Clean Water Cataraqui

Assessment Report - Executive Summary

Millhaven Creek at Lake Ontario This page contains the Executive Summary of our Assessment Report (June 9, 2011).

If you would like to view the entire Assessment Report please click here to go to our Assessment Report page where the report is posted in small pieces (small files suitable for dial-up Internet users).

The Assessment Report Executive Summary is also available in French. Please click here to go to our French summary page.

Introduction

Clean water is vital to all life. For people, clean and plentiful drinking water is essential for good health. The province of Ontario recognized the importance of drinking water when they established the drinking water source protection program and passed the Clean Water Act, 2006.

The Assessment Report represents the completion of a major phase of work in the drinking water source protection program for the Cataraqui Source Protection Area. This report pulls together the findings of 15 technical studies about local sources of drinking water and the risks that affect them.

The purpose of the Assessment Report is to identify areas where drinking water sources are vulnerable to contamination or over use and to prioritize drinking water issues and drinking water threats within those vulnerable areas. The document has been prepared in accordance with detailed technical rules prepared by the Ontario Ministry of Environment. The report will help us to prepare a source protection plan by 2012.

Participants in the Process

The process that we are following is spelled out in the Ontario Clean Water Act, 2006 and its regulations. It is guided by two bodies — the Cataraqui Source Protection Authority and the Cataraqui Source Protection Committee (SP Authority and SP Committee, respectively).

The SP Authority includes the 17 members of the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority board plus a representative of the Township of Frontenac Islands.

The 16-member SP Committee includes representatives from the municipal, economic and community sectors.

Our other stakeholders and partners include municipalities, federal and provincial government agencies, community groups, businesses, residents and visitors.

Cataraqui Source Protection Area

The Cataraqui Source Protection Area is located at the eastern end of Lake Ontario and the upper part of the St. Lawrence River. It includes a portion of the Bay of Quinte, Hay Bay, the southern portion of the Rideau Canal and the Thousand Islands. It contains the 11 municipalities within the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority jurisdiction plus the municipality of Frontenac Islands (Howe and Wolfe Islands).

The landscape is varied ranging from Canadian Shield and numerous lakes in the central area to the agricultural landscape of the limestone and clay plains of the south and west. The east contains significant amounts of sand and gravel.

There are 12 major watersheds. The two largest ones are the Cataraqui and Gananoque River watersheds in the central portion of the area. The western and eastern sections of the Cataraqui Source Protection Area are drained by several smaller streams.

Surface Water
Surface water quality and quantity vary across the CSPA due to differences in geology, land use and development. Data from the Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network stations, the Lake Partner Program, bacterial beach data from local health units and Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority sampling of inland lakes and streams was used to assess surface water quality. A summary of the findings is provided below:

chloride, sodium and conductivity concentrations are generally increasing, likely due to road salt application
high levels of phosphorus are found throughout the Cataraqui Source Protection Area
high bacteria levels are found near the Butlers Creek Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network station and at beaches near the Bath, Gananoque and Brockville drinking water intakes.

Water flow patterns are generally very similar across the Cataraqui Source Protection Area with peak flows during the spring freshet and minimum flows during August and September. The 39 existing water control structures in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area have a significant effect on the flows in their respective watercourses. These include the Cataraqui and Gananoque Rivers, and Millhaven, Highgate, Little Cataraqui, Lyn and Buells creeks.

Groundwater
The Cataraqui Source Protection Area has shallow soils over fractured bedrock. This has an influence on groundwater quality and quantity.

Groundwater data in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area is quite limited. However, we do know that there are problems with groundwater quality and quantity.

Data collected through the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network and hydrogeological studies produced for proposed developments indicate that there are high levels of hardness, iron, manganese, sodium, chloride, fluoride and bacteria in some locations.

The amount of groundwater in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area is difficult to measure. There are approximately 20,000 private wells and numerous communal wells at campgrounds and trailer parks. In some areas, wells are known to go dry during extended periods of drought.

- go to top of page-

Water Budget

A water budget is very much like a financial budget. It accounts for all the water into and out of a watershed, including surface water such as lakes, rivers and streams as well as groundwater (water that is located under the ground). This includes precipitation, evaporation, transpiration, runoff, infiltration, groundwater recharge and storage in lakes, wetlands and aquifers.

For the purpose of preparing a water budget we answered four questions.

Where is the water?
How does the water move?
What are the stresses on the water and where are they located?
What are the trends in water levels or water use?

There are four required levels of water budget for drinking water source protection. Each level is more detailed than the previous one and can have different outcomes depending on the detail and assumptions of the model used. The decision on whether to prepare a higher level water budget is based on how much stress there is on water in the area being examined.

The conceptual water budget looked at the source protection area as a whole and calculated the water budget based on average annual values. The conceptual water budget found that the amount of water being used was very low compared to the amount of available water on an average annual basis.

The Tier 1 water budget examined 21 subwatersheds and calculated the water budget based on average monthly values. Looking at surface water, four subwatersheds had significant stress, six had moderate stress and the balance had low stress. When groundwater was assessed, only one subwatershed had significant stress, four had moderate stress and the balance had low stress.

The Tier 2 water budget looked in more detail at those areas deemed to have a moderate or significant stress at the Tier 1 stage, which also contain a municipal residential drinking water system. Based on the stress assessment results at the Tier 1 stage, the Lansdowne and Sydenham drinking water system areas were selected to move forward to this stage of the water budget process. The Tier 2 analysis for Lansdowne found a low stress. Work on the Sydenham water budget indicated that a Tier 3 Water Budget needed to be done.

The Tier 3 water budget includes an even more refined approach looking at specific local areas where one can consider daily or hourly conditions. It looks at the exposure, tolerance and risk levels for the local area being examined.

For the Sydenham Tier 3 exercise, the storage in Sydenham Lake was considered with the main question being whether the withdrawal amount could or could not be met during regular and drought conditions. The outcome throughout all the simulated scenarios was that the Sydenham Lake never fell below the critical level, and sufficient water supply was expected. Therefore, the Tier 3 findings assign a low risk level to the Sydenham local area.

- go to top of page-

Source Water Quality Issue Evaluation and Threat Assessment

The process for assessing risks to source water quality is prescribed by the Ontario government. Rather than looking at all water everywhere, the source protection initiative in Ontario focuses on specific places where the source water is considered to be most vulnerable or sensitive to pollution and/or overuse. These places are called vulnerable areas. These vulnerable areas are either related to groundwater resources on a broad scale or to groundwater and surface water around municipal water treatment plants.

The vulnerable areas are defined as:

highly vulnerable aquifers and significant groundwater recharge areas. As the Cataraqui Source Protection Area consists of a large percentage of shallow soils and fractured bedrock, these types of vulnerable areas occupy a substantial proportion of the landscape
wellhead protection areas around a municipal well
surface water intake protection zones around a municipal water intake.

The vulnerability to contamination of the lands and waters within each of these areas varies depending on the proximity to the well or intake, the degree of protection from pollution around the well or intake and other factors.

These areas are mapped and assigned vulnerability scores. The scores are between one (low) and ten (high). Drinking water issues are evaluated and drinking water threats are assessed in each vulnerable area. By assessing and ranking drinking water threats that could harm the quality of source water, local communities can make informed decisions about how to protect their water supplies.

The untreated source water within each vulnerable area is evaluated for the presence of drinking water issues.These are problems that occur when (selected) chemicals or pathogens are found in the water at a concentration that deteriorates its use as source water, or when it appears that this may occur in the future.

An example of a drinking water issue is salt (sodium chloride). It can come from natural sources, but it is also used in water softeners, to melt ice on roads and to sterilize swimming pools.

A drinking water threat is an activity or a condition that has harmed or could harm the quality or quantity of a drinking water source. The Ontario Ministry of Environment has prescribed a list of 21 types of activities. Source Protection Committees are able to propose the addition of other activities that are of special interest in their area. In 2010, the Cataraqui Source Protection Committee received approval by the Ministry to include two additional local drinking water threats: the use of conditioning salts in water softeners and the movement of specified substances (chemicals) along corridors such as Highway 401. This report assesses these local and prescribed drinking water threats and their risk posed to our source water within Chapters 5 and 6.

Conditions exist where there is contamination of the rock, soil and water from a past activity. They may result in drinking water threats if they meet certain tests which have been outlined by the province. At this time of this report, there is insufficient data on conditions that could result in drinking water threats within the Cataraqui Source Protection Area. This information may be available in future editions of the Assessment Report.

- go to top of page-

Groundwater

Groundwater resources in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area are generally characterized by the geology. Most people draw their water from wells that are either in limestone, sandstone or the Precambrian rock on the Canadian Shield. Water generally flows through small cracks or fractures of less than one millimetre in the rock. The fractures transmit the water from higher to lower levels through a network of cracks that is known as the rock aquifer. These rock aquifers are generally covered with a thin layer of sand and/or clay soil (also known as overburden), but most wells are drilled through to the rock.

Some parts of the Cataraqui Source Protection Area have thicker soil cover, which can act as a protective barrier to groundwater, especially when the soil mainly consists of clay. Areas with less soil cover tend to be highly vulnerable to surface contamination as random rock fractures can act as a direct conduit for contaminants to reach the groundwater.

Once groundwater is contaminated, it can be very difficult and expensive to clean up and sometimes it cannot be used as a source of potable water. We need to ensure that our groundwater resources can be used in the future.

As part of our area-wide study of groundwater resources, we have concluded that groundwater flow may not be the same as surface water flow, especially at deeper levels. For example, a portion of the groundwater flow in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area may flow northwest into the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region through the underlying geological formations.

Highly Vulnerable Aquifers
Sources of groundwater or aquifers are considered to be highly vulnerable aquifers when there is an insufficient protective layer above the aquifer. Because of the complexity of the geology in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area, precise mapping of these aquifers is difficult. As a result vulnerability scores, which are dependent on the presence and thickness of overlying soil, could vary over very short distances.

A vulnerability assessment was completed using a 2002 amendment to the Ministry of Environment Intrinsic Susceptibility Index protocol. This method was also used by the adjacent source protection regions, which have similar geology and groundwater characteristics. The findings are described in detail in Chapter 5.

Given the geological complexity of the Cataraqui Source Protection Area, with vulnerable bedrock aquifers very close to the surface, a majority of the Cataraqui Source Protection Area should be considered a highly vulnerable aquifer for the purpose of source protection planning. The highly vulnerable aquifer area is assigned a vulnerability score of six.

Chloride, sodium, nitrate, and microbiological contaminants (total coliform, fecal coliform and Escherichia coli) are considered to be drinking water issues in the highly vulnerable aquifer. The vulnerability scoring of the aquifer means that moderate and low-ranked threats may exist in that area. In accordance with provincial rules, these threats have not been counted for this report.

Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas
An aquifer is an area of soil or rock under the ground that has many cracks and spaces and has the ability to store water. Water that seeps into an aquifer is called recharge. Much of the natural recharge of an aquifer comes from rain and melting snow. The land area where the rain or snow seeps down into an aquifer is called a recharge area. Recharge areas often have loose or permeable soil, such as sand or gravel, which allows water to seep easily into the ground. Areas with shallow fractured bedrock can also be recharge areas.

A recharge area is considered significant when there is a relatively high rate of infiltration of water from the surface into the ground within that area. Recharge helps to maintain the water level in the aquifers that are used for drinking water.

Identification of significant groundwater recharge areas in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area is challenging. Bedrock comprises the main aquifer in the region. Flow within this aquifer is through multiple complex fractures. The irregular topography in the Canadian Shield appears to produce locally controlled flow systems rather than watershed scale recharge and discharge areas.

A method prescribed by the province of Ontario has been used to identify and map the significant groundwater recharge areas. Because of the complex flow characteristics in the watershed, the mapped significant groundwater recharge areas should be confirmed in the future through field work and analyses. The significant groundwater recharge areas are assigned a vulnerability score of six, four or two.

Chloride, sodium, nitrate, and microbiological contaminants (total coliform, fecal coliform and Escherichia coli) are considered to be drinking water issues in the significant groundwater recharge areas. The vulnerability scoring of these areas means that moderate and low-ranked threats may exist in them. In accordance with provincial rules, these threats have not been counted for this report.

Wellhead Protection Areas
A wellhead is the physical structure of the well above the ground. A wellhead protection area is the area around the wellhead where land uses and activities have the potential to affect the quality of water that flows into the well.

A wellhead protection area is delineated by mapping the geology and groundwater levels surrounding the wellhead and using this information to create a mathematical model. This model is used to predict the speed at which the groundwater is flowing toward the well and from which direction, depending on the pumping rate at the municipal well supply. Using the mathematical model, a series of areas are delineated based on the time it would take groundwater and a contaminant to reach the wellhead. They are as follows:

wellhead protection area ‘A’ is a 100 metre radius around the wellhead
wellhead protection area ‘B’ is the area within which the time of travel to the well is less than or equal to two years, but excluding wellhead protection area ‘A’
wellhead protection area ‘C’ is the area within which the time of travel to the well is less than or equal to five years, but greater than two years
wellhead protection area ‘D’ is the area within which the time of travel to the well is less than or equal to twenty-five years, but greater than five years
wellhead protection areas ‘E’ and ‘F’ are mapped to account for situations where the groundwater is under the direct influence of surface water; wellhead protection area ‘F’ is intended to capture additional areas that contain the source of a drinking water issue in the untreated water.

The vulnerability of the aquifer to contamination can be assessed within these areas. The Ministry of Environment has an established method for scoring vulnerability. Simply put, the more vulnerable the aquifer and the closer proximity to the well, the higher the vulnerability score.

To produce a vulnerability score, the first step is to determine how easily contaminants can enter the aquifer. Scores are assigned as low, medium or high for specific locations.

The next step is to determine if human activity in the wellhead protection area has altered the landscape making it easier for contaminants to reach the aquifer. These alterations are called transport pathways. Transport pathways can be ditches, other wells, pipelines or other man-made features.

Once the vulnerability of the aquifer has been finalized, the last step is to combine it with the wellhead protection area zones to determine the final vulnerability scores for the wellhead protection area. Possible scores are two, four, six, eight and ten.

The Cataraqui Source Protection Area contains three municipal wells:

Cana Well Supply, City of Kingston
Lansdowne Well Supply, Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands
Miller Manor Apartments Well Supply, Township of Front of Yonge.

A portion of the Westport’s wellhead protection area (a limited extent of wellhead protection area ‘D’) is also located in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area. The well itself is located within the adjacent Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region.

- go to top of page-

Cana Well Supply
Cana is a small residential community located in the Kingston Mills area. It was established as a cooperative development in the early 1950s. Utilities Kingston operates a well, a Water Treatment Plant and a sewage treatment plant that serve 32 households in the community.

The wellhead protection area has been mapped and includes wellhead protection areas ‘A’ to ‘E’ (see Map 5-12). The sewage treatment plant, private residences, industrial areas, natural areas and transportation corridors are located within the wellhead protection area.

Vulnerability mapping has also been completed. Using the results of this mapping, vulnerability scores were calculated for all of the areas. The scores range from six to ten (see Map 5-14).

Drinking water issues of total coliform and Escherichia coli, chloride and sodium were found in untreated water for this system. Further study is needed to determine the source.

An assessment of threats was conducted within the wellhead protection area around this water treatment plant.

For existing activities, we found 23 locations with significant threats, 44 with moderate threats and nine with low-ranked threats. This represents a total of 76 enumerated parcels and 95 individual threats.

Lansdowne Well Supply
The village of Lansdowne has two wells that supply its water. The wells and water treatment facility are operated by the Ontario Clean Water Agency.

The wellhead protection area has been mapped and includes wellhead protection areas ‘A’ to ‘D’ (see Map 5-20). Vulnerability scoring is shown in Map 5-22. The scores range from six to ten.

Total coliform and Escherichia coli are considered to be drinking water issues in the untreated water for this system. Further study is needed to determine the source.

An assessment of threats was conducted within the wellhead protection area around this water treatment plant.

For existing activities, we found 64 locations with significant threats, 106 with moderate threats and 41 with low-ranked threats. This represents a total of 211 enumerated parcels and represents 254 individual threats.

Miller Manor Apartments Well Supply
Located in the village of Mallorytown, Miller Manor Apartments is a 17-unit apartment building operated by the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville. Its water is supplied by a well and treatment system operated by A.J.’s Water Treatment.

The wellhead protection area has been mapped and includes wellhead protection areas ‘A’ to ‘D’ (see Map 5-28). Private residences, commercial areas, a school, natural/undeveloped areas, transportation corridors, recreational and agricultural areas are located within the wellhead protection area.

Vulnerability mapping has also been completed (see Map 5-30). The scores range from four to ten.

Total coliform, Escherichia coli, chloride, sodium and nitrate are all considered to be drinking water issues in the untreated water for this system. Further study is needed to determine the source.

An assessment of threats was conducted within the wellhead protection area around this water treatment plant.

For existing activities, we found 20 locations with significant threats, 22 with moderate threats and 79 with low-ranked threats. This represents a total of 121 enumerated parcels and represents 185 individual threats.

Westport
Westport is located within the adjacent Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region. Two wells supply about 650 people with drinking water. It is being included in this Assessment Report because a small part of the wellhead protection area extends into the Cataraqui Source Protection Area.

The wellhead protection area has been mapped and includes wellhead protection areas ‘A’ to ‘D’ (see Map 5-36). Part of wellhead protection area ‘D’ (about 0.5 kilometres of the total length) is located within the Cataraqui Source Protection Area.

Vulnerability mapping has also been completed (see Map 5-38). The vulnerability score in wellhead protection area ‘D’ are two and four.

An assessment of threats was conducted within the portion of this wellhead protection area that falls within the Cataraqui Source Protection Area. For existing activities, we found no locations with significant threats, none with moderate threats and one with a low-ranked threat.

For additional information about the Westport wellhead protection area, please refer to the Assessment Report for the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region.

- go to top of page-

Surface Water Sources

The larger urban communities within the Cataraqui Source Protection Area rely on surface water for their municipal drinking water systems. The communities of Brockville, Gananoque, Kingston, Amherstview, Odessa, Bath, Napanee and Sandhurst Shores all get their drinking water from Lake Ontario or the St. Lawrence River. The village of Sydenham gets its drinking water from Sydenham Lake.

Intake Protection Zones
The purpose of an intake protection zone is to delineate a potentially vulnerable area around a municipal surface water intake. According to Ministry of Environment Technical Rules each intake may be surrounded by three zones — Intake protection zones 1, 2 and 3.

The mapping of these zones depends on the location of the intake. There are four different types of intakes:

Type ‘A’ – Great Lakes (example: Lake Ontario)
Type ‘B’ – Connecting Channel (example: St. Lawrence River)
Type ‘C’ – Rivers (not affected by a dam)
Type ‘D’ – Other.

The Cataraqui Source Protection Area has Type ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘D’ intakes. There are no Type ‘C’ intakes in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area.

Intake protection zone 1 is a set area, generally a one-kilometre radius around the intake.

Intake protection zone 2 is defined by the movement of water and is sized to encompass a two-hour time of travel for a contaminant to reach the intake.

Intake protection zone 3 is an area of special interest. For the Type ‘A’ and ‘B’ intakes, it is the area in which contaminants could reach the intake during and after a large storm. For Type ‘D’ intakes, it is defined based on the lakes and streams that contribute water to the intake.

Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Intakes
There are eight municipal intakes along the Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River shoreline in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area. They are:

Brockville
James W. King - Gananoque
Kingston Central
Point Pleasant - Kingston
Fairfield - Amherstview and Odessa
Bath
A.L. Dafoe - Napanee
Sandhurst Shores.

While the A.L. Dafoe intake is located in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area, the community it serves (Napanee) is actually located in the adjacent Quinte Source Protection Region.

The intake protection zone for the Picton intake, also located in the Quinte Source Protection Region, extends into the Cataraqui Source Protection Area.

The eight municipal intakes listed above were all part of a technical study conducted by the Centre for Water and the Environment at Queen’s University. This study modeled winds, water currents and weather patterns to delineate intake protection zones for each of these intakes. These are shown in Maps 6-1 to 6-58.

Vulnerability scoring for each of the eight intakes was also undertaken as part of this study. The calculation of this scoring is laid out in the Ministry of Environment technical rules.

Brockville
The Brockville water treatment plant is operated by the City of Brockville. It serves 22,000 residents of Brockville and 1,000 residents of the Township of Elizabethtown-Kitley. The intake pipe is located in the St. Lawrence River (see Maps 6-1 and 6-2).

Vulnerability scores help us to measure how vulnerable the drinking water source is to contamination (see Map 6-3). The vulnerability scores are nine for intake protection zone 1 and 8.1 for intake protection zone 2. This means that the water is very susceptible to contamination.

Escherichia coli is considered to be a drinking water issue in the untreated water for this system. Further study is needed to determine the source.

An assessment of threats was conducted within the intake protection zone 1 and 2 around this water treatment plant.

For existing activities, we found three locations with significant threats, 293 with moderate threats and eight with low-ranked threats. This represents a total of 304 parcels with 356 individual threats.

James W. King (Gananoque)
The James W. King Water Treatment Plant is operated by the Town of Gananoque. It serves 5,200 residents of Gananoque. The intake pipe is located in the St. Lawrence River (see Map 6-9).

The vulnerability scores are nine for intake protection zone 1 and 8.1 for intake protection zone 2 (see Map 6-10). This means that the water is very susceptible to contamination.

There are no substances considered to be a drinking water issue in the untreated water for this system.

An assessment of threats was conducted within the intake protection zone 1 and 2 around this water treatment plant.

For existing activities, we found one location with significant threats, 166 with moderate threats and 12 with low-ranked threats. This represents a total of 179 parcels and 229 individual threats.

City of Kingston
The City of Kingston is served by two drinking water treatment plants, one in the central part of the city (Beverley Street) and one in the western part (Point Pleasant). Both plants draw their water from Lake Ontario (see Maps 6-16 and 6-23 for the individual systems and Maps 6-17a or 6-24a for both systems mapped together).

The Kingston Central plant serves a population of 80,000 while the Point Pleasant plant serves 44,000 people.

The vulnerability scores for both plants are six for intake protection zone 1, which is considered moderate. For intake protection zone 2, the Kingston Central plant scores 4.8 while the Point Pleasant plant scores 4.2 (see Maps 6-17 and 6-24). This means that the water is somewhat susceptible to contamination.

There are no substances considered to be a drinking water issue in the untreated water for these systems.

An assessment of threats was conducted within the intake protection zone 1 and 2 around these water treatment plants.

For existing activities around Kingston Central, we found no locations with significant threats, one location with a moderate threat and 101 locations with low ranked threats. This represents a total of 102 parcels and 115 individual threats.

A count of activities around Point Pleasant found no significant or moderate threats. However, there are ten parcels with low-ranked threats, representing 14 individual threats.

- go to top of page-

Loyalist Township
Loyalist Township has two drinking water treatment plants. The Fairfield plant (Map 6-30) is located in Amherstview and serves 8,620 people in Amherstview, Odessa, Harewood and Brooklands. The Bath plant (Map 6-37) serves 1,800 residents in the community of Bath and 550 inmates in the Millhaven and Bath Institutions. Both of the plants draw their water from Lake Ontario.

The vulnerability scores for both plants are seven for intake protection zone 1 and 6.3 for intake protection zone 2 (see Maps 6-31 and 6-38). This means that the water is susceptible to contamination.

Total coliform is considered to be a drinking water issue in the untreated water for the Fairfield plant. Organic nitrogen and Escherichia coli are considered to be drinking water issues in the untreated water for the Bath water treatment plant.

An assessment of threats was conducted within the intake protection zone 1 and 2 around these water treatment plants.

For existing activities, we found no parcels with significant threats at either the Fairfield or Bath intake protection zones. Existing activities around the Fairfield intake protection zone included seven moderate threats and 173 low-ranked threats. This represents a total of 180 parcels with 220 individual threats.

The Bath intake protection zone threat activities result in 34 moderate threats and 82 low-ranked threats, representing a total of 116 parcels and 309 individual threat counts.

Town of Greater Napanee
The Town of Greater Napanee has two drinking water treatment intakes in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area. The A.L. Dafoe intake serves 10,000 people in the town of Napanee, which is located in the Quinte Source Protection Region. The Sandhurst Shores water treatment plant serves 230 residents in the Sandhurst Shores subdivision. Both of the plants draw their water from Lake Ontario (see Map 6-44 and Map 6-51 for the individual systems and Maps 6-45a or 6-52a for both systems mapped together).

The vulnerability scores for both plants are seven for intake protection zone 1 and 5.6 for intake protection zone 2 (see Maps 6-45 and 6-52). This means that the water is susceptible to contamination.

There are no substances considered to be a drinking water issue in the untreated water for either water treatment plant.

An assessment of threats was conducted within the intake protection zone 1 and 2 around these water treatment plants.

For existing activities around the A. L. Dafoe plant and the Sandhurst Shores facility, we found no parcels with significant threats. Existing activities around the A.L. Dafoe intake protection zone included six locations with moderate threats and 21 locations with low-ranked threats. This represents 27 parcels and 67 individual threat counts.

For moderate and low threats around the Sandhurst Shores intake protection zone, we found seven moderate threats and 179 parcels with low-ranked threats. This represents 186 parcels and 345 individual threat counts.

Picton
The Picton water treatment plant intake is located in the Quinte Source Protection Region. The intake protection zone 3b for the plant is partially located within the Cataraqui Source Protection Area. The intake is located in the Bay of Quinte, part of Lake Ontario (see Map 6-59).

The vulnerability score for the portion of intake protection zone 3 that falls within the Cataraqui (intake protection zone 3b) is six (see Map 6-60). This means that the water is susceptible to contamination.

An assessment of threats was conducted within the portion of the Picton intake protection zone 3b that falls within the Cataraqui Source Protection Area.

For existing activities, we found no locations with significant threats, 13 with moderate threats and 32 with low-ranked threats. This represents 45 parcels and 173 individual threat counts.

For additional information about the Picton Intake, please refer to the Assessment Report for the Quinte Source Protection Region.

Sydenham
There is only one inland municipal drinking water system intake in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area. It serves 940 residents in the village of Sydenham in the Township of South Frontenac. The intake is located in Sydenham Lake.

Intake protection zones 1, 2 and 3 have been delineated and are shown on Map 6-66. Intake protection zone 1 has a vulnerability score of nine. Intake protection zone 2 has a vulnerability score of 8.1. Intake protection zone 3a is scored 6.3. The higher the score, the more vulnerable the area is to contamination.

Dissolved organic carbon is considered to be a drinking water issue in the untreated water for the plant.

An assessment of threats was conducted within the intake protection zones 1, 2 and 3 around this water treatment plant.

For existing activities, we found three locations with significant threats, 168 with moderate threats and five with low-ranked threats. This represents 176 parcels and 309 individual threat counts.

- go to top of page-

Potential Impacts from Climate Change

Climate change has potential implications for both water quantity and quality. It is clear that our climate is changing, but which aspects of our climate, how much they may change in the future and what impacts this may have in the Cataraqui Source Protection Area is unknown.

Climate change impacts occur on a regional scale. The current research looks at areas as large as eastern Ontario, eastern Canada or the northeastern United States. This research suggests that for our area we can expect an increase in temperature, more winter precipitation which may be in the form of rain or snow, small increases in runoff and more frequent heavy precipitation events. These changes could have the following impacts:

more evapotranspiration due to higher temperatures and less runoff to streams and recharge to groundwater
more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow
more frequent heavy precipitation may cause more flooding and erosion.

Impacts on water quantity could include less water available in lakes and wetlands and consequently less supply for drinking water. This could lead to lower lake levels in the summer causing problems for recreational boating and swimming as well as commercial shipping.

Less water recharging into the ground could result in lower groundwater levels, dry wells and even dry streams and lakes.

There could also be impacts on water quality. Warmer winters could allow for more pests and invasive species. Warmer weather could also lead to more algae, requiring increased treatment at water treatment plants. Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) are of special concern. Higher temperatures, more sunny days, and increased nutrient runoff into surface waters have the potential to increase the toxic blooms of these algae. However, other climate change factors may cancel out the effect of these conditions on the growth of cyanobacteria.

Lower streamflows and water levels in lakes may mean an increased concentration in the amount of contaminants in surface water. More intense storms could also result in more contaminants being washed into surface water.

Climate change may also mean changes to the vulnerable area definitions around municipal intakes and wells.

For wellhead protection areas, more precipitation may mean more contaminants flowing into the area via transport pathways, which will increase the vulnerability of these areas. Drier conditions and less recharge may mean lower overall flow rates, resulting in larger wellhead protection areas.

For intake protection zones, more frequent storms could mean increased vulnerability due to more contaminants being washed into the water. It could also mean increased streamflow, which could increase the size of some intake protection zones.

Warmer temperatures may result in lower water levels, exposing some intakes to the surface and surface impacts. A shorter ice cover period may make additional activities such as a longer shipping season a possibility, increasing the possibility of more spills.

Water conservation measures, increased monitoring, more research, protecting recharge areas and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are all measures that can be used to reduce impacts of or adapt to climate change.

- go to top of page-

Topics for Additional Research

In preparing background studies for the Assessment Report a number of data gaps and topics for additional research were noted. The Cataraqui Source Protection Committee and CRCA will work with the province of Ontario to fill as many of these data gaps as possible over the coming years. In the interim, the Committee will consider these data gaps and other topics and take a precautionary approach when addressing topics where there is uncertainty.

The additional research will allow for the continuous improvement of the report. Some of the key topics for work over the longer term include:

The collection of additional data particularly for precipitation, evapotranspiration and groundwater water levels. These data would improve the certainty of our findings related to water budgets, significant groundwater recharge areas, highly vulnerable aquifers and wellhead protection areas.
Further research on the complex geology and hydrogeology of the Cataraqui Source Protection Area. Most of the current research relies on water well records which may be inaccurate. Where there are few wells, there are very little usable data. There are opportunities to improve the reliability of future records.
The collection of additional data in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River would capture a wider range of actual wind conditions, waves, and water currents in different years. This would improve the accuracy of the intake protection zones on the lake and river.
Research on the extent of intake protection zones during the winter season (ice cover) would advance our understanding of how contaminants move in the water throughout the year.
Further research on conditions is warranted. There is a lack of available data to demonstrate where contamination has actually occurred and similarly, where contamination has been cleaned up. These limitations have prevented the identification of conditions in this report.

- go to top of page-

Key Findings

A summary of the key findings of the Assessment Report is provided in Chapter 9. It includes an overall summary of the drinking water issues and drinking water threats found in all of the vulnerable areas.

- go to top of page-