT .................................................................................C1-1

C1.1 Data Resources ....................................................................................................................................... C1-1 C1.2 Methods of Analysis ............................................................................................................................... C1-2 C1.3 Limitations: Data and Methods ............................................................................................................. C1-5 C1.3.1 Database Management ................................................................................................................. C1-5 C1.3.2 Data Limitations ............................................................................................................................ C1-6 C1.4 References ............................................................................................................................................... C1-8

C2 Tier 1 WaTer budgeT and sTress assessMenT ..................................................C2-1

C2.1 Methods of Analysis ............................................................................................................................... C2-1 C2.2 Limitations: Data and Methods ............................................................................................................. C2-4 C2.3 Uncertainty, Data and Knowledge ........................................................................................................ C2-4 C2.4 Surface Water Stress Assessment ........................................................................................................ C2-5 C2.5 Surface Water Supply and Demand .................................................................................................... C2-13 C2.6 Assessment of Required Storage ........................................................................................................ C2-24 C2.7 Groundwater Stress Assessment ........................................................................................................ C2-25 C2.7.1 Calculations .................................................................................................................................. C2-25 C2.7.2 Inputs to Stress Assessment Calculations ................................................................................ C2-25 C2.8 Stress Assessment Summary .............................................................................................................. C2-26

C3 Tier 3 WaTer budgeT and loCal risk assessMenT Workplan - sTouffville .... 113

lisT of figures

Figure C-1: Water Budget Process ....................................................................................................................... C1-4Figure C-2: PRMS/MODFLOW model process integration (Earthfx, 2007) .................................................. C2-2Figure C-3: Flow Duration Curve for Black Creek near Weston Rd. ............................................................. C2-14Figure C-4: Flow Duration Curve for Don River at Todmorden ..................................................................... C2-14Figure C-5: Flow Duration Curve for Don River at York Mills........................................................................ C2-15Figure C-6: Flow Duration Curve for Duffins Cr. above Pickering ................................................................ C2-15Figure C-7: Flow Duration Curve for Duffins Cr. at Ajax ................................................................................ C2-16Figure C-8: Flow Duration Curve for Humber River at Weston Rd. ............................................................... C2-16Figure C-9: Flow Duration Curve for Little Rouge Creek near Locust Hill ................................................... C2-17Figure C-10: Flow Duration Curve Etobicoke Creek below Q.E.W. .............................................................. C2-17Figure C-11: Flow Duration Curve for Highland Creek near West Hill. ........................................................ C2-18Figure C-12: Flow Duration Curve for Humber River at Elder Mills ............................................................. C2-18Figure C-13: Flow Duration Curve for Humber River near Palgrave ............................................................. C2-19Figure C-14: Flow Duration Curve for East Humber near Pine Grove .......................................................... C2-19Figure C-15: Flow Duration Curve for Mimico Cr. at Islington ...................................................................... C2-20Figure C-16: Flow Duration Curve for West Humber at Highway 7. ............................................................. C2-20Figure C-17: Annual Surface Water Supply and Demand for Subwatershed ET04 ...................................... C2-21Figure C-18: Annual Surface Water Supply and Demand for Subwatershed MI03 ...................................... C2-21Figure C-19: Annual Surface Water Supply and Demand for Subwatershed RO07 ...................................... C2-22

Approved January 18, 2012 TOC-2


Figure C-20: Annual Surface Water Supply and Demand for Subwatershed HU04...................................... C2-22Figure C-21: Annual Surface Water Supply and Demand for Subwatershed CA01 ...................................... C2-23Figure C-22: Annual Surface Water Supply and Demand for Subwatershed RO02 ...................................... C2-23

lisT of Tables

Table C-1: Data Management Needs ................................................................................................................... C1-6Table C-2: Data Limitations ................................................................................................................................... C1-6Table C-3: Surface Water Supply Values (QP50) in m3/s .................................................................................. C2-5Table C-4: Surface Water Reserve Values ((QP90)in m3/s) ............................................................................. C2-7Table C-5: Surface Water Demand Summary by Subwatershed ...................................................................... C2-9Table C-6: Surface Water Stress Assessment Results ...................................................................................... C2-11Table C-7: Required Depth of Storage Calculations – Catchment CA01 ........................................................ C2-24Table C-8: Required Depth of Storage Calculations – Catchment HU04 ........................................................ C2-25Table C-9: Groundwater Stress Assessment Summary (Current) .................................................................. C2-26Table C-10: Groundwater Stress Assessment Summary (Future) ................................................................. C2-28Table C-11: Average Annual Groundwater Demand (Current) ...................................................................... C2-30Table C-12: Average Annual Groundwater Demand (Future) ........................................................................ C2-32Table C-13: Monthly Groundwater Stress Assessment (Current) ................................................................. C2-34Table C-14: Monthly Groundwater Stress Assessment (Future) ................................................................... C2-36Table C-15: Groundwater Usage Data ............................................................................................................... C2-38Table C-16: Current Water Use Estimates by Subwatershed .......................................................................... C2-53Table C-17: Future Water Use Estimates by Subwatershed ............................................................................ C2-55Table C-18: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Current Conditions, January) .............................................. C2-56Table C-19: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Current Conditions, February) ........................................... C2-58Table C-20: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Current Conditions, March) ................................................ C2-60Table C-21: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Current Conditions, April) ................................................... C2-62Table C-22: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Current Conditions, May) .................................................... C2-64Table C-23: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Current Conditions, June) ................................................... C2-66Table C-24: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Current Conditions, July)..................................................... C2-68Table C-25: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Current Conditions, August) ............................................... C2-70Table C-26: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Current Conditions, September) ......................................... C2-72Table C-27: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Current Conditions, October) ............................................. C2-74Table C-28: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Current Conditions, November) ......................................... C2-76Table C-29: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Current Conditions, December) ......................................... C2-78Table C-30: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Future Conditions, January) ................................................ C2-80Table C-31: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Future Conditions, February) ............................................. C2-82Table C-32: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Future Conditions, March) .................................................. C2-84Table C-33: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Future Conditions, April) ..................................................... C2-86Table C-34: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Future Conditions, May) ...................................................... C2-88Table C-35: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Future Conditions, June) ..................................................... C2-90Table C-36: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Future Conditions, July) ....................................................... C2-92Table C-37: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Future Conditions, August) ................................................. C2-94Table C-38: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Future Conditions, September) ........................................... C2-96Table C-39: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Future Conditions, October) ............................................... C2-98Table C-40: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Future Conditions, November) ......................................... C2-100Table C-41: Groundwater Stress Assessment (Future Conditions, December) ......................................... C2-102

Approved January 18, 2012C1-1


C1 ConCepTual WaTer budgeT

C1.1 daTa resourCes

Using available data, the TRCA study team accounted for the following elements:

•Climate,

•Geology/Physiography,

•LandCover,

•Groundwater,

•SurfaceWater(includingreservoirsandmajordischarges);and,

•WaterDemand.

The integrated conceptual assessments were undertaken where sufficient continuous data exists:

•StreamGaugeNetworkstreamgaugestations(orHYDATstations),withsufficientperiodsofrecord(generally >5 years of continuous data),

•activeorinactiveEnvironmentCanada(WaterSurveyofCanada),

•Theclimatedatacollectedover36years(1960-1996)fromtheOshawaairportandtheOshawaWaterPollutionControlPlant;and,

•PermittedTakings(2005MOEPTTWdatabase).

Available climate data obtained from the Environment Canada stations is available from the YPDT database shared amongst the Coalition of Authorities on the Moraine (CAMC), the Regional Municipalities of York Peel and Durham, and the City of Toronto. More recent data was queried online from the EC website by month and added to the historical data where possible. CLOSPA-owned climate station data was obtained from an in-house database, though migration of this data to the YPDT database is underway.

Because most of the local Environment Canada operated stations were decommissioned over the past several years, the spatial distribution of current climate monitoring stations has been identified as a gap locally in the support of current and future local water budgeting, amongst other studies. TRCA is currently investigating, in partnership, the commissioning of a centrally located comprehensive climate station to supplement the existing network. It is anticipated that this station will also collect evaporation data.

Soil classifications are based on the National Soil Database data model for Detailed Soil Surveys found on the CanSIS website (http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/detailed/intro.html). Where applicable, Ontario Soil data items follow The Canadian System of Soil Classification (2nd Edition) 1987 (http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/manuals/cssc2.html) or The Canadian System of Soil Classification (third edition) 1998 (http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/ references/1998sc_a.html).

To complement the thermal classification exercise, airborne thermography is used to collect the locations of springs and seepage areas. Potential springs and seeps in the Oak Ridges Moraine were mapped from Aerial Thermography collected between midnight and 3 a.m. on March 1, 1994. Data is extracted from thermal infrared images that show a contrast in surface temperatures on a cold winter night. In addition, warm areas on the thermal image may coincide with portions of streams and potential reaches of significant groundwater discharge locations, noted as potential open water. Data are then digitized from NTS map sheets into vector format. This information will be combined with available discharge mapping to help increase understanding of groundwater discharge.

Approved January 18, 2012 C1-2


Stream gauging provides critical information needed for TRCA’s flood forecasting and warning program. This information is also important to water budgeting analyses that are necessary for source water protection. Total flows, baseflows, mean daily flows, and mean monthly flows are derived from the raw level data and stream section survey information.

C1.2 MeThods of analysis

The purpose of water budget analyses is twofold. They aim to identify watershed communities where the sustainability of water supplies is questionable and to highlight key factors that may limit the sustainability, so that appropriate risk management activities can be completed. This analysis is phased or tiered to focus on areas in need, starting at a regional scale and successively focusing in on smaller areas if necessary. The purpose of the analysis is to

•Estimatethequantityofwaterflowingthroughawatershed,

•Understandthepertinentprocessesandpathwayswaterfollows;and,

•Assessthesustainabilityofwatersupplysourcesfromaquantityperspective.

The first phase is a regional evaluation of all existing water-related data, focusing on various aspects including climate, land use, surface water, groundwater, and water use in each watershed. This phase is known as Conceptual Understanding and forms the basis for subsequent water quantity work.

The Tier 1 Screening Stress Assessment follows the Conceptual Understanding phase (see Figure C-1) and estimates the amount of water that is used currently and will be needed in the future (demand), and compares this to the amount of water available (supply) minus a reserve quantity (demand/(supply – reserve)). The reserve quantity represents the amount of water needed to sustain activities outside of drinking water, such as for maintaining groundwater discharge, supporting the ecosystem, diluting sewage treatment plant effluent, and maintaining navigation. Those areas where municipal drinking water supplies (demand) exceed a certain threshold will be subject to further investigations, namely a Tier 2 Refined Stress Assessment. All areas of the province are to conduct the Conceptual Understanding and Tier 1 analyses.

The subsequent Tier 2 analysis, should it be necessary, focuses in on a smaller area (subwatershed) and will test the assessment results of Tier 1 using newly collected information and more sophisticated technical tools (e.g., numerical groundwater flow models). Should the Tier 2 results suggest that an area may be experiencing stress from a water quantity perspective, then the area will progress to a Tier 3 Risk Assessment for the local area.

The following sections describe the quantitative conceptual understanding undertaken to date by TRCA. The general steps undertaken to generate the estimates are summarized as follows:

•Descriptionofthewatershedconditions,includingasummaryofstreamflow,totalprecipitationfromlocal gauging stations as well as all other hydrological components,

•Estimationofthegroundwaterdischargecomponentthroughhydrographseparations(arangeofvaluesdependent on methodology selected),

•Availableregionalgeologymodelsarecurrentlyusedtodeterminepotentialareasofdischarge.Itisassumed that the amount of groundwater discharge equals groundwater recharge where the change in storage is considered to be negligible within the catchment area. Interflow is included in either of runoff or groundwater discharge,



•ComparisonofETcalculationstoestimatesprovidedinexistingsubwatershed,drainageordevelopmentplan proposals for sensitive areas where possible,

•Waterbudgetoutputcomprisedofawatershed-basedquantificationofhydrologicalcomponentsprepared,

•Themeanannualpotentialevapotranspiration(calculatedbytheThornthwaitemethod),

•Calculatewatersurplus(infiltrationandrunoff)accordingtothemethodologyofThornthwaiteandMather (1957). This was calculated using monthly mean temperature and precipitation data for 38 climatestationswithinorneartheRegionofDurham;and,

•PartitionthewatersurplusintorunoffandinfiltrationaccordingtothecoefficientmethodoutlinedinOntario Ministry of the Environment (1995) utilizing soil characteristics, topography and vegetative cover.

There are also a number of water budget investigations being conducted within TRSPA jurisdiction as part of the Regional YPDT Groundwater Management Study. The methods being utilized include:

•HSP-FModels(HydrologicalSimulationProgram–Fortran),

•WABAS(WaterBalanceAnalysisSystem;ClarificaInc.);and,

•MODFLOW,athree-dimensionalnumericalgroundwaterflowmodel(CAMC-Earthfx,2006).

HSP-F is a numerical model that is capable of simulating hydrologic processes, pollutant generation and transport processes both within catchments and along watercourse networks. This tool has been used to assess the potential benefits of implementing stormwater management practices. The model was calibrated to streamflow, surface water quality and sewer discharge data.

Water budget estimates for both existing and future Official Plan land use scenarios have been conducted by ClarificaInc.(2002;2003a;2003b)usingtheWABASmethodology(Grahametal.,1997)fortheUpperHumberRiver watershed, the Petticoat Creek watershed and the Duffins Creek watershed. Inputs to the model include:

•Dailyprecipitation,

•Averageormaximumdailytemperature,

•Panevaporation,

•Dailystreamflowmeasurements;and,

•Physicalbasinparameters,includingimperviousness,interceptionabstractions,vegetationandsoilcharacteristics.

Theoutputsfromthemodelaretimeseriesof;

•Runoff,

•Infiltration,

•Evaporation;and,

•Storageconditionswithineachwaterreservoir(perviousandimperviousinterceptionstorage,surficialsoil storage and snow pack storage).



figure C-1: Water budget process



With respect to the regional numerical groundwater flow model (MODFLOW), which encompasses the study area, initial estimates of applied net recharge on a regional scale were developed and used as input into the Regional Model developed for the YPDT Groundwater Management Study (Earthfx, 2004).

Data on land use, climate and soil properties were analyzed to provide the initial estimates of the spatial distribution of groundwater recharge. The primary influence on the recharge distribution was assumed to be the surficial geology as mapped by the GSC. The initial estimates used in the model were adjusted during model calibration. Additional calibration is required as the Core Model is applied over the study area. Recharge rates in the preliminary regional model assessment were highest over the ORM due to the sandy soils and hummocky topography (360 mm/a) and lowest in areas covered with lake sediments or organic deposits.

Groundwater discharge estimates from streamflow hydrograph separation basically involve removing the runoff or storm/melt events that form peaks on the hydrograph over relatively short durations (hours to days). The groundwater component is considered to be the more consistent contributor to streamflow with annual fluctuations seen as gradual changes in the hydrograph. The three-dimensional numerical groundwater flow model (MODFLOW) being constructed for the ORM is using groundwater discharge estimates from hydrograph separation as one of the flux calibration targets.

From daily average streamflow measurements, the groundwater discharge component is assumed to be approximately equal to a 5 day running average of the 7 day running minimum daily average flow. This method issimilartothatutilizedbytheWABASmethod(Clarifica,2002);howevertheWABASmethodfocusesontherunoff component when calibrating the soil moisture balance model. The WABAS methodology was coupled with the MODFLOW model for a pilot water budget analysis for three watersheds within the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (Earthfx Inc. and Gerber Geosciences Inc.)

The reader is referred to the Conceptual Water Budget report for the TRSPA jurisdiction prepared by Gartner Lee (2007).

C1.3 liMiTaTions: daTa and MeThods

Efforts were made throughout the conceptual water budget assessment to identify database management gaps, key analytical gaps and knowledge gaps. These gaps are being addressed where possible in facilitating the move forward activities.

C1.3.1 database Management

Data management that is undergoing of refinement arise when database structures are no longer functional for the required analysis, or are not scalable or linkable. In addition, gaps arise when database population or metadata tracking are required. Gaps are addressed recognizing the appropriate scale of the specific study being undertaken have been identified for water budgeting purposes and are primarily related to (Table C-1):

•Streamflowstage-flowrelationships,

•Hydrologicandwaterusedatabasestructuredevelopment;and,

•DataloaderandArcHydrodevelopment.



Table C-1: data Management needs

Data Management

WC Deliverable Data Set Name or Source Data Problem Comment

Integrated Hydrologic Database Hydrologic data. requires update YPDT db data loader requires structure update.


Various data sources. requires update Additional monitoring locations/data to be imported.

PTTW Database MOE PTTW data and field survey data.

requires update Internal database to be developed/ populated.

C1.3.2 data limitations

Data that are undergoing refinement have been identified for water budgeting purposes and are summarized in Table C-2. Identified items are generally consistent with those reported in the characterization report:

•Futuredevelopmentareas,

•Surfacewaterthermalclassifications,

•Seepageandspringsdelineation,

•Serviced/unservicedareasandstormwatermanagementfacilities,

•Precipitationdistribution,andevaporation;and,

•Spatialandtemporaldistributionoflowflows.Whilesomeofthesegapshavebeendealtwithinthisrevision, (e.g., thermal classification), several more will be addressed during the Tier 1 reporting.

Table C-2: data limitations

Identified Data that is undergoing Refinement (not available at the time of reporting)

Water Budget and Stress Assessment

Component Data Set Name or Source Data Problem Comment

Integrated Hydrologic Database Hydrologic data. Requires update YPDT db data loader requires structure update.


Various data sources. Requires update Additional monitoring locations/data to be imported.



Identified Data that is undergoing Refinement (not available at the time of reporting)

Water Budget and Stress Assessment

Component Data Set Name or Source Data Problem Comment

Gauge Database/Installations TRCA data Requires update Internal database to be developed/populated.

Stormwater Management Facili-ties Map

Upper/lower tier municipalities. Field verification.

Partially populated Data requested.

Precipitation Distr. Map

ET Zone Map (draft PRMS map included)

AES (CDCD), TRCA data. Partially populated too sparse Data gaps to be filled. Maps to be completed.

Seepage and Springs Map TRCA field program Partially populated Field surveying and digitizing required. Historical Thermography mapping is included.

Aggregate Resources Update MNR OGDE, MNDM, Municipal, field surveys.

Partially populated Existing data requires orthophotogra-phy review to verify locations.

Integrated Monitoring Network Site Locations and Data Review

TRCA, Region studies. Requires update A review of monitoring needs is required. Paucity of climate data to be addressed.

Water Well Information System (WWIS)

MOE data and field survey data. Requires update Data requested.

Knowledge Gaps

Refinement of aquifer characterization and flow system understanding including the orientation of bedrock valley systems and significant area recharge and discharge mapping;

Ongoing refinement of the existing surface water understanding (refining the tested PRMS model);

Ongoing refinement of the existing groundwater flow understanding (refining the existing Core MODFLOW model);

Understanding of the interaction of the surface water and groundwater flow, including wetlands, within the system;

Development of acceptable water use targets to protect both the resource and the aquatic ecosystem; and,

Development of methodology and tools to provide potential spills response analysis which will involve overland flow, stream travel and ground-water flow including the unsaturated zone transport.

A more comprehensive understanding of the QDEMAND components of the water budget, including assessing the permits and actual water use.



Knowledge gaps identified relate to the analysis and tool adjustment required to quantify the water budget estimates and to understand how the flow system operates. These tools enable predictions of impacts from potential future changes such as climate or land use change. Identified knowledge gaps with respect to the conceptual (to date) include:

•Refinementofaquifercharacterizationandflowsystemunderstandingincludingtheorientationofbedrock valley systems and significant area recharge and discharge mapping,

•Refinementoftheexistingsurfacewaterunderstanding(refiningthetestedPRMSmodel),

•Refinementoftheexistinggroundwaterflowunderstanding(refiningtheexistingCoreMODFLOWmodel),

•Understandingoftheinteractionofthesurfacewaterandgroundwaterflow,includingwetlands,withinthe system,

•Developmentofacceptablewaterusetargetstoprotectboththeresourceandtheaquaticecosystem;and,

•Developmentofmethodologyandtoolstoprovidepotentialspillsresponseanalysiswhichwillinvolveoverland flow, stream travel and groundwater flow including the unsaturated zone transport.

C1.4 references

Clarifica Inc., 2002: Water Budget in Urbanizing Watersheds: Duffins Creek Watershed. Prepared for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, May 21, 2002.

Clarifica Inc., 2003a: Water Budget in Urbanizing Watersheds: Upper Humber River Sub-watershed. Prepared for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, March 2003.

Clarifica Inc., 2003b: Water Budget in Urbanizing Watersheds: Petticoat Watershed. Prepared for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, DRAFT March 2003.

Kassenaar, J.D.C. and Wexler, E.J. 2006: Groundwater Modelling of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area. CAMC-YPDT Technical Report #01-06.

Thornthwaite and Mather, 1957: Instructions and Tables for Computing Potential Evapotranspiration and the Water Balance.

Puopolo, J. and Usher, S., 2006. Conceptual Understanding of the Watersheds, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.



C2 Tier 1 WaTer budgeT and sTress assessMenT

C2.1 MeThods of analysis

The Tier 1 Water Budget methodology assessed the existing hydrologic conditions within the watershed using both Conceptual Understanding and numerical modelling information developed through the Source Water Protection program and the CAMC-YPDT Groundwater Study reporting. The conceptual model development involved the collection and analysis of baseline information related to climate, surface water and groundwater.

The purpose of a Tier 1 analysis is to estimate the hydrologic stress of subwatersheds in order to screen out areas that are unstressed from a water quantity perspective. Future efforts and resources (Tier 2 and 3) can then focus on areas that are stressed. At Tier 1, for each subwatershed, the Technical Rules, Nov 2009, require theevaluationoftwoscenarios:(1)currentconditions;and(2)25-yearfuturedemand.Thegoalofthecurrentconditions scenario is to identify subwatersheds that are under stress as a result of existing water takings. The goal of the 25-year future scenario is to identify additional watersheds that may become stressed as a result of additional drinking water requirements.

A planned subset of objectives specific to TRCPA’s Tier 1 numerical modelling is noted below:

•Quantifycomponentsofthehydrologiccycle,

•Applytoolsforuseinanalysis,

•Improveunderstandingofthegroundwatersystem,

•Definelinksbetweenshallowanddeeperflow,

•Assesschangesduetogroundwater/surfacewaterwithdrawal,urbanization,andclimatechange,

•Providespatialmappingofhydrologicalcomponents,

•Supportanunderstandingofflowregimesinun-gaugedwatershedsorwatershedwithapaucityofdata,

•Determinelevelsofstress(i.e.,demandvs.availablewater);and,

•Ultimatelyhelpidentifyriskstothewatershedsinaprocessconsistentwithprovincialguidance.

Following the Conceptual Understanding phase is the Tier 1 Screening Stress Assessment Tier 1 estimates the amount of water that is used currently and will be needed in the future (Demand), and compares this to the amount of water available (Supply) minus a Reserve quantity (Demand/(Supply – Reserve)). The Reserve quantity represents the amount of water that is deemed necessary to sustain other activities outside of drinking water use such as for maintaining groundwater discharge, to support the ecosystem, to dilute sewage treatment plant effluent, to maintain navigation, etc. Those areas where municipal drinking water supplies (Demand) exceed a certain threshold will be subject to further investigations, namely a Tier 2 Refined Stress Assessment.

The schematic shown in FigureC-2 depicts the processes used by the numerical models. A modified Precipitation-Runoff Modelling System (PRMS: surface water model) code developed by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) was used to estimate quantitatively the various water budget fluxes such as precipitation, interception, evaporation, potential and actual evapotranspiration, snowmelt, runoff, and groundwater interflow and infiltration (Earthfx, 2007).



figure C-2: prMs/ModfloW model process integration (earthfx, 2007)

The model integrates watershed characteristics, such as slope, aspect, elevation, soils, land use and cover, precipitation, snowpack, temperature, solar radiation. Square cells, 25 metres on a side, were used to represent the distribution of the characteristics within the watershed, and a daily water balance was calculated for



each cell for the simulation period. Daily averages were then averaged over a 19-year simulation period to determine the long-term average annual millimetres per year (mm/yr) for each water budget component. The model was calibrated to total surface water flow data and baseflow estimates from stream gauging, and to the groundwater flow model simulations.

The groundwater model, referred to as the “West Model,” was used to simulate groundwater budget components such as groundwater levels and groundwater discharge to streams (Earthfx, 2007) (). The model integrates data on the physical, geologic, and hydrologic features that govern groundwater flow in the watershed. Calibration was conducted in a trial-and-error process where results of successive model runs were primarily matched to hydraulic heads and flows interpolated from observed static water levels obtained from the MOE Water Well Information System (WWIS). Matching baseflow in the watershed was a second calibration target. A post-processing programme was used to determine lateral groundwater inflows and outflows (underflows) across the watershed boundaries. These underflows were used to adjust the calibration of both the PRMS model and the simulated groundwater discharge from the MODFLOW model.

A surface water model such as PRMS, due to its simplified representation of the groundwater flow processes, may not calibrate properly to observed streamflow if the watershed is gaining or losing significant quantities of groundwater underflow across the watershed boundary. For instance, if the stream gauge data when normalized to the drainage area above the gauge indicates higher rates of normalized flow than recorded at other gauges outside of the watershed, it may indicate that the additional flow is attributable to groundwater inflow from outside the watershed. If this groundwater inflow is not accounted for, the surface water model would need to be adjusted to account for additional groundwater recharge in the watershed. Iteratively calibrating the surface water model (PRMS) to the groundwater flow model (MODFLOW) provides a check on the simulated rates of recharge.

For example, if the PRMS model computes recharge rates that are higher in an area than the groundwater system can transmit, the MODFLOW model will simulate groundwater levels to be much higher than observed. Conversely, if recharge rates are too low, the simulated groundwater levels will also be low. This cross-calibration exercise between the two models also provides a method of determining the net underflow across watershed boundaries. These flows can be subtracted from the observed flows measured at the stream gauge to re-estimate recharge within the watershed. This type of coupling of models is termed “loosely coupled” as they are not directly connected to each other.

The reader is referred to the Tier 1 Water Budget report for the TRSPA jurisdiction prepared by TRCA (2010).The terminology of the water budget parameters used in this chapter consist of Precipitation (P), Net Precipitation (Pnet or precipitation minus interception), Interception (I), Actual Evapotranspiration (AET), Groundwater Infiltration (GWI), Groundwater Lateral (underflow) in (GWLin) and out (GWLout) of the watershed, Discharge to Streams or Groundwater Discharge (GWD) and Runoff (RO). For the purposes of this chapter, GWI is assumed to include groundwater interflow to streams and groundwater recharge to the saturated zone.

Water withdrawals are represented by groundwater use (GW use) or surface water use (SW use). These water budget components represent the key items discussed in this chapter. Long term average annual values of Pnet, I, AET, GWI, GWD and RO are reported at a watershed and subwatershed scale, along with mapping of areas of GWI and GWD.

Water budget estimates are typically normalized to units of millimetres of water distributed over a drainage area per year (mm/yr or mm/a). This is accomplished by converting flow or accumulation rates (e.g., m³/s or L/s) to total volumes per year, and then dividing by the contributing drainage area.



The most important source of water use information was the TRCA Water Use Assessment (WUA) database, built upon the MOE PTTW database. The TRCA validated the MOE PTTW database between 2003 and 2005 in the field and has been updating this database over the past two years through Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) registry postings and MOE application notifications. Field surveys of local water users collected estimates of actual usage rates, which are generally much less than the maximum permitted rates. Additional water use assessment studies completed by the Regions of Peel, York and Durham were amalgamated into thefinaldataset(Marshall,Macklin,Monaghan,2006;GolderAssociates,2003;GartnerLee,2003;Beattyand Associates, 2003). The Regions of Peel, York, and Durham subsequently provided an update of monthly groundwater use for all of their active municipal wells.

Non-serviced domestic water use was calculated by combining the unserviced population estimates by subwatershed with estimated per capita demand of 335 L/d/person from the Environment Canada water use website (www.ec.gc.ca). This value is consistent with the value recommended in Guidance Module 7.

While efforts have been made to accurately present the findings reported in this chapter, factors such as significant digits and rounding, digitizing and data interpretation may influence results. For instance, in data tables no relationship between significant digits and level of accuracy is implied, and values may not always sum to the expected total.

C2.2 liMiTaTions: daTa and MeThods

Empirical methods used to analyze simple functions of physical systems have identified limitations, such as relying on limited available data, or in the application of scale. These methods either simulate at a point or simulate a large area as a single value limiting the ability to scale down to a local area or to distribute water reservoir estimates spatially (Ely, 2006). Process-based numerical models that compute distributed water budgets are used to simulate hydrologic processes at varying scales using generally readily available data (Ely, 2006). Numerical models are generally deterministic meaning they are based on physical theories and equations, and are generally referred to as physically based models. Lumped models simplify physical characteristics by treating catchments as singular response areas using spatially averaged parameters over each area. Distributed models discretize the spatial variation of physical features into a grid or cell-type representation (Barth, 2005). The lumped approach is generally used in conceptual models, whereas distributed physically based models are used for more detailed spatial and temporal analysis and scenario testing.

C2.3 unCerTainTy, daTa and knoWledge

Uncertainty is inherent in the water budget estimation process. The accuracy of estimates relies on the:

•Quantityandqualityoftheinputdata(e.g.,relatedtostreamflow,climate,groundwaterwellrecords),

•Conceptualunderstandingofthewatersheds;and,

•Modellingcalculationmethodology.

Overall, the issues related to uncertainty, data and knowledge gaps are complex and highly qualitative. There isadegreeofuncertaintyassociatedwitheveryaspectofthewaterbudgetanalyses;however,itisimpossibleto provide a quantitative assessment of the level of uncertainty. Rather, one can only say, in very general terms, that the level is low, moderate or high.



The Technical Rules suggests that it would be reasonable to expect a low level of uncertainty in areas where data density is high, where hydrogeologic studies have been conducted, and where numerical models have been developed. This study generally satisfies all three of these criteria. It is recognized, however, that all hydrogeologic analyses have an intrinsic level of uncertainty, because one can never have enough data to fully know how conditions vary in the subsurface.

Development of the YPDT-CAMC Core Model entailed a comprehensive process of (1) collecting and filtering thelargeamountofwaterwell,monitoringwell,andothergeologicdata;(2)interpretingthegeologiclogsasbestaspossibleandbuildingaconceptualgeologicmodel;(3)assigninginitialestimatesofaquiferpropertiesandrechargeratesandthenrefiningtheestimatesthroughmodelcalibration;and(4)performingstatisticaland sensitivity analyses to demonstrate the validity of the model calibration. The report by Kassenaar and Wexler (2006) documents the procedures and focuses a great deal of attention on answering the questions related to assessing model uncertainty.

While these independent review comments increase the comfort level with the results of the modelling process, there is still the recognition that geologic data are always incomplete and that the WWIS data used in a large part to develop the models has a high degree of error and uncertainty. Data obtained from municipal monitoring networks and other high-quality sources have less uncertainty and have provided useful information in the vicinity of the municipal wellfields. The number of wells and spatial coverage of high-quality data are limited compared to the WWIS data, however. It is recommended that CLOSPA continue to improve its monitoring network over time and incorporate the available high quality data, especially within the higher stressed watersheds, and thereby reduce the level of uncertainty associated with the numerical models.

Computer models are a simplification of the real world, built from limited and potentially erroneous data, so their results should be considered with care and independently verified. It should be recognized that the passage of time affects the information provided. Environmental conditions can change. Computer simulations are based upon information that existed at the time the data and model was formulated.

C2.4 surfaCe WaTer sTress assessMenT

The surface water supply values for each subwatershed by month are provided in Table C-3 the monthly reserve values are in TableC-4 and the estimated monthly demand values are in Table C-5.

Table C-3: surface Water supply values (Qp50) in m3/s

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

Etobicoke

ET01 1.204 1.056 1.665 1.951 1.135 0.431 0.122 0.076 0.118 0.262 0.834 1.026

ET02 0.122 0.102 0.149 0.157 0.112 0.047 0.014 0.012 0.015 0.039 0.091 0.115

ET03 0.323 0.273 0.447 0.459 0.281 0.118 0.039 0.029 0.046 0.097 0.257 0.292

ET04 0.603 0.540 0.913 1.080 0.595 0.204 0.053 0.023 0.041 0.089 0.367 0.493

Mimico

MI01 0.368 0.300 0.479 0.524 0.366 0.163 0.049 0.036 0.048 0.111 0.281 0.357

MI02 0.066 0.053 0.081 0.095 0.066 0.031 0.009 0.007 0.010 0.021 0.055 0.066

MI03 0.094 0.070 0.118 0.168 0.118 0.057 0.019 0.013 0.018 0.039 0.097 0.109




Humber

HU01 6.927 5.393 10.053 12.255 6.473 2.138 0.818 0.455 0.673 2.321 6.134 7.024

HU02 0.364 0.249 0.454 0.408 0.264 0.113 0.048 0.030 0.070 0.207 0.399 0.458

HU03 0.940 0.891 1.452 1.931 1.063 0.332 0.087 0.022 0.025 0.122 0.577 0.822

HU04 0.419 0.437 0.707 0.963 0.523 0.151 0.039 0.008 0.007 0.052 0.249 0.390

HU05 3.375 2.499 4.608 6.276 3.051 0.968 0.362 0.179 0.216 1.153 3.019 3.362

HU06 1.556 1.240 2.172 2.936 1.411 0.460 0.240 0.166 0.213 0.654 1.553 1.806

HU07 0.849 0.625 1.136 1.604 0.776 0.265 0.180 0.130 0.168 0.487 0.986 1.056

HU08 0.307 0.232 0.392 0.509 0.239 0.072 0.030 0.023 0.028 0.138 0.314 0.334

HU09 0.687 0.541 0.883 0.968 0.444 0.124 0.034 0.018 0.024 0.223 0.601 0.658

HU10 2.267 1.589 3.019 4.422 2.049 0.672 0.248 0.137 0.172 0.903 2.150 2.232

HU11 0.550 0.394 0.713 0.958 0.425 0.142 0.056 0.029 0.037 0.197 0.480 0.522

HU12 1.207 0.821 1.674 2.753 1.320 0.439 0.164 0.100 0.131 0.597 1.321 1.270

Don

DO01 2.254 1.803 3.214 3.193 1.870 0.709 0.322 0.265 0.470 1.251 2.596 2.933

DO02 0.191 0.151 0.232 0.221 0.145 0.058 0.023 0.015 0.039 0.116 0.223 0.246

DO03 0.971 0.756 1.404 1.646 0.936 0.369 0.202 0.180 0.244 0.610 1.289 1.379

DO04 0.803 0.612 1.088 1.021 0.603 0.222 0.088 0.058 0.145 0.399 0.847 1.003

DO05 0.326 0.270 0.506 0.541 0.307 0.113 0.046 0.034 0.050 0.127 0.369 0.426

DO06 0.410 0.371 0.637 0.828 0.451 0.174 0.130 0.113 0.125 0.269 0.561 0.584

DO07 0.217 0.173 0.360 0.419 0.241 0.094 0.040 0.033 0.052 0.151 0.336 0.344

Highland

HI01 0.041 0.034 0.064 0.073 0.048 0.018 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.015 0.048 0.055

HI02 0.533 0.336 0.623 0.671 0.442 0.171 0.075 0.054 0.138 0.400 0.771 0.825

HI03 0.291 0.183 0.364 0.342 0.223 0.084 0.035 0.024 0.073 0.218 0.413 0.448

HI04 0.188 0.115 0.230 0.243 0.163 0.068 0.034 0.028 0.059 0.162 0.301 0.309

Rouge

RO01 1.863 1.452 2.675 3.615 2.011 0.702 0.258 0.160 0.286 1.044 2.557 2.779

RO02 0.638 0.505 0.923 1.237 0.664 0.205 0.057 0.024 0.059 0.261 0.755 0.882

RO03 1.210 0.918 1.721 2.337 1.321 0.490 0.197 0.138 0.226 0.750 1.754 1.888

RO04 0.902 0.702 1.354 1.814 1.014 0.374 0.164 0.122 0.170 0.523 1.257 1.339

RO05 0.262 0.202 0.393 0.527 0.291 0.109 0.073 0.062 0.069 0.167 0.364 0.384

RO06 0.156 0.130 0.239 0.338 0.188 0.063 0.017 0.007 0.016 0.068 0.204 0.229

RO07 0.286 0.225 0.434 0.571 0.293 0.095 0.037 0.023 0.040 0.132 0.345 0.379

Petticoat PE01 0.119 0.087 0.151 0.193 0.115 0.038 0.009 0.003 0.013 0.066 0.168 0.193

F. Bay FR01 0.145 0.096 0.167 0.203 0.127 0.047 0.013 0.007 0.024 0.081 0.191 0.206




Duffins

DU01 1.967 1.423 2.606 3.533 1.845 0.633 0.312 0.213 0.331 1.019 2.343 2.582

DU02 1.833 1.316 2.443 3.342 1.726 0.581 0.291 0.203 0.313 0.947 2.133 2.380

DU03 0.755 0.505 0.958 1.406 0.725 0.246 0.129 0.089 0.135 0.393 0.867 0.963

DU04 0.512 0.350 0.649 1.036 0.514 0.180 0.110 0.081 0.120 0.277 0.559 0.610

DU05 0.509 0.360 0.659 0.957 0.475 0.169 0.110 0.082 0.124 0.293 0.568 0.619

DU06 0.299 0.242 0.414 0.533 0.264 0.082 0.027 0.016 0.032 0.099 0.273 0.323

Carruthers CA01 0.234 0.153 0.267 0.313 0.185 0.062 0.017 0.007 0.021 0.110 0.278 0.319

Lake Ontario

LO01 0.135 0.118 0.163 0.155 0.111 0.049 0.015 0.011 0.016 0.039 0.095 0.120

LO04 0.118 0.092 0.138 0.134 0.083 0.028 0.008 0.003 0.019 0.060 0.127 0.144

LO03 0.123 0.159 0.185 0.165 0.102 0.036 0.010 0.004 0.008 0.032 0.084 0.108

LO02 0.355 0.356 0.382 0.319 0.199 0.069 0.024 0.019 0.051 0.131 0.246 0.307

LO05 0.028 0.021 0.037 0.038 0.025 0.009 0.002 0.001 0.004 0.014 0.034 0.037

LO06 0.021 0.013 0.021 0.022 0.015 0.006 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.014 0.027 0.029

Table C-4: surface Water reserve values ((Qp90)in m3/s)


Etobicoke

ET01 0.518 0.665 1.056 1.084 0.643 0.190 0.059 0.037 0.047 0.126 0.299 0.623

ET02 0.057 0.060 0.091 0.087 0.067 0.023 0.008 0.006 0.008 0.016 0.035 0.067

ET03 0.139 0.172 0.262 0.268 0.160 0.051 0.017 0.015 0.018 0.050 0.114 0.180

ET04 0.252 0.360 0.557 0.617 0.325 0.086 0.024 0.012 0.013 0.038 0.102 0.296

Mimico

MI01 0.159 0.162 0.271 0.267 0.220 0.074 0.027 0.016 0.024 0.049 0.116 0.204

MI02 0.028 0.031 0.049 0.050 0.039 0.013 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.009 0.024 0.039

MI03 0.039 0.034 0.062 0.079 0.069 0.024 0.009 0.006 0.009 0.017 0.043 0.065




Humber

HU01 3.183 3.444 6.220 7.585 3.663 1.065 0.403 0.245 0.224 0.975 2.919 4.337

HU02 0.176 0.141 0.217 0.205 0.156 0.049 0.023 0.016 0.015 0.092 0.204 0.271

HU03 0.399 0.528 0.920 1.031 0.585 0.140 0.037 0.012 0.010 0.049 0.134 0.455

HU04 0.189 0.245 0.442 0.502 0.291 0.067 0.017 0.004 0.003 0.021 0.055 0.196

HU05 1.596 1.678 2.927 4.031 1.802 0.533 0.176 0.099 0.082 0.368 1.590 2.131

HU06 0.738 0.775 1.484 1.761 0.838 0.240 0.101 0.091 0.078 0.250 0.771 1.145

HU07 0.401 0.379 0.797 0.989 0.472 0.146 0.071 0.073 0.066 0.187 0.549 0.685

HU08 0.147 0.144 0.272 0.319 0.137 0.036 0.013 0.013 0.009 0.039 0.172 0.218

HU09 0.345 0.361 0.589 0.606 0.252 0.059 0.017 0.011 0.005 0.053 0.300 0.424

HU10 1.078 1.069 1.788 2.927 1.264 0.404 0.135 0.080 0.070 0.277 1.218 1.482

HU11 0.269 0.267 0.435 0.591 0.257 0.084 0.028 0.016 0.010 0.054 0.261 0.354

HU12 0.549 0.523 0.919 1.897 0.818 0.272 0.090 0.058 0.057 0.197 0.784 0.861

Don

DO01 1.115 0.985 1.739 1.699 1.092 0.320 0.160 0.127 0.122 0.569 1.385 1.778

DO02 0.099 0.081 0.131 0.116 0.086 0.026 0.012 0.008 0.008 0.052 0.115 0.147

DO03 0.457 0.412 0.792 0.916 0.556 0.168 0.087 0.081 0.080 0.280 0.697 0.849

DO04 0.394 0.355 0.582 0.537 0.348 0.098 0.043 0.032 0.028 0.183 0.436 0.603

DO05 0.157 0.166 0.291 0.299 0.176 0.051 0.023 0.018 0.014 0.059 0.151 0.255

DO06 0.204 0.204 0.393 0.499 0.270 0.083 0.046 0.052 0.052 0.116 0.291 0.382

DO07 0.103 0.089 0.189 0.225 0.142 0.042 0.021 0.016 0.016 0.059 0.184 0.209

Highland

HI01 0.020 0.019 0.035 0.038 0.028 0.007 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.019 0.033

HI02 0.260 0.185 0.314 0.345 0.256 0.077 0.037 0.028 0.023 0.175 0.458 0.496

HI03 0.143 0.100 0.163 0.175 0.128 0.037 0.017 0.013 0.010 0.090 0.245 0.274

HI04 0.092 0.065 0.103 0.126 0.095 0.031 0.017 0.014 0.012 0.071 0.183 0.182

Rouge

RO01 0.918 0.798 1.590 2.019 1.192 0.318 0.127 0.079 0.082 0.354 1.260 1.661

RO02 0.321 0.297 0.563 0.706 0.392 0.094 0.028 0.013 0.011 0.082 0.333 0.530

RO03 0.588 0.491 1.015 1.302 0.789 0.222 0.096 0.065 0.071 0.266 0.915 1.125

RO04 0.430 0.368 0.804 1.040 0.606 0.174 0.078 0.057 0.064 0.191 0.640 0.810

RO05 0.126 0.112 0.236 0.324 0.175 0.053 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.066 0.191 0.247

RO06 0.077 0.068 0.144 0.186 0.112 0.028 0.009 0.004 0.004 0.021 0.087 0.136

RO07 0.139 0.127 0.267 0.345 0.174 0.046 0.017 0.013 0.012 0.046 0.171 0.235

Petticoat PE01 0.061 0.049 0.083 0.099 0.068 0.016 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.020 0.082 0.114

F. Bay FR01 0.066 0.052 0.093 0.095 0.072 0.019 0.007 0.004 0.004 0.031 0.099 0.130




Duffins

DU01 0.955 0.854 1.615 2.090 1.123 0.318 0.132 0.103 0.115 0.384 1.198 1.610

DU02 0.888 0.803 1.511 1.988 1.051 0.298 0.125 0.098 0.111 0.352 1.109 1.487

DU03 0.360 0.311 0.569 0.849 0.442 0.128 0.055 0.044 0.050 0.148 0.454 0.615

DU04 0.242 0.215 0.407 0.659 0.314 0.094 0.046 0.041 0.046 0.116 0.303 0.393

DU05 0.242 0.219 0.441 0.584 0.288 0.087 0.045 0.042 0.047 0.121 0.319 0.397

DU06 0.144 0.154 0.287 0.318 0.156 0.039 0.013 0.009 0.008 0.036 0.121 0.206

Carruthers CA01 0.111 0.087 0.150 0.158 0.107 0.026 0.009 0.004 0.003 0.034 0.140 0.198

Lake Ontario

LO01 0.061 0.068 0.096 0.082 0.067 0.022 0.008 0.005 0.008 0.017 0.038 0.067

LO04 0.061 0.053 0.087 0.070 0.048 0.012 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.023 0.064 0.089

LO03 0.065 0.076 0.121 0.087 0.060 0.016 0.006 0.002 0.003 0.012 0.024 0.055

LO02 0.181 0.191 0.252 0.164 0.119 0.033 0.015 0.010 0.013 0.053 0.118 0.170

LO05 0.013 0.012 0.020 0.019 0.014 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.017 0.023

LO06 0.010 0.007 0.012 0.011 0.008 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.016 0.018

Table C-5: surface Water demand summary by subwatershed


Etobicoke

ET01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0115 0.0112 0.0112 0.0115 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

ET02 - - - - - - - - - - - -

ET03 - - - - - - - - - - - -

ET04 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0358 0.0347 0.0347 0.0358 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Mimico

MI01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0076 0.0073 0.0073 0.0076 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

MI02 - - - - - - - - - - - -

MI03 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0268 0.0259 0.0259 0.0268 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000




Humber

HU01 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0130 0.0433 0.0433 0.0130 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

HU02 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0053 0.0052 0.0052 0.0053 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HU03 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0029 0.0041 0.0041 0.0029 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

HU04 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0052 0.0052 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HU05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0137 0.0175 0.0175 0.0137 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

HU06 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0100 0.0123 0.0123 0.0100 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002

HU07 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0024 0.0024 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

HU08 - - - - - - - - - - - -

HU09 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

HU10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0083 0.0134 0.0134 0.0083 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HU11 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HU12 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Don

DO01 - - - - - - - - - - - -

DO02 - - - - - - - - - - - -

DO03 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0102 0.0099 0.0099 0.0102 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

DO04 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

DO05 0.0031 0.0035 0.0031 0.0032 0.0031 0.0053 0.0051 0.0051 0.0053 0.0031 0.0032 0.0031

DO06 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0051 0.0049 0.0049 0.0051 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002

DO07 0.0006 0.0007 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006 0.0006

Highland

HI01 - - - - - - - - - - - -

HI02 - - - - - - - - - - - -

HI03 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0049 0.0047 0.0047 0.0049 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HI04 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rouge

RO01 - - - - - - - - - - - -

RO02 0.0007 0.0008 0.0007 0.0008 0.0007 0.0114 0.0127 0.0127 0.0114 0.0007 0.0008 0.0007

RO03 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0158 0.0153 0.0153 0.0158 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002

RO04 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004 0.0010 0.0010 0.0004 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

RO05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0026 0.0031 0.0031 0.0026 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

RO06 0.0003 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0013 0.0013 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003

RO07 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0049 0.0059 0.0059 0.0049 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009

Petticoat PE01 - - - - - - - - - - - -

F. Bay FR01 - - - - - - - - - - - -




Duffins

DU01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0037 0.0036 0.0036 0.0037 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

DU02 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0078 0.0076 0.0076 0.0078 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

DU03 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0031 0.0030 0.0030 0.0031 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

DU04 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0035 0.0034 0.0034 0.0035 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

DU05 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

DU06 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0130 0.0172 0.0172 0.0130 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Carruthers CA01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0061 0.0059 0.0059 0.0061 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Lake Ontario

LO01 - - - - - - - - - - - -

LO04 - - - - - - - - - - - -

LO03 - - - - - - - - - - - -

LO02 - - - - - - - - - - - -

LO05 - - - - - - - - - - - -

LO06 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Table C-6: surface Water stress assessment results summary


Etobicoke

ET01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 18% 29% 16% 0% 0% 0%

ET02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

ET03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

ET04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 120% 333% 127% 0% 0% 0%

Mimico

MI01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 33% 37% 31% 0% 0% 0%

MI02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

MI03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 81% 257% 360% 294% 0% 0% 0%




Humber

HU01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 10% 21% 3% 0% 0% 0%

HU02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 21% 37% 10% 0% 0% 0%

HU03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 8% 40% 19% 0% 0% 0%

HU04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 23% 129% 0% 0% 0% 0%

HU05 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 9% 22% 10% 0% 0% 0%

HU06 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 9% 16% 7% 0% 0% 0%

HU07 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0%

HU08 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

HU09 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

HU10 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 12% 23% 8% 0% 0% 0%

HU11 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

HU12 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Don

DO01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

DO02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

DO03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 9% 10% 6% 0% 0% 0%

DO04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 4% 7% 2% 0% 0% 0%

DO05 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 8% 22% 32% 15% 5% 1% 2%

DO06 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 8% 7% 0% 0% 0%

DO07 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 3% 4% 2% 1% 0% 0%

Highland

HI01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

HI02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

HI03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 25% 44% 8% 0% 0% 0%

HI04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Rouge

RO01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

RO02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 44% 119% 24% 0% 0% 0%

RO03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 15% 21% 10% 0% 0% 0%

RO04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%

RO05 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 7% 9% 6% 0% 0% 0%

RO06 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 15% 38% 3% 1% 0% 0%

RO07 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 10% 29% 55% 17% 1% 1% 1%

Petticoat PE01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

F. Bay FR01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%




Duffins

DU01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0%

DU02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 5% 7% 4% 0% 0% 0%

DU03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% 7% 4% 0% 0% 0%

DU04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 5% 9% 5% 0% 0% 0%

DU05 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

DU06 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 30% 122% 243% 54% 0% 0% 0%

Carruthers CA01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 71% 191% 33% 0% 0% 0%

Lake Ontario

LO01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

LO04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

LO03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

LO02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

LO05 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

LO06 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

C2.5 surfaCe WaTer supply and deMand

As discussed in Section 3, surface water stress assessment calculations utilized flow percentiles, based on daily data for the 8 year modelling period. Total Supply was estimated as the median monthly flow (QP50), and reserve estimates were based on the 90th percentile flow (QP90). Figure C-3 to Figure C-16 show the simulated results as compared to observed values for gauged catchments in the TRSPA watersheds. These flow duration curves show that typically the model provided conservative estimates of stream flow when compared to observed data.

Given the relatively high percentage values found in the surface water stress assessment (Section 3), monthly supply (total supply – reserve) and monthly demand were plotted for catchments that were assigned a significant classification. This allowed for better visualization of the timing and extent of demand. These graphs (Figure C-17 toFigure C-22) show that stresses in the TRSPA are typically due to low supplies in August,whendemandisatitspeakandthereisamplewatertomeetdemandsonanannualbasis;reinforcingthe need for large scale water users to utilize storage reservoirs for irrigation purposes.



figure C-3: flow duration Curve for black Creek near Weston rd.

figure C-4: flow duration Curve for don river at Todmorden



figure C-5: flow duration Curve for don river at york Mills

figure C-6: flow duration Curve for duffins Cr. above pickering



figure C-7: flow duration Curve for duffins Cr. at ajax

figure C-8: flow duration Curve for humber river at Weston rd.



figure C-9: flow duration Curve for little rouge Creek near locust hill

figure C-10: flow duration Curve etobicoke Creek below Q.e.W.



figure C-11: flow duration Curve for highland Creek near West hill.

figure C-12: flow duration Curve for humber river at elder Mills



figure C-13: flow duration Curve for humber river near palgrave

figure C-14: flow duration Curve for east humber near pine grove



figure C-15: flow duration Curve for Mimico Cr. at islington

figure C-16: flow duration Curve for West humber at highway 7.



figure C-17: annual surface Water supply and demand for subwatershed eT04

figure C-18: annual surface Water supply and demand for subwatershed Mi03



figure C-19: annual surface Water supply and demand for subwatershed ro07

figure C-20: annual surface Water supply and demand for subwatershed hu04



figure C-21: annual surface Water supply and demand for subwatershed Ca01

figure C-22: annual surface Water supply and demand for subwatershed ro02



C2.6 assessment of required storage

Additional analysis was performed on the >100% catchments, to determine the cause of these results, where irrigation storage ponds / reservoirs were examined. This analysis was to investigate if these storage features had sufficient storage to account for the demand of water that is over and above the estimated in-stream supply. While it was not possible, in the scope of a Tier 1 Assessment, to complete this analysis for all surface water users, it was felt that a representative sample should be explored in more detail to validate catchments where demand is greater than available supply.

In this evaluation, the total demand was subtracted from the available supply for each month. Where the supply is less than the demand, a negative number is the result. These are then summed and converted to a total volume (m3), which represents the total water required to meet a specific user’s demand over and above available in-stream supply. This volume is then calculated to a ‘required depth of storage’, based on the surface area of the storage feature. If the required depth of storage was calculated to be more than 2.5m (based on typical golf course pond depths) there may be an error in the demand or supply estimates.

This analysis was performed for catchments CA01 and HU04 as both of these catchments were calculated as having demand >100% of supply, and both catchments had only one (primary) surface water user. Table C-7 and Table C-8 show the results of these calculations. In both instances, the required depth of storage was low, at 16cm and 14cm respectively. These results confirm that any demand greater than available supply can be accounted for by the storage feature(s).

Table C-7: required depth of storage Calculations – Catchment Ca01

CA01

Month Demand Supply Supply - Demand m3 / Month

Jan 0 0.123 0.123 0

Feb 0 0.067 0.067 0

Mar 0 0.117 0.117 0

Apr 0 0.155 0.155 0

May 0 0.078 0.078 0

Jun 0.006 0.035 0.029 0

Jul 0.006 0.008 0.002 0

Aug 0.006 0.003 -0.003 7290

Sep 0.006 0.018 0.012 0

Oct 0 0.077 0.077 0

Nov 0 0.138 0.138 0

Dec 0 0.120 0.120 0

Total Storage Required (m3) 7,290

Required Storage Depth for CA01Pond Area: 45,308m2

Required Storage: 7,290 m3Required Depth of Storage: 0.16m



Table C-8: required depth of storage Calculations – Catchment hu04

HU04

Month Demand Supply Supply - Demand m3 / Month

Jan 0 0.230 0.230 0

Feb 0 0.192 0.192 0

Mar 0 0.265 0.265 0

Apr 0 0.461 0.461 0

May 0 0.232 0.232 0

Jun 0 0.085 0.085 0

Jul 0.005 0.022 0.017 0

Aug 0.005 0.004 -0.001 3036

Sep 0 0.005 0.005 0

Oct 0 0.030 0.030 0

Nov 0 0.194 0.194 0

Dec 0 0.194 0.194 0

Total Storage Required (m3): 3,036

Required Storage Depth for HU04Pond Area: 22,415m2

Required Storage: 3,036 m3Required Depth of Storage: 0.14m

C2.7 groundWaTer sTress assessMenT

C2.7.1 Calculations

The groundwater stress assessment calculations are summarized in TableC-9 to Table C-14 and the groundwater usage data are provided in Table C-15. The current and future water use by subwatershed are provided in Table C-16 and Table C-17, respectively. The complete stress assessment results by month for current conditions are provided in Table C-18 to Table C-29. The stress assessment results under future conditions are provided by month in Table C-30 to Table C-44

Further details are provided in the Tier 1 Water Budget report issued for the TRSPA in 2010 (TRCA, 2010).

C2.7.2 inputs to stress assessment Calculations

The inputs from the MODFLOW groundwater model to the groundwater stress assessment calculations include estimates of

•Groundwaterrecharge(QRinstressassessmenttables),



•Groundwaterdischarge(QReserveinstressassessmenttables);and,

•Groundwaterinflowstoeachsubwatershed(QINinstressassessmenttables).

Groundwater Inflows

Groundwater inflows for each subwatershed are represented as the QIN values in the stress assessment tables.

C2.8 sTress assessMenT suMMary

This study meets all of the Tier 1 requirements for all of the TRSPA. It includes an enhanced understanding of water use because of TRCA’s water use field survey, and enhanced stress calculations because of the complex surface and groundwater models used in the analysis. MNR has agreed that this assessment meets the main requirements of a Tier 2 Assessment for Whitchurch-Stouffville Area. Although a 2-year drought simulation for the Whitchurch-Stouffville area was not completed, the results of this scenario would only increase the calculated stress levels provided in this study. The final maps are presented in Chapter 3 of the body of this Assessment Report.

Based on this Tier 2 analysis, the Whitchurch-Stouffville area, which includes portions of two subwatersheds (Little Rouge Creek and Stouffville/Ressor Creeks) is recommended for further assessment at the Tier 3 level. This area contains the wellheads for the Whitchurch-Stouffville municipal groundwater supply wells. Although the 2-year drought simulation was not completed for these subwatersheds, the calculated stress levels for these watersheds are above thresholds for the current conditions. Therefore, with the agreement of the MNR, a Tier 3 or local area stress assessment should be completed in this area. The Tier 3 analysis will be led by the Region of York in partnership with TRCA and the Region of Durham. The project will examine cross-watershed groundwater flow and local recharge in more detail, as well as water use and ten-year drought scenarios.

Table C-9: groundwater stress assessment summary (Current)

WatershedSub-

watershed

Stress LevelUncertainty

Municipal Water Supply

Tier 3 Study RequiredAnnual Monthly Final

Etobicoke

ET01 Low Low Low Low No No




Mimico

MI01 Low Low Low Low No No





WatershedSub-

watershed




Humber

HU01 Low Low Low Low No No




HU05 Low Low Low Low Yes No








Don

DO01 Low Low Low Low No No





DO06 Moderate Low Moderate Low No No


Highland

HI01 Low Low Low Low No No




Rouge

RO01 Low Low Low Low No No

RO02 Moderate Low Moderate Low Yes Yes






Petticoat PE01 Low Low Low Low No No

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 Low Low Low Low No No



WatershedSub-

watershed




Duffins

DU01 Low Low Low Low No No





DU06 Moderate Low Moderate Low Yes Yes

Carruthers CA01 Low Low Low Low No No

Lake Ontario

LO01 Significant Significant Significant Low No No

LO02 Moderate Low Moderate Low No No


LO04 Low Low Low Low No No



Table C-10: groundwater stress assessment summary (future)

WatershedSub-

watershed



Tier 3 Refinement

RequiredAnnual Monthly Final

Etobicoke





Mimico






WatershedSub-

watershed



Tier 3 Refinement


Humber













Don






DO06 Moderate Low Moderate Low No No


Highland





Rouge


RO02 Moderate Low Moderate Low Yes Yes






Petticoat PE01 Low Low Low Low No No

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 Low Low Low Low No No



WatershedSub-

watershed



Tier 3 Refinement


Duffins






DU06 Moderate Low Moderate Low Yes Yes

Carruthers CA01 Low Low Low Low No No

Lake Ontario

LO01 Significant Significant Significant Low No No






Table C-11: average annual groundwater demand (Current)

WatershedSub-

watershed

Subshed Area (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QR (mm/yr)

QIN (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34 0.078 72 0.072 0.151 0.012 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25 0.067 84 0.041 0.108 0.007 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50 0.181 114 0.073 0.254 0.018 0.001 0% Low

ET04 103 0.338 104 0.091 0.429 0.028 0.003 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 42 0.104 79 0.031 0.136 0.011 0.000 0% Low

MI02 14 0.038 87 0.022 0.060 0.003 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23 0.060 82 0.026 0.087 0.005 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershed

Subshed Area (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QR (mm/yr)

QIN (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 89 0.261 93 0.272 0.533 0.037 0.029 6% Low

HU02 61 0.198 103 0.133 0.331 0.017 0.001 0% Low

HU03 98 0.294 95 0.144 0.438 0.028 0.002 1% Low

HU04 107 0.281 83 0.117 0.398 0.024 0.002 1% Low

HU05 92 0.250 85 0.280 0.529 0.037 0.028 6% Low

HU06 72 0.249 109 0.513 0.761 0.046 0.009 1% Low

HU07 94 0.637 214 0.254 0.891 0.018 0.025 3% Low

HU08 31 0.203 207 0.212 0.415 0.009 0.006 2% Low

HU09 65 0.405 197 0.141 0.546 0.025 0.010 2% Low

HU10 48 0.260 172 0.349 0.610 0.042 0.002 0% Low

HU11 47 0.351 235 0.176 0.527 0.024 0.004 1% Low

HU12 108 0.942 275 0.207 1.149 0.107 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38 0.137 113 0.121 0.258 0.017 0.001 0% Low

DO02 34 0.112 104 0.139 0.250 0.002 0.000 0% Low

DO03 54 0.182 107 0.387 0.569 0.028 0.003 1% Low

DO04 64 0.249 123 0.295 0.544 0.039 0.004 1% Low

DO05 58 0.209 113 0.270 0.479 0.013 0.032 7% Low

DO06 63 0.328 163 0.255 0.583 0.031 0.080 15% Moderate

DO07 42 0.164 124 0.232 0.395 0.012 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 9 0.028 98 0.049 0.076 0.000 0.000 0% Low

HI02 11 0.032 93 0.121 0.153 0.010 0.000 0% Low

HI03 50 0.182 116 0.072 0.254 0.008 0.000 0% Low

HI04 36 0.127 112 0.140 0.267 0.010 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 4 0.010 89 0.041 0.051 0.003 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114 0.443 122 0.397 0.840 0.040 0.111 14% Moderate

RO03 64 0.222 110 0.319 0.541 0.030 0.001 0% Low

RO04 45 0.145 103 0.236 0.381 0.016 0.001 0% Low

RO05 40 0.205 162 0.226 0.431 0.023 0.007 2% Low

RO06 31 0.117 121 0.283 0.400 0.012 0.005 1% Low

RO07 41 0.205 159 0.338 0.543 0.019 0.010 2% Low

Petticoat PE01 24 0.082 108 0.097 0.180 0.006 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25 0.090 114 0.036 0.126 0.004 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershed

Subshed Area (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QR (mm/yr)

QIN (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24 0.087 112 0.037 0.123 0.005 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53 0.190 113 0.284 0.474 0.026 0.020 4% Low

DU03 44 0.150 108 0.317 0.467 0.031 0.005 1% Low

DU04 63 0.362 183 0.355 0.717 0.044 0.018 3% Low

DU05 60 0.370 194 0.268 0.638 0.022 0.022 4% Low

DU06 40 0.192 154 0.160 0.353 0.010 0.045 13% Moderate

Carruthers CA01 39 0.131 106 0.109 0.240 0.016 0.004 2% Low

Lake Ontario

LO01 24 0.064 84 0.009 0.073 0.000 0.046 63% Significant

LO02 40 0.159 126 0.030 0.189 0.000 0.022 11% Moderate

LO03 24 0.062 82 0.082 0.143 0.000 0.024 16% Moderate

LO04 16 0.052 101 0.075 0.127 0.000 0.000 0% Low

LO05 5 0.017 108 0.011 0.027 0.000 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3 0.012 117 0.009 0.021 0.000 0.000 0% Low

Table C-12: average annual groundwater demand (future)

WatershedSub-

watershed

Subshed Area (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QR (mm/yr)

QIN (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34 0.078 72 0.072 0.151 0.012 0.000 0.0% Low

ET02 25 0.067 84 0.041 0.108 0.007 0.000 0.0% Low

ET03 50 0.181 114 0.073 0.254 0.018 0.001 0.3% Low

ET04 103 0.338 104 0.091 0.429 0.028 0.003 0.7% Low

Mimico

MI01 42 0.104 79 0.031 0.136 0.011 0.000 0.0% Low

MI02 14 0.038 87 0.022 0.060 0.003 0.000 0.0% Low

MI03 23 0.060 82 0.026 0.087 0.005 0.000 0.0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershed

Subshed Area (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QR (mm/yr)

QIN (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 89 0.261 93 0.272 0.533 0.037 0.029 5.8% Low

HU02 61 0.198 103 0.133 0.331 0.017 0.001 0.4% Low

HU03 98 0.294 95 0.144 0.438 0.028 0.002 0.6% Low

HU04 107 0.281 83 0.117 0.398 0.024 0.002 0.5% Low

HU05 92 0.250 85 0.280 0.529 0.037 0.011 2.2% Low

HU06 72 0.249 109 0.513 0.761 0.046 0.008 1.1% Low

HU07 94 0.637 214 0.254 0.891 0.018 0.009 1.0% Low

HU08 31 0.203 207 0.212 0.415 0.009 0.010 2.4% Low

HU09 65 0.405 197 0.141 0.546 0.025 0.010 2.0% Low

HU10 48 0.260 172 0.349 0.610 0.042 0.007 1.2% Low

HU11 47 0.351 235 0.176 0.527 0.024 0.008 1.6% Low

HU12 108 0.942 275 0.207 1.149 0.107 0.003 0.3% Low

Don

DO01 38 0.137 113 0.121 0.258 0.017 0.001 0.2% Low

DO02 34 0.112 104 0.139 0.250 0.002 0.000 0.0% Low

DO03 54 0.182 107 0.387 0.569 0.028 0.003 0.6% Low

DO04 64 0.249 123 0.295 0.544 0.039 0.004 0.7% Low

DO05 58 0.209 113 0.270 0.479 0.013 0.032 6.8% Low

DO06 63 0.328 163 0.255 0.583 0.031 0.080 14.5% Moderate

DO07 42 0.164 124 0.232 0.395 0.012 0.001 0.4% Low

Highland

HI01 9 0.028 98 0.049 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.0% Low

HI02 11 0.032 93 0.121 0.153 0.010 0.000 0.0% Low

HI03 50 0.182 116 0.072 0.254 0.008 0.000 0.0% Low

HI04 36 0.127 112 0.140 0.267 0.010 0.000 0.0% Low

Rouge

RO01 4 0.010 89 0.041 0.051 0.003 0.000 0.0% Low

RO02 114 0.443 122 0.397 0.840 0.040 0.114 14.3% Moderate

RO03 64 0.222 110 0.319 0.541 0.030 0.001 0.2% Low

RO04 45 0.145 103 0.236 0.381 0.016 0.001 0.4% Low

RO05 40 0.205 162 0.226 0.431 0.023 0.007 1.8% Low

RO06 31 0.117 121 0.283 0.400 0.012 0.005 1.3% Low

RO07 41 0.205 159 0.338 0.543 0.019 0.010 1.8% Low

Petticoat PE01 24 0.082 108 0.097 0.180 0.006 0.000 0.2% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25 0.090 114 0.036 0.126 0.004 0.000 0.1% Low



WatershedSub-

watershed

Subshed Area (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QR (mm/yr)

QIN (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24 0.087 112 0.037 0.123 0.005 0.000 0.2% Low

DU02 53 0.190 113 0.284 0.474 0.026 0.020 4.4% Low

DU03 44 0.150 108 0.317 0.467 0.031 0.005 1.1% Low

DU04 63 0.362 183 0.355 0.717 0.044 0.018 2.7% Low

DU05 60 0.370 194 0.268 0.638 0.022 0.022 3.6% Low

DU06 40 0.192 154 0.160 0.353 0.010 0.057 16.6% Moderate

Carruthers CA01 39 0.131 106 0.109 0.240 0.016 0.004 1.7% Low

Lake Ontario

LO01 24 0.064 84 0.009 0.073 0.000 0.046 62.7% Significant

LO02 40 0.159 126 0.030 0.189 0.000 0.022 11.5% Moderate

LO03 24 0.062 82 0.082 0.143 0.000 0.024 16.4% Moderate

LO04 16 0.052 101 0.075 0.127 0.000 0.000 0.0% Low

LO05 5 0.017 108 0.011 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.0% Low

LO06 3 0.012 117 0.009 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.0% Low

Notes: All water supply and demand numbers are presented in m3/s.

QReserve is calculated as 10% of the groundwater discharge

Table C-13: Monthly groundwater stress assessment (Current)

WatershedSub-

watershed

Groundwater % Demand By MonthMax. % Demand

Monthly Max. StressJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Etobicoke

ET01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

ET02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

ET03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

ET04 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

MI02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

MI03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershed



Humber

HU01 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Low

HU02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 8% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% 8% Low

HU03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% Low

HU04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% Low

HU05 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 11% 11% 5% 5% 5% 5% 11% Low

HU06 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% Low

HU07 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% 3% 2% 4% Low

HU08 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3% Low

HU09 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 8% 8% 1% 1% 1% 1% 8% Low

HU10 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Low

HU11 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Low

HU12 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

Don

DO01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

DO02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

DO03 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Low

DO04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% Low

DO05 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 9% 9% 9% 9% 6% 6% 6% 9% Low

DO06 14% 15% 14% 14% 14% 16% 16% 16% 16% 14% 14% 14% 16% Low

DO07 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% Low

Highland

HI01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

HI02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

HI03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

HI04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

RO02 12% 13% 12% 12% 12% 14% 21% 21% 14% 12% 12% 12% 21% Low

RO03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

RO04 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% Low

RO05 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 4% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% Low

RO06 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3% Low

RO07 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% Low

Petticoat PE01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershed



Duffins

DU01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

DU02 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% Low

DU03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 4% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% Low

DU04 10% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 11% Low

DU05 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 10% 10% 10% 10% 1% 1% 1% 10% Low

DU06 11% 13% 11% 12% 13% 15% 15% 15% 15% 13% 14% 11% 15% Low

Carruthers CA01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 8% 1% 0% 0% 0% 8% Low

Lake Ontario

LO01 61% 68% 61% 64% 61% 64% 61% 61% 64% 61% 64% 61% 68% Significant

LO02 11% 12% 11% 12% 11% 12% 11% 11% 12% 11% 12% 11% 12% Low

LO03 13% 15% 13% 14% 13% 23% 22% 22% 23% 13% 14% 13% 23% Low

LO04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

LO05 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

LO06 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

Table C-14: Monthly groundwater stress assessment (future)

WatershedSub-

watershed



Etobicoke

ET01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

ET02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

ET03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

ET04 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

MI02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

MI03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershed



Humber

HU01 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Low

HU02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 8% 8% 8% 0% 0% 0% 8% Low

HU03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% Low

HU04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% Low

HU05 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 7% 7% 2% 1% 1% 1% 7% Low

HU06 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% Low

HU07 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% Low

HU08 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 4% Low

HU09 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 8% 8% 1% 1% 1% 1% 8% Low

HU10 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Low

HU11 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Low

HU12 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

Don

DO01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

DO02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

DO03 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Low

DO04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% Low

DO05 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 9% 9% 9% 9% 6% 6% 6% 9% Low

DO06 14% 15% 14% 14% 14% 16% 16% 16% 16% 14% 14% 14% 16% Low

DO07 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% Low

Highland

HI01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

HI02 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

HI03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

HI04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

RO02 12% 13% 12% 12% 12% 14% 22% 22% 14% 12% 13% 12% 22% Low

RO03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

RO04 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% Low

RO05 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 4% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% Low

RO06 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% 3% Low

RO07 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% Low

Petticoat PE01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershed



Duffins

DU01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

DU02 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% Low

DU03 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 4% 4% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% Low

DU04 10% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 11% Low

DU05 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 10% 10% 10% 10% 1% 1% 1% 10% Low

DU06 15% 17% 15% 15% 17% 18% 18% 18% 18% 17% 17% 15% 18% Low

Carruthers CA01 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 8% 8% 1% 0% 0% 0% 8% Low

Lake Ontario

LO01 61% 68% 61% 64% 61% 64% 61% 61% 64% 61% 64% 61% 68% Significant

LO02 11% 12% 11% 12% 11% 12% 11% 11% 12% 11% 12% 11% 12% Low

LO03 13% 15% 13% 14% 13% 23% 22% 22% 23% 13% 14% 13% 23% Low

LO04 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

LO05 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

LO06 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Low

Table C-15: groundwater usage data

Sub-watershed

Category Specific UseEstimated

Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor

Current Consumptive Use (m3/yr)

2031 Consumptive Use (m3/yr)

ET02 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 85 0.7 60 60

ET03 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 5,502 0.2 1,100 1,100

ET03 Remediation Other - Remediation 19,896 1 19,896 19,896

ET04 Agricultural Nursery 4,145 0.9 3,731 3,731

ET04 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 5,724 0.8 4,579 4,579

ET04 Agricultural Unknown 76 0.8 61 76

ET04 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 4,497 0.7 3,148 3,148

ET04 Livestock Watering Livestock Watering 569 0.3 171 171

ET04 Livestock Watering Livestock Watering 1,040 0.3 312 312




ET04 Livestock Watering Livestock Watering 17,962 0.3 5,389 5,389




Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor

























ET04 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 324,396 0.2 64,879 64,879

ET04 Municipal Water Supply - 0.2 - -

ET04 Municipal Water Supply - 0.2 - -

ET04 Unknown Unknown 76 1 76 76



HU01 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 1,250 0.7 875 875

HU01 Dewatering Other - Dewatering 216,750 1 216,750 216,750

HU01 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 2,232 0.2 446 446

HU01 Remediation Groundwater 37,960 1 37,960 37,960

HU01 Remediation Other - Remediation 630,720 1 630,720 630,720

HU01 Remediation Other - Remediation 26,280 1 26,280 26,280



Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor



HU02 Commercial Other - Commercial 19,080 1 19,080 19,080

HU02 Recreational Aesthetics 35,640 0.7 24,948 24,948

HU03 Agricultural Nursery 2 0.9 2 2

HU03 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 450 0.8 360 360

HU03 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 11,810 0.7 8,267 8,267



HU03 Livestock Watering Livestock Watering 569 0.3 171 171

HU03 Livestock Watering Livestock Watering 1,266 0.3 380 380

HU03 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 121,333 0.2 24,267 24,267

HU04 Agricultural Nursery 4,400 0.9 3,960 3,960





















HU05 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 168,670 0.8 134,936 134,936





Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor




HU05 Commercial Cemetery Irrigation 1,248 0.7 873 873







HU05 Livestock Watering Livestock Watering 59,688 0.3 17,907 17,907




















HU05 Miscellaneous Heat Pumps 27,855 0.1 2,785 2,785

HU05 Miscellaneous Other - Miscellaneous 48 1 48 48

HU05 Miscellaneous Other - Miscellaneous 161 1 161 161

HU05 Municipal Water Supply 648,240 1 648,240 95,849


HU05 Unknown Unknown 76 1 76 76



Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor





HU06 Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 58,871 0.8 47,097 47,097

HU06 Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 28 0.8 22 22




HU06 Agricultural Sod Farm 2,059 0.9 1,853 1,853

HU06 Commercial Other - Commercial 19,080 1 19,080 19,080











HU06 Municipal Water Supply 29,565 1 29,565 -


HU06 Water Supply Communal 116,074 0.2 23,215 23,215

HU07 Agricultural Field/Pasture Crops 8,176 0.8 6,541 6,541








HU07 Institutional Schools 4,470 0.25 1,118 1,118






Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor




















HU07 Miscellaneous Heat Pumps 7,955 0.1 795 795



HU07 Recreational Aesthetics 1,716 0.25 429 429




HU07 Water Supply Other - Water Supply 55,267 0.2 11,053 11,053

HU08 Agricultural Sod Farm 5,678 0.9 5,110 5,110











Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor






HU08 Municipal Water Supply 197,100 0.2 39,420 97,367

































Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor




























HU09 Water Supply Other - Water Supply 59,860 0.2 11,972 11,972











Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor




HU10 Municipal Other - Dewatering 1,660 1 1,660 1,660


HU10 Municipal Water Supply 740,154 0.2 - 148,031

HU10 Municipal Water Supply 391 0.2 78 119










HU12 Commercial Aquaculture 16,593 0.1 1,659 1,659






HU12 Recreational Aesthetics 2,950 0.25 738 738

HU12 Recreational Aesthetics 24 0.25 6 6



DO01 Industrial Other - Industrial 67,069 0.25 16,767 16,767

DO03 Remediation Groundwater 105,120 1 105,120 105,120

DO04 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 142,453 0.7 99,717 99,717

DO04 Industrial Other - Industrial 67,069 0.25 16,767 16,767

DO05 Agricultural Nursery 3,895 0.9 3,506 3,506

DO05 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 5,724 0.8 4,579 4,579

DO05 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 76 0.8 61 61


DO05 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 47,477 0.2 9,495 9,495




Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor



DO05 Remediation Other - Remediation 19,896 1 19,896 19,896

DO05 Unknown Unknown 76 1 76 76





DO06 Agricultural Unknown 76 0.8 61 76




DO06 Dewatering Other - Dewatering 1,149,984 1 1,149,984 1,149,984

DO06 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 1,339 0.2 268 268

DO06 Miscellaneous Other - Miscellaneous 216,710 1 216,710 216,710

DO06 Recreational Aesthetics 10,474 0.25 2,619 2,619









Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor















DO07 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 76 0.8 61 61

DO07 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 425 0.7 298 298


DO07 Dewatering Construction - 0.25 - -

DO07 Livestock Watering Livestock Watering 1,515 0.3 455 455

DO07 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 142,663 0.2 28,533 28,533


HI03 Miscellaneous Other - Miscellaneous 654 1 654 654

RO01 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 2,201 0.2 440 440

RO02 Agricultural Market Gardens / Flowers 1,526 0.9 1,374 1,374

RO02 Agricultural Nursery 44,344 0.9 39,909 39,909







RO02 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 8 0.8 6 6

RO02 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 5,724 0.8 4,579 4,579



RO02 Agricultural Tender Fruit 250,291 0.8 200,233 200,233



Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor



RO02 Commercial Aquaculture 397,923 1 397,923 397,923

RO02 Commercial Aquaculture 1,214,136 1 1,214,136 1,214,136

RO02 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 91,985 0.7 64,390 64,390




RO02 Commercial Other - Commercial 150,322 1 150,322 150,322

RO02 Industrial Aggregate Washing 298,442 0.25 74,610 74,610

RO02 Industrial Other - Industrial 2,650 0.25 662 662

RO02 Livestock Watering Livestock Watering 867 0.3 260 260


RO02 Livestock Watering Livestock Watering 1,278 0.3 383 383







RO02 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 1,322,261 0.2 264,452 264,452

RO02 Miscellaneous Other - Miscellaneous 161 1 161 161

RO02 Municipal Water Supply 481,070 1 481,070 524,366

RO02 Municipal Water Supply 425,590 1 425,590 463,893

RO02 Recreational Aesthetics 10,474 0.25 2,619 2,619









RO02 Unknown Unknown 76 1 76 76





Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor






RO03 Agricultural Sod Farm 2,059 0.9 1,853 1,853

RO03 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 273 0.7 191 191

RO03 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 146,307 0.2 29,261 29,261

RO03 Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation - 0.1 - -

RO04 Industrial Aggregate Washing 162,750 0.25 40,688 40,688

RO04 Industrial Cooling Water - 0.25 - -


RO04 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 445 0.2 89 89


RO05 Agricultural Nursery 398 0.9 358 358






RO05 Miscellaneous Other - Miscellaneous 161 1 161 161







RO06 Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation - 0.1 - -

RO07 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 5,724 0.8 4,579 4,579





RO07 Livestock Watering Livestock Watering 73,000 0.3 21,900 21,900





Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor







PE01 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 56,965 0.2 11,393 11,393

FR01 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 11,713 0.2 2,343 2,343

DU01 Agricultural Sod Farm 2,059 0.9 1,853 1,853

DU01 Livestock Watering Livestock Watering 566 0.3 170 170

DU01 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 25,509 0.2 5,102 5,102



DU02 Remediation Other - Remediation 601,812 1 601,812 601,812

DU03 Agricultural Market Gardens/Flowers 4,406 0.9 3,966 3,966

DU03 Agricultural Market Gardens / Flowers 1,382 0.9 1,244 1,244

DU03 Agricultural Nursery 64,806 0.9 58,326 58,326


DU03 Commercial Cemetery Irrigation 150 0.7 105 105

DU03 Commercial Cemetery Irrigation 2,333 0.7 1,633 1,633

DU03 Commercial Cemetery Irrigation 2,128 0.7 1,489 1,489

DU03 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 91,500 0.7 64,050 64,050






DU04 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 5,724 0.8 4,579 4,579


DU04 Commercial Snowmaking 1,044,067 0.5 522,034 522,034









Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor










DU05 Commercial Other - Commercial 19,080 1 19,080 19,080

DU05 Industrial Aggregate Washing 42,979 0.25 10,745 10,745





DU05 Recreational Aesthetics 10,474 0.25 2,619 2,619

DU05 Water Supply Other - Water Supply 366,608 0.2 73,322 73,322






DU06 Industrial Aggregate Washing 433,109 0.25 108,277 108,277

DU06 Livestock Watering Livestock Watering 3,833 0.3 1,150 1,150


DU06 Municipal Water Supply 315,360 1 315,360 409,968



DU06 Municipal Water Supply 12,097 0.2 2,419 7,258

DU06 Municipal Water Supply 964 0.2 193 579

CA01 Agricultural Market Gardens / Flowers 8,789 0.9 7,910 7,910

CA01 Agricultural Nursery 3,895 0.9 3,506 3,506

CA01 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 99,481 0.8 79,584 79,584

CA01 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 22,456 0.7 15,719 15,719

CA01 Livestock Watering Livestock Watering 569 0.3 171 171




Sub-watershed


Usage (m3/yr)

Consum. Factor




CA01 Lumped Domestic Lumped Domestic 58,545 0.2 11,709 11,709

LO01 Dewatering Other - Dewatering 1,450,656 1 1,450,656 1,450,656

LO02 Dewatering Other - Dewatering 471,744 1 471,744 471,744

LO02 Remediation Other - Remediation 212,342 1 212,342 212,342

LO03 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 200,310 0.7 140,217 140,217

LO03 Remediation Groundwater 604,440 1 604,440 604,440

Table C-16: Current Water use estimates by subwatershed

SubshedJan m3/s

Feb m3/s

Mar m3/s

Apr m3/s

May m3/s

Jun m3/s

Jul m3/s

Aug m3/s

Sep m3/s

Oct m3/s

Nov m3/s

Dec m3/s

Annual

m3/s

ET01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

ET02 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

ET03 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007

ET04 0.0024 0.0027 0.0024 0.0025 0.0024 0.0028 0.0043 0.0043 0.0028 0.0024 0.0025 0.0024 0.0028

MI01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

MI02 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

MI03 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HU01 0.0284 0.0314 0.0284 0.0293 0.0284 0.0294 0.0285 0.0285 0.0294 0.0284 0.0293 0.0284 0.0290

HU02 0.0014 0.0015 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014

HU03 0.0008 0.0009 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0056 0.0055 0.0055 0.0056 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0024

HU04 0.0010 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0031 0.0050 0.0050 0.0031 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0020

HU05 0.0224 0.0248 0.0224 0.0231 0.0224 0.0256 0.0523 0.0523 0.0256 0.0224 0.0231 0.0224 0.0283

HU06 0.0069 0.0077 0.0069 0.0071 0.0069 0.0073 0.0165 0.0165 0.0073 0.0069 0.0071 0.0069 0.0087

HU07 0.0216 0.0239 0.0216 0.0223 0.0216 0.0273 0.0322 0.0322 0.0273 0.0216 0.0223 0.0216 0.0246

HU08 0.0036 0.0040 0.0036 0.0037 0.0036 0.0116 0.0112 0.0112 0.0116 0.0036 0.0037 0.0036 0.0063

HU09 0.0033 0.0036 0.0033 0.0034 0.0033 0.0072 0.0414 0.0414 0.0072 0.0033 0.0034 0.0033 0.0104

HU10 0.0018 0.0020 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0031 0.0031 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0018 0.0021

HU11 0.0043 0.0048 0.0043 0.0045 0.0043 0.0045 0.0044 0.0044 0.0045 0.0043 0.0045 0.0043 0.0044

HU12 0.0024 0.0026 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0032 0.0032 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0024 0.0026

DO01 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005

DO02 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

DO03 0.0033 0.0036 0.0033 0.0034 0.0033 0.0034 0.0033 0.0033 0.0034 0.0033 0.0034 0.0033 0.0033



SubshedJan m3/s

Feb m3/s

Mar m3/s

Apr m3/s

May m3/s

Jun m3/s

Jul m3/s

Aug m3/s

Sep m3/s

Oct m3/s

Nov m3/s

Dec m3/s

Annual

m3/s

DO04 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0102 0.0098 0.0098 0.0102 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0037

DO05 0.0257 0.0284 0.0257 0.0265 0.0257 0.0432 0.0433 0.0433 0.0432 0.0257 0.0265 0.0257 0.0319

DO06 0.0754 0.0835 0.0754 0.0779 0.0754 0.0866 0.0860 0.0860 0.0866 0.0754 0.0779 0.0754 0.0801

DO07 0.0010 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0023 0.0022 0.0022 0.0023 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0014

HI01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HI02 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HI03 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HI04 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

RO01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

RO02 0.0921 0.1020 0.0921 0.0952 0.0961 0.1126 0.1696 0.1696 0.1126 0.0961 0.0993 0.0921 0.1110

RO03 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0011 0.0018 0.0018 0.0011 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0011

RO04 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0000 0.0013

RO05 0.0041 0.0046 0.0041 0.0043 0.0041 0.0100 0.0178 0.0178 0.0100 0.0041 0.0043 0.0041 0.0075

RO06 0.0027 0.0030 0.0027 0.0028 0.0027 0.0102 0.0099 0.0099 0.0102 0.0027 0.0028 0.0027 0.0052

RO07 0.0023 0.0025 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023 0.0097

PE01 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004

FR01 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

DU01 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002

DU02 0.0191 0.0211 0.0191 0.0197 0.0191 0.0197 0.0191 0.0191 0.0197 0.0191 0.0197 0.0191 0.0195

DU03 0.0007 0.0008 0.0007 0.0008 0.0007 0.0073 0.0195 0.0195 0.0073 0.0007 0.0008 0.0007 0.0050

DU04 0.0665 0.0737 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0018 0.0032 0.0032 0.0018 0.0016 0.0016 0.0665 0.0184

DU05 0.0036 0.0040 0.0036 0.0037 0.0042 0.0589 0.0586 0.0586 0.0589 0.0042 0.0043 0.0036 0.0222

DU06 0.0394 0.0436 0.0394 0.0407 0.0452 0.0502 0.0505 0.0505 0.0502 0.0452 0.0467 0.0394 0.0451

CA01 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0019 0.0188 0.0188 0.0019 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0038

LO01 0.0451 0.0500 0.0451 0.0466 0.0451 0.0466 0.0451 0.0451 0.0466 0.0451 0.0466 0.0451 0.0460

LO02 0.0213 0.0236 0.0213 0.0220 0.0213 0.0220 0.0213 0.0213 0.0220 0.0213 0.0220 0.0213 0.0217

LO03 0.0188 0.0208 0.0188 0.0194 0.0188 0.0330 0.0319 0.0319 0.0330 0.0188 0.0194 0.0188 0.0236

LO04 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

LO05 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

LO06 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000





Table C-17: future Water use estimates by subwatershed

SubshedJan m3/s

Feb m3/s

Mar m3/s

Apr m3/s

May m3/s

Jun m3/s

Jul m3/s

Aug m3/s

Sep m3/s

Oct m3/s

Nov m3/s

Dec m3/s

Annual

m3/s

ET01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

ET02 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

ET03 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007 0.0007

ET04 0.0024 0.0027 0.0024 0.0025 0.0024 0.0028 0.0043 0.0043 0.0028 0.0024 0.0025 0.0024 0.0028

MI01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

MI02 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

MI03 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HU01 0.0284 0.0314 0.0284 0.0293 0.0284 0.0294 0.0285 0.0285 0.0294 0.0284 0.0293 0.0284 0.0290

HU02 0.0014 0.0015 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014

HU03 0.0008 0.0009 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0056 0.0055 0.0055 0.0056 0.0008 0.0008 0.0008 0.0024

HU04 0.0010 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0031 0.0050 0.0050 0.0031 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0020

HU05 0.0052 0.0058 0.0052 0.0054 0.0052 0.0078 0.0351 0.0351 0.0078 0.0052 0.0054 0.0052 0.0108

HU06 0.0060 0.0066 0.0060 0.0062 0.0060 0.0064 0.0156 0.0156 0.0064 0.0060 0.0062 0.0060 0.0078

HU07 0.0060 0.0066 0.0060 0.0062 0.0060 0.0113 0.0166 0.0166 0.0113 0.0060 0.0062 0.0060 0.0087

HU08 0.0070 0.0078 0.0070 0.0073 0.0070 0.0151 0.0146 0.0146 0.0151 0.0070 0.0073 0.0070 0.0097

HU09 0.0033 0.0036 0.0033 0.0034 0.0033 0.0072 0.0414 0.0414 0.0072 0.0033 0.0034 0.0033 0.0104

HU10 0.0066 0.0073 0.0066 0.0068 0.0066 0.0068 0.0079 0.0079 0.0068 0.0066 0.0068 0.0066 0.0070

HU11 0.0081 0.0090 0.0081 0.0084 0.0081 0.0084 0.0082 0.0082 0.0084 0.0081 0.0084 0.0081 0.0083

HU12 0.0026 0.0029 0.0026 0.0027 0.0026 0.0027 0.0035 0.0035 0.0027 0.0026 0.0027 0.0026 0.0028

DO01 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005

DO02 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

DO03 0.0033 0.0036 0.0033 0.0034 0.0033 0.0034 0.0033 0.0033 0.0034 0.0033 0.0034 0.0033 0.0033

DO04 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0102 0.0098 0.0098 0.0102 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0037

DO05 0.0257 0.0284 0.0257 0.0265 0.0257 0.0432 0.0433 0.0433 0.0432 0.0257 0.0265 0.0257 0.0319

DO06 0.0754 0.0835 0.0754 0.0779 0.0754 0.0866 0.0860 0.0860 0.0866 0.0754 0.0779 0.0754 0.0801

DO07 0.0010 0.0011 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0023 0.0022 0.0022 0.0023 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0014

HI01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HI02 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HI03 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HI04 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

RO01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

RO02 0.0947 0.1048 0.0947 0.0978 0.0986 0.1152 0.1722 0.1722 0.1152 0.0986 0.1019 0.0947 0.1140

RO03 0.0009 0.0010 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0011 0.0018 0.0018 0.0011 0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0011



SubshedJan m3/s

Feb m3/s

Mar m3/s

Apr m3/s

May m3/s

Jun m3/s

Jul m3/s

Aug m3/s

Sep m3/s

Oct m3/s

Nov m3/s

Dec m3/s

Annual

m3/s

RO04 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0022 0.0000 0.0013

RO05 0.0041 0.0046 0.0041 0.0043 0.0041 0.0100 0.0178 0.0178 0.0100 0.0041 0.0043 0.0041 0.0075

RO06 0.0027 0.0030 0.0027 0.0028 0.0027 0.0102 0.0099 0.0099 0.0102 0.0027 0.0028 0.0027 0.0052

RO07 0.0023 0.0025 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0244 0.0023 0.0023 0.0023 0.0097

PE01 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004

FR01 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

DU01 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002

DU02 0.0191 0.0211 0.0191 0.0197 0.0191 0.0197 0.0191 0.0191 0.0197 0.0191 0.0197 0.0191 0.0195

DU03 0.0007 0.0008 0.0007 0.0008 0.0007 0.0073 0.0195 0.0195 0.0073 0.0007 0.0008 0.0007 0.0050

DU04 0.0665 0.0737 0.0016 0.0016 0.0016 0.0018 0.0032 0.0032 0.0018 0.0016 0.0016 0.0665 0.0184

DU05 0.0036 0.0040 0.0036 0.0037 0.0042 0.0589 0.0586 0.0586 0.0589 0.0042 0.0043 0.0036 0.0222

DU06 0.0511 0.0566 0.0511 0.0528 0.0569 0.0623 0.0623 0.0623 0.0623 0.0569 0.0588 0.0511 0.0570

CA01 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0019 0.0188 0.0188 0.0019 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.0038

LO01 0.0451 0.0500 0.0451 0.0466 0.0451 0.0466 0.0451 0.0451 0.0466 0.0451 0.0466 0.0451 0.0460

LO02 0.0213 0.0236 0.0213 0.0220 0.0213 0.0220 0.0213 0.0213 0.0220 0.0213 0.0220 0.0213 0.0217

LO03 0.0188 0.0208 0.0188 0.0194 0.0188 0.0330 0.0319 0.0319 0.0330 0.0188 0.0194 0.0188 0.0236

LO04 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

LO05 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

LO06 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Table C-18: groundwater stress assessment (Current Conditions, January)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.002 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.022 5% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.007 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.022 2% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.004 1% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.002 0% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.004 1% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.002 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.026 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.075 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.092 12% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.000 0% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.067 10% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.039 11% Low

Carruthers CA01 39,204,411 0.131 0.109 0.016 0.240 0.000 0% Low

Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.019 13% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-19: groundwater stress assessment (Current Conditions, february)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.003 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.031 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.002 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.025 5% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.008 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.024 3% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.004 1% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.004 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.002 0% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.005 1% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.004 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.028 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.083 15% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.102 13% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.000 0% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.005 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.003 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.021 5% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.074 11% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.044 13% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.050 68% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.024 12% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.021 15% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-20: groundwater stress assessment (Current Conditions, March)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.002 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.022 5% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.007 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.022 2% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.004 1% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.002 0% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.004 1% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.002 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.026 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.075 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.092 12% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.000 0% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.039 11% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.019 13% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-21: groundwater stress assessment (Current Conditions, april)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.003 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.029 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.023 5% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.007 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.022 3% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.004 1% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.002 0% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.004 1% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.002 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.027 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.078 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.095 12% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.000 0% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.020 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.041 12% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.047 64% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.022 12% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.019 14% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-22: groundwater stress assessment (Current Conditions, May)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.002 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.022 5% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.007 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.022 2% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.004 1% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.002 0% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.004 1% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.002 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.026 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.075 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.096 12% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.045 13% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.019 13% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-23: groundwater stress assessment (Current Conditions, June)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.003 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.029 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.006 1% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.003 1% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.026 5% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.007 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.027 3% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.012 3% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.007 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.002 0% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.004 1% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.002 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.010 2% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.043 9% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.087 16% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.002 1% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.113 14% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.010 2% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.010 3% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.024 5% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.020 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.007 2% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.059 10% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.050 15% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.047 64% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.022 12% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.033 23% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-24: groundwater stress assessment (Current Conditions, July)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.004 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.006 1% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.005 1% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.052 11% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.017 2% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.032 4% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.011 3% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.041 8% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.003 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.004 1% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.010 2% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.043 9% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.086 16% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.002 1% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.170 21% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.002 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.018 4% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.010 3% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.024 5% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.020 4% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.003 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.059 10% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.051 15% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.032 22% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-25: groundwater stress assessment (Current Conditions, august)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.004 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.006 1% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.005 1% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.052 11% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.017 2% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.032 4% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.011 3% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.041 8% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.003 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.004 1% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.010 2% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.043 9% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.086 16% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.002 1% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.170 21% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.002 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.018 4% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.010 3% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.024 5% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.020 4% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.003 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.059 10% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.051 15% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.032 22% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-26: groundwater stress assessment (Current Conditions, september)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

Qinflow (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.151 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.108 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.254 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.429 0.028 0.429 0.003 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.136 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.060 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.087 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

Qinflow (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.533 0.037 0.533 0.029 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.331 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.438 0.028 0.438 0.006 1% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.398 0.024 0.398 0.003 1% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.529 0.037 0.529 0.026 5% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.761 0.046 0.761 0.007 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.891 0.018 0.891 0.027 3% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.415 0.009 0.415 0.012 3% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.546 0.025 0.546 0.007 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.610 0.042 0.610 0.002 0% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.527 0.024 0.527 0.004 1% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 1.149 0.107 1.149 0.002 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.258 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.250 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.569 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.544 0.039 0.544 0.010 2% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.479 0.013 0.479 0.043 9% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.583 0.031 0.583 0.087 16% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.395 0.012 0.395 0.002 1% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.076 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.153 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.254 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.267 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.051 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.840 0.040 0.840 0.113 14% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.541 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.381 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.431 0.023 0.431 0.010 2% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.400 0.012 0.400 0.010 3% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.543 0.019 0.543 0.024 5% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.180 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.126 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

Qinflow (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.123 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.474 0.026 0.474 0.020 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.467 0.031 0.467 0.007 2% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.717 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.638 0.022 0.638 0.059 10% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.353 0.010 0.353 0.050 15% Low

Carruthers CA01 39,204,411 0.131 0.109 0.240 0.016 0.240 0.002 1% Low

Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.073 0.000 0.073 0.047 64% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.189 0.000 0.189 0.022 12% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.143 0.000 0.143 0.033 23% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.127 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.027 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.021 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-27: groundwater stress assessment (Current Conditions, october)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

Qinflow (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.151 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.108 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.254 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.429 0.028 0.429 0.002 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.136 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.060 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.087 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

Qinflow (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.533 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.331 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.438 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.398 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.529 0.037 0.529 0.022 5% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.761 0.046 0.761 0.007 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.891 0.018 0.891 0.022 2% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.415 0.009 0.415 0.004 1% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.546 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.610 0.042 0.610 0.002 0% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.527 0.024 0.527 0.004 1% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 1.149 0.107 1.149 0.002 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.258 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.250 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.569 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.544 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.479 0.013 0.479 0.026 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.583 0.031 0.583 0.075 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.395 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.076 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.153 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.254 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.267 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.051 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.840 0.040 0.840 0.096 12% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.541 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.381 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.431 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.400 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.543 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.180 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.126 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

Qinflow (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.123 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.474 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.467 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.717 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.638 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.353 0.010 0.353 0.045 13% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.073 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.189 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.143 0.000 0.143 0.019 13% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.127 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.027 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.021 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-28: groundwater stress assessment (Current Conditions, november)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.003 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.029 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.023 5% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.007 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.022 3% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.004 1% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.002 0% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.004 1% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.002 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.027 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.078 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.099 12% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.020 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.047 14% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.047 64% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.022 12% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.019 14% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-29: groundwater stress assessment (Current Conditions, december)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.002 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.022 5% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.007 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.022 2% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.004 1% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.002 0% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.004 1% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.002 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.026 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.075 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.092 12% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.000 0% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.067 10% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.039 11% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.019 13% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-30: groundwater stress assessment (future Conditions, January)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.002 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.005 1% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.006 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.006 1% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.007 2% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.007 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.008 2% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.026 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.075 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.095 12% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.000 0% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.067 10% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.051 15% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.019 13% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-31: groundwater stress assessment (future Conditions, february)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.003 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.031 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.002 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.006 1% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.007 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.007 1% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.008 2% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.004 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.007 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.009 2% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.004 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.028 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.083 15% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.105 13% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.000 0% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.005 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.003 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.021 5% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.074 11% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.057 17% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.050 68% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.024 12% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.021 15% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-32: groundwater stress assessment (future Conditions, March)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.002 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.005 1% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.006 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.006 1% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.007 2% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.007 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.008 2% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.026 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.075 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.095 12% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.000 0% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.051 15% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.019 13% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-33: groundwater stress assessment (future Conditions, april)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.003 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.029 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.005 1% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.006 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.006 1% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.007 2% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.007 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.008 2% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.027 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.078 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.098 12% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.000 0% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.020 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.053 15% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.047 64% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.022 12% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.019 14% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-34: groundwater stress assessment (future Conditions, May)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.002 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.005 1% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.006 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.006 1% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.007 2% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.007 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.008 2% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.026 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.075 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.099 12% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.057 17% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.019 13% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-35: groundwater stress assessment (future Conditions, June)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.003 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.029 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.006 1% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.003 1% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.008 2% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.006 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.011 1% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.015 4% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.007 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.007 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.008 2% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.010 2% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.043 9% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.087 16% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.002 1% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.115 14% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.010 2% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.010 3% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.024 5% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.020 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.007 2% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.059 10% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.062 18% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.047 64% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.022 12% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.033 23% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-36: groundwater stress assessment (future Conditions, July)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QOut (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.028 0.429 0.004 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QOut (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.028 0.438 0.006 1% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.024 0.398 0.005 1% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.037 0.529 0.035 7% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.046 0.761 0.016 2% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.018 0.891 0.017 2% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.009 0.415 0.015 4% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.025 0.546 0.041 8% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.042 0.610 0.008 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.024 0.527 0.008 2% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.039 0.544 0.010 2% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.013 0.479 0.043 9% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.031 0.583 0.086 16% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.012 0.395 0.002 1% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.040 0.840 0.172 22% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.030 0.541 0.002 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.023 0.431 0.018 4% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.012 0.400 0.010 3% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.019 0.543 0.024 5% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QOut (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.031 0.467 0.020 4% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.044 0.717 0.003 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.022 0.638 0.059 10% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.010 0.353 0.062 18% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.000 0.143 0.032 22% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-37: groundwater stress assessment (future Conditions, august)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.004 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.006 1% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.005 1% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.035 7% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.016 2% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.017 2% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.015 4% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.041 8% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.008 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.008 2% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.010 2% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.043 9% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.086 16% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.002 1% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.172 22% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.002 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.018 4% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.010 3% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.024 5% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.020 4% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.003 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.059 10% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.062 18% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.032 22% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-38: groundwater stress assessment (future Conditions, september)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

Qinflow (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.151 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.108 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.254 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.429 0.028 0.429 0.003 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.136 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.060 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.087 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

Qinflow (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.533 0.037 0.533 0.029 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.331 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.438 0.028 0.438 0.006 1% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.398 0.024 0.398 0.003 1% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.529 0.037 0.529 0.008 2% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.761 0.046 0.761 0.006 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.891 0.018 0.891 0.011 1% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.415 0.009 0.415 0.015 4% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.546 0.025 0.546 0.007 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.610 0.042 0.610 0.007 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.527 0.024 0.527 0.008 2% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 1.149 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.258 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.250 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.569 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.544 0.039 0.544 0.010 2% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.479 0.013 0.479 0.043 9% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.583 0.031 0.583 0.087 16% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.395 0.012 0.395 0.002 1% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.076 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.153 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.254 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.267 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.051 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.840 0.040 0.840 0.115 14% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.541 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.381 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.431 0.023 0.431 0.010 2% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.400 0.012 0.400 0.010 3% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.543 0.019 0.543 0.024 5% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.180 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.126 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

Qinflow (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.123 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.474 0.026 0.474 0.020 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.467 0.031 0.467 0.007 2% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.717 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.638 0.022 0.638 0.059 10% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.353 0.010 0.353 0.062 18% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.073 0.000 0.073 0.047 64% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.189 0.000 0.189 0.022 12% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.143 0.000 0.143 0.033 23% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.127 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.027 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.021 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-39: groundwater stress assessment (future Conditions, october)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

Qinflow (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.151 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.108 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.254 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.429 0.028 0.429 0.002 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.136 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.060 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.087 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

Qinflow (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.533 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.331 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.438 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.398 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.529 0.037 0.529 0.005 1% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.761 0.046 0.761 0.006 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.891 0.018 0.891 0.006 1% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.415 0.009 0.415 0.007 2% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.546 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.610 0.042 0.610 0.007 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.527 0.024 0.527 0.008 2% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 1.149 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.258 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.250 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.569 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.544 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.479 0.013 0.479 0.026 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.583 0.031 0.583 0.075 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.395 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.076 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.153 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.254 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.267 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.051 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.840 0.040 0.840 0.099 12% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.541 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.381 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.431 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.400 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.543 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.180 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.126 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

Qinflow (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.123 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.474 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.467 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.717 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.638 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.353 0.010 0.353 0.057 17% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.073 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.189 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.143 0.000 0.143 0.019 13% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.127 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.027 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.021 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low



Table C-40: groundwater stress assessment (future Conditions, november)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.003 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.029 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.005 1% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.006 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.006 1% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.007 2% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.007 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.008 2% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.027 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.078 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.102 13% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.002 1% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.020 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.002 0% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.059 17% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.047 64% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.022 12% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.019 14% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low

Notes: All water supply and demand numbers are presented in m3/s. QReserve is calculated as 10% of the groundwater discharge

Table C-41: groundwater stress assessment (future Conditions, december)

WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Etobicoke

ET01 34,156,179 0.078 0.072 0.012 0.151 0.000 0% Low

ET02 25,131,283 0.067 0.041 0.007 0.108 0.000 0% Low

ET03 50,208,414 0.181 0.073 0.018 0.254 0.001 0% Low

ET04 102,829,189 0.338 0.091 0.028 0.429 0.002 1% Low

Mimico

MI01 41,550,870 0.104 0.031 0.011 0.136 0.000 0% Low

MI02 13,654,309 0.038 0.022 0.003 0.060 0.000 0% Low

MI03 23,283,286 0.060 0.026 0.005 0.087 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Humber

HU01 88,712,024 0.261 0.272 0.037 0.533 0.028 6% Low

HU02 60,693,407 0.198 0.133 0.017 0.331 0.001 0% Low

HU03 97,672,514 0.294 0.144 0.028 0.438 0.001 0% Low

HU04 106,770,045 0.281 0.117 0.024 0.398 0.001 0% Low

HU05 92,392,586 0.250 0.280 0.037 0.529 0.005 1% Low

HU06 71,585,430 0.249 0.513 0.046 0.761 0.006 1% Low

HU07 93,818,968 0.637 0.254 0.018 0.891 0.006 1% Low

HU08 30,940,908 0.203 0.212 0.009 0.415 0.007 2% Low

HU09 64,762,224 0.405 0.141 0.025 0.546 0.003 1% Low

HU10 47,760,614 0.260 0.349 0.042 0.610 0.007 1% Low

HU11 47,108,648 0.351 0.176 0.024 0.527 0.008 2% Low

HU12 108,051,916 0.942 0.207 0.107 1.149 0.003 0% Low

Don

DO01 38,272,626 0.137 0.121 0.017 0.258 0.001 0% Low

DO02 33,770,602 0.112 0.139 0.002 0.250 0.000 0% Low

DO03 53,719,251 0.182 0.387 0.028 0.569 0.003 1% Low

DO04 63,874,250 0.249 0.295 0.039 0.544 0.001 0% Low

DO05 58,084,448 0.209 0.270 0.013 0.479 0.026 6% Low

DO06 63,354,811 0.328 0.255 0.031 0.583 0.075 14% Low

DO07 41,736,638 0.164 0.232 0.012 0.395 0.001 0% Low

Highland

HI01 8,943,868 0.028 0.049 0.000 0.076 0.000 0% Low

HI02 10,753,908 0.032 0.121 0.010 0.153 0.000 0% Low

HI03 49,512,432 0.182 0.072 0.008 0.254 0.000 0% Low

HI04 35,886,310 0.127 0.140 0.010 0.267 0.000 0% Low

Rouge

RO01 3,625,105 0.010 0.041 0.003 0.051 0.000 0% Low

RO02 114,380,078 0.443 0.397 0.040 0.840 0.095 12% Low

RO03 63,942,168 0.222 0.319 0.030 0.541 0.001 0% Low

RO04 44,531,561 0.145 0.236 0.016 0.381 0.000 0% Low

RO05 39,891,225 0.205 0.226 0.023 0.431 0.004 1% Low

RO06 30,637,450 0.117 0.283 0.012 0.400 0.003 1% Low

RO07 40,631,187 0.205 0.338 0.019 0.543 0.002 0% Low

Petticoat PE01 24,063,409 0.082 0.097 0.006 0.180 0.000 0% Low

Frenchman's Bay

FR01 25,024,806 0.090 0.036 0.004 0.126 0.000 0% Low



WatershedSub-

watershedArea (km2)

QR (m3/s)

QIN (m3/s)

QReserve (m3/s)

QSupply (m3/s)

QDemand

(m3/s)

% Groundwater

Demand

Groundwater Stress

Assignment

Duffins

DU01 24,489,851 0.087 0.037 0.005 0.123 0.000 0% Low

DU02 53,061,108 0.190 0.284 0.026 0.474 0.019 4% Low

DU03 43,998,921 0.150 0.317 0.031 0.467 0.001 0% Low

DU04 62,548,890 0.362 0.355 0.044 0.717 0.067 10% Low

DU05 60,125,868 0.370 0.268 0.022 0.638 0.004 1% Low

DU06 39,513,589 0.192 0.160 0.010 0.353 0.051 15% Low


Lake Ontario

LO01 24,045,851 0.064 0.009 0.000 0.073 0.045 61% Significant

LO02 39,823,376 0.159 0.030 0.000 0.189 0.021 11% Low

LO03 23,973,922 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.143 0.019 13% Low

LO04 16,047,825 0.052 0.075 0.000 0.127 0.000 0% Low

LO05 4,816,221 0.017 0.011 0.000 0.027 0.000 0% Low

LO06 3,317,605 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.021 0.000 0% Low




Appendix C: Conceptual Water BudgetC3 Tier 3 WaTer budgeT and loCal risk assessMenT Workplan - sTouffville

a a report

Documents