Appendices Appendix A Regional Water Balance Support Information

Transcription

1 Appendices Appendix A Regional Water Balance Support Information Appendix B Provincial Highway Improvement Plans Appendix C Aggregate Producers within the NBMCA Appendix D Hydrologic Water Balance Estimates for Gauged Watersheds Appendix E Sensitivity/Vulnerability to Climate Change Evaluations Appendix F Future Land Use Change Vulnerability Evaluation Matrix

2 Appendix A Regional Water Balance Support Information A climatic water budget is a method of accounting for the gains and losses of water in a region. The method used in this report to compute a water budget for North Bay Airport was developed by Thornthwaite and Mather (1955) using air temperature and precipitation data. Data from Environment Canada (P) and temperature (T) data was obtained from Environment Canada for the North Bay Airport (Station # ). The calculated parameters from Environment Canada included snowmelt, potential evapotranspiration (PE), actual evapotranspiration (AE) and the classification of precipitation as rain or snow. The definition of terms below is taken from the companion document entitled Water Balance Tabulations for Canadian Climate Stations. (P) (P) is the accumulated precipitation (rain and snow) during the period. Temperature (T) Temperature (T) is average of the mean daily temperatures during the period. Rain Rain is the accumulated precipitation on days with a daily mean temperature greater than -1 ºC. Snow Storage Snow storage is the water equivalent of snow. It accumulates when T is less than -1 ºC. It is calculated by accumulating, over the winter, the precipitation on days with a mean temperature less than -1 ºC. Snow Melt (Melt) Snow melt (melt) is the accumulated daily melt. The melt is computed where there is snow on the ground and the daily temperature is greater than 0ºC and is computed as follows: Melt = ( X ) X (9 X Temperature/5) Potential Evapotranspiration (PE) Potential evapotranspiration (PE) is the amount of water that would be evaporated or transpired from a vegetated surface if there is sufficient moisture in the soil for the use of the vegetation (Thornthwaite and Mather, 1955). Potential evapotranspiration is given by: PE = Correction factor for length of day X (10 X Temperature / Heat Index) A The heat index calculated based on temperature. A is calculated based on the heat index. Soil Water Holding Capacity (WHC) and Soil Storage The water holding capacity (WHC) of the soil is the maximum amount of water that can be held in the capillaries of the soil for the use of the plants. The soil water holding capacity depends on the composition, structure, and depth of the soil and the type of vegetation surface. The water budget values were computed based on a WHC value of 300 mm. The WHC was selected from the Ministry of Environment Stormwater Management Planning & Design Manual (2003) for a mature forest cover and a fine, sandy loam (Hydrologic Soil Group B). A2

3 Total Available Free Water (Rain + Melt) When the total available free water (rain + melt) exceeds potential evapotranspiration (PE), the excess water is added to the soil storage until the WHC is reached. When PE exceeds the total available free water (rain + melt), water is drawn from the soil storage. Actual Evapotranspiration (AE) Actual evapotranspiration (AE) is the total evapotranspiration for the period. When the available free water equals or exceeds PE for the period, AE is set equal to PE. When the available free water is less than the PE, water is drawn from soil to meet evapotranspiration demands. The rate at which water can be drawn from soil is defined by a drying curve (assumed) and depends on the amount of water stored in the soil at the end of the previous period. Moisture Surplus The surplus water is the excess water after the evapotranspiration demands have been met (AE equals PE) and the soil storage has returned to the WHC level. Moisture Deficit The deficit is the amount by which the available water fails to meet the demand for water. It is computed by subtracting PE from AE for the period. Over the long-term (30 years) the annual water budget equation can be expressed as: (Rain + Snow) Actual Evapotranspiration = Surface Water Runoff Assuming the following: o changes in storage equal zero (surface water and groundwater), o net consumptive use is zero, o groundwater flow in and out are equal, and o no major diversions. When water is held in snowpack it is not available until it is melted. The above equation is only applicable on an annual basis when the water that is held in snowpack eventually melts and becomes available and the changes in storage reduce to zero. For this analysis, the amount of water that is potentially available in surface water runoff after evapotranspiration and melting has occurred was assumed to be: Rain + Snowmelt Actual Evapotranspiration = Surface Water Runoff AVERAGE ANNUAL RATES OF CHANGE ( ) The annual water budget values for North Bay from are shown in Figures A1 to A4. The average, annual rates of change, determined from the slope of the line, are as follows: Figure A1: Rain + Melt 2.7 mm/year Figure A2: Actual Evapotranspiration (AE) 0.7 mm/year Figure A3: Rain + Melt Actual Evapotranspiration 2.0 mm/year Figure A3: Temperature ºC/year A3

4 Annual AE (mm/year) Annual R+M (mm/year) 1400 annual 'rain + melt' rate of change = 2.7 mm/year Annual Rain + Melt (R+M) Linear (Annual Rain + Melt (R+M)) 0 Year Figure A1: Annual 'rain + melt (R+M) ( ) annual AE rate of change = 0.7 mm/year Annual Actual Evapotranspi ration (AE) Linear (Annual Actual Evapotranspi ration (AE)) 0 Year Figure A2: Annual actual evapotranspiration (AE) ( ) A4

5 annual temperatue (ºC) Annual P - AE (mm/year) annual "P-AE" rate of change = 2.0 mm/year Annual P-AE Linear (Annual P-AE) Year Figure A3: Annual 'rain + melt' - actual evapotranspiration (R+M - AE) ( ) 7 6 annual temperature rate of change = ºC/year annual tempera ture Year Figure A4: annual temperature ( ) A5

6 January February March April May June July August September October November December R+M, AE, 'R+M'-AE Temperature (ºC) AVERAGE ANNUAL AND MONTHLY WATER BUDGET VALUES ( ) monthly values calculated for the most recent climate normal period ( ) are shown in Figures A5. Figure A5 shows that Rain + Melt (R+M) and water surplus peak in March/April, drops off in the summer due to peak demands in evapotranspiration, and then rises again in October/November R + M AE R + M -AE Surplus T (ºC) Month -15 Figure A5: monthly available water values ( ) Table A1 shows the average annual and average monthly water budget values ( )., annual precipitation (and average, annual rain + melt) at North Bay is 1,045 mm., annual actual evapotranspiration is 567 mm. The average potential surface water runoff (available water after evapotranspiration and soil infiltration) annually is 478 mm/yr. Table A2 provides the average monthly and annual precipitation and temperature values for the two climate normal periods. Statistical t-tests were performed to determine if the differences in values between those two time periods are statistically significant. Bolded values are statistically significant (10% level of significance). precipitation has increased significantly for May and October. temperature has increased in April, July, August, September and December. Annual precipitation and temperature have significantly increased as well. A6

7 Table A1: annual and average monthly water budget values ( ) Month (P) Rain + Melt (R+M) Actual Evapotranspir ation (AE) P AE R+M AE Surplus Temperature (T) (ºC) January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual Table A2: Differences in precipitation and temperature between climate normal periods Period Difference Month Temperature Temperature Temperature January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual Legend 0.1 Values in bold are statistically significant (10% level of significance) A7

8 Tables A3 and A4 provides average monthly, seasonal and annual values for four climate normal periods and compares the past climate normal period ( ) to the most recent one ( ). Statistical t-tests were performed to determine if the differences in values between those two time periods are statistically significant. Values shown in bold were found statistically significant (10% level of significance). Table A4 is the same as Table A3 shows R+M and surplus. The differences in the average water budget values between the climate normal periods were found to be statistically significant on an annual basis but not necessarily seasonal or monthly. The amount of Rain + Melt AE and surplus is available earlier in the year now compared to the previous period. Values in the fall and winter for the most recent time period were significantly higher than those for the earlier period. Water surplus values for the most recent period in April were significantly lower than the previous one. Thus, the peak runoff still occurs in April however runoff for January, February and March have increased also and March has increased to almost match that for April; thus, the peak flow is shifting to earlier in the year. A8

9 Table A3: monthly water budget values by climate normal time period (P, AE, P-AE) Note: Values in Bold are statistically significant (10% level of significance) Period Difference between time periods and Month Monthly Monthly Actual Evapotranspirat ion Monthly P AE Monthly Monthly Actual Evapotranspirat ion Monthly P AE Monthly Monthly Actual Evapotranspirat ion Monthly P AE Monthly Monthly Actual Evapotranspirat ion Monthly P AE Monthly Monthly Actual Evapotranspiration Monthly P AE January mm 8% 0.2 mm 93% 5.0 mm 8% February mm 2% 0.5 mm 103% 0.5 mm 1% March mm 5% 2.0 mm 45% 1.2 mm 2% April mm 14% 3.6 mm 13% 5.8 mm 14% May mm 33% 3.2 mm 4% 23.8 mm 244% June mm 14% 3.5 mm 3% 9.7 mm 61% July mm -3% 3.2 mm 3% -6.2 mm -25% August mm -9% 4.7 mm 4% mm -98% September mm 0% 3.8 mm 5% -4.3 mm -9% October mm 19% -1.6 mm -5% 20.5 mm 32% November mm 12% -0.2 mm -3% 11.6 mm 14% December mm 3% 0.2 mm 17% 2.2 mm 3% Season Seasonal Seasonal Actual Evapotranspirat ion Seasonal P AE Seasonal Seasonal Actual Evapotranspirat ion Seasonal P AE Seasonal Seasonal Actual Evapotranspirat ion Seasonal P AE Seasonal Seasonal Actual Evapotranspirat ion Seasonal P AE Seasonal Seasonal Actual Evapotranspiration Seasonal P AE Spring mm 18% 8.7 mm 8% 30.7 mm 28% Summer mm 1% 11.4 mm 3% -9.3 mm -17% Fall mm 10% 1.9 mm 2% 27.8 mm 14% Winter mm 4% 0.9 mm 54% 7.6 mm 4% Annual mm 8% 22.9 mm 4% 56.8 mm 13% A9

10 Table A4: monthly and seasonal water availability by climate normal period ( R+M, R+M AE, Surplus) Note: Values in Bold are statistically significant (10% level of significance) Period Difference between time periods and (mm / %) Month Monthly Rain +Melt Monthly (R+M) AE Monthly Surplus Monthly Rain +Melt Monthly (R+M) AE Monthly Surplus Monthly Rain +Melt Monthly (R+M) AE Monthly Surplus Monthly Rain +Melt Monthly (R+M) AE Monthly Surplus Monthly Rain + Melt Monthly Rain + Melt - Actual Evapotranspiration Monthly Surplus January mm 77% 11.9 mm 76% 12.1 mm 81% February mm 69% 13.9 mm 68% 17.3 mm 92% March mm 31% 30.4 mm 31% 38.5 mm 40% April mm -23% mm -30% mm 28% May mm 26% 18.7 mm 152% 14.8 mm 57% June mm 14% 9.7 mm 61% 1.6 mm 20% July mm -3% -6.2 mm -25% -1.2 mm 20% August mm -9% mm -98% -4.6 mm 122% September mm 0% -4.3 mm -9% -7.1 mm 56% October mm 20% 20.7 mm 32% 8.9 mm 24% November mm 19% 14.5 mm 21% 12.1 mm 22% December mm 23% 6.4 mm 23% 11.8 mm 47% Seasonal Rain + Melt Seasonal R+M AE Seasonal Surplus Seasonal Rain + Melt Seasonal R+M AE Seasonal Surplus Seasonal Rain + Melt Seasonal R+M AE Seasonal Surplus Seasonal Rain +Malt Seasonal R+M AE Seasonal Surplus Seasonal Rain + Melt Seasonal R+M AE Seasonal Surplus Spring mm 4% 5.7 mm 2% 4.2 mm 5% Summer mm 1% -9.3 mm -17% -1.4 mm 23% Fall mm 11% 30.9 mm 17% 4.6 mm 13% Winter mm 51% 32.2 mm 50% 13.7 mm 70% Annual mm 8% 59.4 mm 13% 63.4 mm 14% Spring = March, April, May Summer = June, July, August Fall = September, October, November Winter = December, January, February A10

11 Appendix B - Provincial Highway Improvement Plans Figure B1 Selected Route Alignment for New Highway 17 Four Lane between North Bay (Highway 11) and Bonfield (Highway 531) Figure B2 Selected Route Alignment for New Highway 17 Four Lane between Bonfield (Highway 531) and Columbia Forest Products A11

12 Figure B3 Selected Route Alignment for New Highway 17 Four Lane between Columbia Forest Products and Crooked Calvin/Papineau-Cameron Boundary Figure B4 Selected Route Alignment for New Highway 17 Four Lane between Champlain Park and the Eastern Boundary of Nipissing District A12

13 Figure B5 Future North Bay Highway 11/17 Bypass - Recommended Plan A13

14 Appendix C - Aggregate Producers within the NBMCA Source: Gravel Watch Ontario data is available at A14

15 Appendix D - Hydrologic Water Balance Estimates for Gauged Watersheds Record Gauged Area 1 Estimated Actual Mean Annual Projected NB Airport TP Station ID Station Name Period sq km Evapotransiration 2 Surplus 3 Total Precip 4 for same period 02DD006 Duchesnay River near North Bay DD014 Chippewa Creek at North Bay DD013 La Vase River at North Bay DD024 Wasi River near Astorville JE020 Mattawa River at Bouillon Lake JE014 Mattawa River at Rutherglen JE019 Amable du Fond at Champlain PP JE019 Amable du Fond at Kiosk Red = PE - AE likely restricted by lack of precipitation Footnotes 1. Watershed gauged areas have been calculated or updated from subwatershed mapping produced for IWMP 2. Actual Evaporation is estimated from Evapotranspiration rate mapping provided by North Bay-Mattawa Source Protection Area Conceptual Water Budget (Gartner Lee 2008) and adjusted for the period based on water balance information presented in Section 7 3. Data generated by HYDAT for updated gauged areas for period 4. Summation of Estimated Actual Evapotranspiration and Mean Annual Runoff A15

16 Appendix E Sensitivity/Vulnerability to Climate Change Evaluations Appendix E.1 Sensitivity Scoring for Climate Change Impacts Evolving Wetter Spring/ Deepening Summer More Extreme More Intense Overall Subwatershed Freshet Fall Water Deficit Flow Conditions Summer Storms Ranking 1 Bear Creek Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate 9 2 Boulder Low Low Low Low Low Low 5 3 Windsor Low Low Low Low Low Low 5 4 Burford Creek Low Low Low Low Moderate Low 7 5 Callander Bay/South Shore Moderate Low Low Low High High 13 6 Chippewa Creek Moderate Moderate High High High High 21 7 Duchesnay Creek Low Low High Moderate Low High 13 8 Jessups Creek Low Low Low Low High Moderate 11 9 Lake Nipissing/North Bay Moderate Low Low Low High High La Vase River Moderate Low High High Moderate High Parks Creek Moderate Moderate Low Low High High Wistiwasing River Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low High Amable du Fond River Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate 9 14 Boom Creek Low Low Low Low Low Low 5 15 Kaibuskong River Moderate Low Low Low Moderate Moderate 9 16 Mattawa River Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate 9 17 North River Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate 9 18 Pautois Creek Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate 9 19 Sharpes Creek Low Low Moderate Moderate Low Moderate 9 20 Talon Lake Low Low Moderate Low Low Low 7 21 Trout Lake Low Low High Low Low Moderate Turtle Lake Low Low Moderate Low Low Low 7 Note Blue = Brook Trout Effect Earlier Freshet Wetter Conditions Dryer Conditions More extremes High rates of More winter runoff High/Low Flows Rainfall Concern Flooding/Erosion Higher flows Low water/flows Flooding/Erosion Flooding in Ice Damages/Daming Erosion Brook Trout Habitat Low Water Small systems or Walleye Spawning Brook Trout Habitat with damages Impact Sensitivity Individual Scoring Aggregate Ranking Distribution Low 1 5 to 8 6 Moderate 3 9 to 12 9 High A16

17 System has flood damage vulnerability Floodplain has a Two Zone Designation System Hazards have identifiable Risk to Life System has many structures/crossings Streams are highly susceptible to Erosion Susceptible to Extreme Flow Conditions Has Streams that Support Brook Trout Lakes in system already have Habitat Limitations Watershed has level sensitive spawning areas Development on Lakeshores are at Capacity Blue Green Algae affecting Water Use Lakes/Waterways used for Navigtion Contains Lakes important for Ice Fishing High Percentage of Confirerous Forests Total Score Ranking Appendix E.2 Subwatershed Indicators of Climate Change Vulnerability Subwatershed 1 Bear Creek P P 2 Low 2 Boulder P 1 Low 3 Windsor P P 1 Low 4 Burford Creek P 1 Low 5 Callander Bay/South Shore P P P P P P P 7 High 6 Chippewa Creek P P P P P P P 7 High 7 Duchesnay Creek P P P 3 Moderate 8 Jessups Creek P 1 Low 9 Lake Nipissing/North Bay P P P P P 5 Moderate 10 La Vase River P P P P P 5 Moderate 11 Parks Creek P P P P 4 Low 12 Wistiwasing River P P P P P P P P P 9 High 13 Amable du Fond River P P P 3 Moderate 14 Boom Creek P P 2 Low 15 Kaibuskong River P P P P P P P 7 High 16 Mattawa River P P P P 4 Moderate 17 North River P P 2 Low 18 Pautois Creek P P P 3 Moderate 19 Sharpes Creek P P 2 Low 20 Talon Lake P P P P 4 Moderate 21 Trout Lake P P P P P 5 Moderate 22 Turtle Lake P P 2 Low Aggregate Ranking Ranking Distribution 0-2 Low 10 3 to 5 Moderate High 4 A17

18 Appendix F - Future Land Use Change Vulnerability Evaluation Matrix Urban Growth Rural Growth Decline/Shift Aggregate Mining Forestry Shoreline Boating/Fishing Overall Subsatershed Expected Expected in Agriculture Activity Impacts Development Rec/Tourism Uses Score 1 Bear Creek R P P Low 4 2 Boulder R P P Low 4 3 Windsor R P P Low 4 4 Burford Creek Very Low 0 5 Callander Bay/South Shore R R R R High 8 6 Chippewa Creek R R R Moderate 6 7 Duchesnay Creek P R P Low 4 8 Jessups Creek R Low 2 9 Lake Nipissing/North Bay R R R Moderate 6 10 La Vase River R R R P P High 8 11 Parks Creek R R Low 4 12 Wistiwasing River R R P P P P High 8 13 Amable du Fond River P P R P P Moderate 7 14 Boom Creek P R P R Moderate 6 15 Kaibuskong River R R R P R R Very High Mattawa River P R P R R High 8 17 North River R P R Moderate 5 18 Pautois Creek R R P R P High 8 19 Sharpes Creek R R R P Moderate 7 20 Talon Lake P P P R R R High 9 21 Trout Lake P R R R Moderate 7 22 Turtle Lake P Very Low 1 Scoring Ranking Distribution Factor Ranking/Score <2 Very Low 2 P Minor 1 2 to 4 Low 6 R Major 2 5 to 7 Moderate 7 8 to 10 High Very High 1 * Algonquin Land Claim and Highway 17 4 Laning impacts assumed to be beyond the assessment time frame A18