Estimation of the Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe

Transcription

1 Estimation of the Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Submitted to Prepared by 2445 M Street, NW Washington, DC September 21 Final Report

2 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Table of Contents 1. Introduction Report Objective Description of Modeling Approach Source of Data Report Organization Base-Case Modeling Scenario Calibration Period and Reporting Period Flow Calibration Total Phosphorus Calibration Existing Land Use in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Results and Discussion Growth Modeling Scenario Growth Scenario Land Use Implementation of the Growth Scenario Agricultural BMP Modeling Scenario Implementation of the BMP Scenario Conclusions Total Phosphorus Loads: Base, Growth, and BMP Scenarios Opportunities for Phosphorus Reduction References Appendix A... A-1 Appendix B... B-1 Appendix C... C-1 Appendix D... D-1 Appendix E... E-1 Table of Contents i

3 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe List of Figures Figure 1-1: Lake Simcoe Subwatersheds and Stream Network... 3 Figure 1-2. Data Collection Stations in the Lake Simcoe Watershed... 6 Figure 2-1.Total Phosphorus Calibration and Reporting Periods for the Lake Simcoe Watershed... 1 Figure 2-2. Existing Land Use for the Lake Simcoe Watershed List of Tables Table 2-1. Source of Flow and Total Phosphorus Data for Lake Simcoe... 8 Table 2-2. Weather Stations by Subwatershed that were used in CANWET... 9 Table 2-3. Existing Conditions Land Use for Lake Simcoe Watershed Table 2-4. Base Case Scenario Annual Average Total Phosphorus Delivered Loads (kg/year) - January 24 - December Table 3-1. Growth Case Land Use by Subwatershed Table 3-2. G Case Scenario Annual Average Total Phosphorus Delivered Loads (kg/year) - January 24 - December Table 4-1. Summary of Agricultural BMP Input Percentages of Implementation Table 4-2. Agricultural BMP Descriptions Table 4-3. Agricultural BMP Scenario Annual Average Total Phosphorus Delivered Loads (kg/year) January 24 - December Table 5-1. Summary of the Total Annual Delivered Phosphorus from a Base Case, Growth, and BMP Scenario for the Lake Simcoe Watershed (kg/year) Table of Contents ii

4 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe 1. Introduction Lake Simcoe is situated in the southern part of central Ontario with the city of Toronto 5 km to the South. The Oak Ridges Moraine is the southern boundary of the watershed, the city of Karwatha Lakes and Orillia are to the north and the city of Barrie and Simcoe County are to the west. The watershed surrounding the lake drains 289,9 hectares (2,899 km 2 ) and consists of 17 subwatersheds. Figure 1-1 shows an overview of the Lake Simcoe Region with municipalities and subwatersheds. Lake Simcoe, with a surface area of 722 km 2, is an important source of drinking water for the surrounding communities and provides additional economic, recreational, natural, and social benefits. The watershed was settled in the early 18s and is now home to over 35, people, though during the summer months this number swells to over 4, people (LSRCA and OMOE, 29). During the late 197s, elevated phosphorus levels were confirmed as a significant water quality issue for the lake, causing a decline in health of fish populations. The reason why increased phosphorus loads to Lake Simcoe are an issue is because they cause an excess of plant and algae growth. Generally, the more phosphorus present in a system, the number of plants and size of the plants will increase. As this biomass dies, decomposing organisms use up available oxygen. The low levels of dissolved oxygen at the bottom of the lake, especially during summer months, are harmful to fish populations and other aquatic organisms. The coldwater fish in Lake Simcoe live in the colder, deep waters, but when there is not enough dissolved oxygen they are forced to shallower waters where many of their predators reside. The young lake trout, lake herring, lake whitefish and other fish species are eaten before they can mature to the reproductive stage and therefore the population of coldwater fish in Lake Simcoe cannot be sustained. Currently the trout and herring populations are maintained by stocking. There have been concerted efforts in recent years to control the level of phosphorus entering the lake and some reductions have occurred. However, the phosphorus levels are still too high to adequately support aquatic life and the lake continues to feel the effects of increased human activity (LSRCA and OMOE, 29). The main sources of phosphorus loading into Lake Simcoe are stormwater runoff entering tributaries from high intensity development areas and agricultural areas, water extracted from polders, treated wastewater from sewage treatment plants Introduction 1

5 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe (STPs), leakage from septic systems, atmospheric deposits, and sediment erosion and resuspension (LSRCA and OMOE, 29; OMOE, 21a). While total phosphorus loads to Lake Simcoe have decreased since the 199s they are still above the 44 Tonnes/year level, corresponding to a desired dissolved oxygen target of 7 mg/l (OMOE, 29). Introduction 2

6 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Figure 1-1: Lake Simcoe Subwatersheds and Stream Network Introduction 3

7 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe 1.1 Report Objective The objective of this report is to estimate phosphorus loadings to Lake Simcoe under various scenarios: The Base Case (existing conditions), Growth, and selected BMP scenarios. An understanding of the amount and sources of phosphorus delivered to the lake, the amount that could result from future projected watershed development, and the amount after implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) is necessary to successfully develop a nutrient strategy necessary to meet the dissolved oxygen target for Lake Simcoe. The tools used to achieve the objective are the modeling programs Canadian Nutrient and Watershed Evaluation Tool (CANWET ) (version 3.) and the Pollution Reduction Impact Comparison Tool (PRedICT). 1.2 Description of Modeling Approach CANWET is a nutrient loading, sediment, and water balance tool based on the Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) program with alterations to tailor the model to Canadian topography, soil, and climate (Haith and Shoemaker, 1987; Greenland 27). Using ArcView 3.3, CANWET has the ability to incorporate temporal and spatial data sets in order to simulate stream flow, sediment, and nitrogen and phosphorus loadings for different time periods and geographical units. Multiple GIS data layers clipped in the ArcView component of CANWET create three input files: hydrology and sediment transport, nutrient, and weather files. PRedICT is a tool within CANWET that models the effect of BMPs on the nutrient and sediment loadings. The input files of both CANWET and PRedICT allow for editing of the default values to better simulate existing or future processes and conditions. The Base-Case scenario simulates existing conditions phosphorus load. For the existing conditions, the model is calibrated for hydrology and nutrients. The Growth Scenario predicts the future nutrient loading based on future land use distributions. The Growth Scenario uses the calibrated stream flows and phosphorus loads from the Base-Case as well as the future growth land use, soil phosphorus, and groundwater nitrogen layers to simulate the total phosphorus load from future development. The BMP scenario predicts the future nutrient loading using future land uses and selected agricultural BMPs available to reduce pollutant loads. Loads from the atmosphere are not quantified in this study, but are a substantial portion of the total load to the lake. Introduction 4

8 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe 1.3 Source of Data Sources of data included spatial GIS files and data from watershed boundaries, point sources, weather stations, groundwater monitoring stations, water extractions, water quality stations, flow stations, elevation, soils and soil phosphorus, groundwater nitrogen, land use, provincial boundaries, septic systems, tile drainage, and roads (paved and unpaved). Figure 1-2 details the locations of the weather stations, groundwater monitoring stations, point sources, water quality stations, and flow stations within the Lake Simcoe watershed. Introduction 5

9 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Figure 1-2. Data Collection Stations in the Lake Simcoe Watershed Introduction 6

10 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe 1.4 Report Organization Section 2 presents the implementation of the Base Case Scenario with details on the flow and phosphorus loads calibration. Section 3 describes the Growth scenario and Section 4 describes the BMP Scenario. Section 5 summarizes the modeling results, presents the approach used to develop the initial target setting for each subwatershed and explains opportunities to reduce phosphorus in the Lake Simcoe watershed. Appendix A presents the Base Case Scenario factsheets for each subwatershed depicting the observed versus simulated flow, calibration and validation flow values, percent differences in flow values, observed versus simulated total phosphorus values over various time periods, percent differences in total phosphorus values, and total phosphorus loads for different land uses. Appendix B provides the factsheets depicting the total phosphorus load differences between the Base Case and Growth scenarios for each subwatershed. Appendix C provides the BMP Scenario factsheets depicting the total phosphorus load differences between the Growth and BMP Scenarios for each subwatershed. Appendix D includes the transport and nutrient files used in development of the Base Case Scenario. Appendix E presents the relationship between the ELC classification and the land use data used for this modeling exercise. Introduction 7

11 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe 2. Base-Case Modeling Scenario The Base-Case scenario was implemented to estimate the existing phosphorus loading conditions within each subwatershed in the Lake Simcoe Watershed. The implementation of the Base-Case scenario requires flow and total phosphorus (TP) loads calibrated to existing observed, prorated, or synthesized flow/loads reported by OMOE and LSRCA. Observed flow is the measured flow at the specific station, and observed loads are calculated from water quality measurements in the subwatershed. Prorated flow refers to observed flow which was prorated to account for the flow gauge not being located at the mouth of the watershed. Synthesized flow refers to flow which was not observed within the watershed, but was developed using flow data from gauged watersheds. Similarly, TP loads were estimated for watersheds not monitored for water quality, using loads from watersheds most similar in land use. A summary of the type of data used in the simulations is presented in Table 2-1. Figure 1-2 depicts the locations of the water quality stations, weather stations, flow stations, point sources and groundwater monitoring stations from which observed data was acquired. Table 2-1. Source of Flow and Total Phosphorus Data for Lake Simcoe Watershed Total Phosphorous Flow Observed Estimated Observed Prorated Synthesized* Barrie Creeks Beaver River Black River East Holland Georgina Creeks Hawkestone Creek Hewitts Creek Innisfil Creeks Lovers Creek Maskinonge River Oro Creeks North Oro Creeks South PefferlawBrook-Uxbridge Brook Ramara Creeks Talbot River** West Holland Whites Creek *Data was synthesized using observed flow from Pefferlaw/Uxbridge Brook, Beaver River, Black River, East Holland, Lovers and Upper Schomberg **The Talbot River watershed does not include the Upper Talbot River Watershed Base-Case Scenario 8

12 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe CANWET requires three input files to generate results: the weather, transport, and nutrient files. The weather file includes precipitation and temperature data in each watershed. Canwet uses the mean daily values of precipitation and temperature (gap-filled; Schroeter et al., 2) for the 2 nearest weather stations as climate input for each subwatershed as outlined in Table 2-2. Table 2-2. Weather Stations by Subwatershed that were used in CANWET Subwatershed Corresponding Weather Stations (Closest two weather stations) Subwatershed Corresponding Weather Stations (Closest two weather stations) Name ID Number Name ID Number Barrie Creeks Beaver River Black River East Holland River Georgina Creeks Hawkestone Creek Hewitts Creek Innisfill Creeks Lovers Creek Barrie WPCC Scanlon MOE LSEMS16 Maskinonge River Shanty Bay Aurora NE Marsh Hill 6155 Orillia Brain Oro Creek North Udora Coldwater Warminster Udora Barrie WPCC Oro Creek South Aurora NE Shanty Bay Scanlon MOE LSEMS16 Pefferlaw Brook/Uxbridge Marsh Hill Aurora NE Brook Udora Udora Ramara MOE LSEMS36 Ramara Creeks Scanlon MOE LSEMS16 Lagoon City Orillia Brain Ramara MOE LSEMS36 Talbot River Coldwater Warminster Lagoon City Barrie WPCC Hartley Whites Creek Shanty Bay Ramara MOE LSEMS36 Barrie WPCC Scanlon MOE LSEMS16 West Holland River Scanlon MOE LSEMS16 Aurora NE Barrie WPCC Shanty Bay The transport and nutrient files contain different parameters specific to each subwatershed, which can be adjusted in order to calibrate the subwatershed for flow and TP. Parameters in the transport file are modified to match the simulated flow to the observed (or estimated/synthesized) flow. To model the natural phosphorus loads entering Lake Simcoe from each subwatershed, adjustments were made primarily to parameters in the nutrient file but also to parameters in the transport file. These transport and nutrient files are presented for each subwatershed in Appendix D. 2.1 Calibration Period and Reporting Period The CANWET model was calibrated using the average OMOE/LSRCA observed loads developed using the period of June 24 to May 27. The calibrated loads for each subwatershed are presented in Appendix A. The distribution of the TP loads by source was Base-Case Scenario 9

13 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe developed using a reporting period spanning from January 24 to December 27. These calibration and reporting periods are depicted in the Figure J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D Calibration Period (June 24 May 27) Reporting Period (January 24 December 27) Figure 2-1. Total Phosphorus Calibration and Reporting Periods for the Lake Simcoe Watershed It was necessary to use a different period than the calibration period for reporting the total loads and deriving the distribution of these loads by land use type and source. This is due to the fact that CANWET does not output the breakdown of the load by land use type and source on a monthly basis. In other words, CANWET outputs for each month the total combined load without providing the distribution of this monthly load by land use type and source. CANWET does provide the distribution of the loads by land use type and source, but on an annual calendar basis. Since the calibrated loads do not span complete calendar years (June to May), it was necessary to use the period of January 24 to December 27 to summarize the total phosphorus loads along with a breakdown of these loads by source and land use type. The breakdown of the loads by land use type and source is crucial and necessary for the next steps of this project. 2.2 Flow Calibration OMOE and LSRCA provided the observed/estimated/synthesized flow for each of the 17 subwatersheds (Table 2-1; LSRCA and OMOE, Draft Technical Report). The flow was calibrated based on data collected within the last five years (January 24 - December 28). Flow from the last five years was selected in order to more accurately represent current conditions. The model was calibrated based on data from the early part of the dataset and validated based on data from the latter years of the dataset. As the parameters in the transport file were changed to calibrate the simulated flow to the observed flow, the observed flow and simulated flow were plotted against each other graphically, and a regression trendline was Base-Case Scenario 1

14 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe calculated. The R 2 value of the regression indicates how well the simulated flow matches the observed/estimated/synthesized flow. R 2 values above.5 were considered acceptable in the calibration and validation of the model. Another tool used to help calibrate the flow was the flow budget, or the percent difference in the volume of water in the simulated versus the observed flow where the difference is based on the sum of the volume of water from each month. Flow budgets with fewer than 15 percent differences were considered acceptable in calibration and validation. 2.3 Total Phosphorus Calibration OMOE and LSRCA provided monthly observed/estimated total phosphorus loads (Table 2-1; LSRCA and OMOE, Draft Technical Report) for each of the 17 subwatersheds for the period spanning June 24 to May 27. No data was available for 28. This period served as the basis for calibration of the model for total phosphorus focusing on reproducing the monthly observed load as well as the observed seasonal load. The TP calibration focused on adjusting the model s coefficients included in the nutrient file. The TP calibration was considered satisfactory when the simulated load, for the period of June 24 to May 27, was within 1% of the observed load. 2.4 Existing Land Use in the Lake Simcoe watershed The land use distribution in the Lake Simcoe watershed is an important factor affecting the hydrology and nutrient loadings. Table 2-3 details the land use distribution by subwatershed. Figure 2-2 illustrates the existing land use for Lake Simcoe. The dominant land use types in the Lake Simcoe watershed are Cropland (23%), Hay/Pasture (22%), Forest (17%), Wetland (16%), and High Intensity Development (9%). The land use used in this modeling is derived from the LSRCA's Ecological Land Classification and Land Use (ELC) data. The earliest data is from 22 with updates incorporated from 25 to 29. The relationship between the ELC classification and the land use data used for this modeling exercise is outlined in Appendix E. Base-Case Scenario 11

15 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Figure 2-2. Existing Land Use for the Lake Simcoe Watershed Base-Case Scenario 12

16 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Table 2-3. Existing Conditions Land Use for Lake Simcoe Watershed Land Use Category (ha) Subwatershed Hay-Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf-Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development Total (ha) % of total Barrie Creeks ,669 3, % Beaver River 11,382 9,61 2,669 6, , , % Black River 5,822 7,734 7,919 8, , ,16 2,117 1,415 37, % East Holland * 2,796 4,282 3,93 2, , ,453 1,632 6,71 24,58 9.8% Georgina Creeks 31 1, ,99 2.% Hawkestone Creek 1, , , % Hewitts Creek ,751.7% Innisfil Creeks 1,845 2,935 1,821 1, ,692 1,64 4.2% Lovers Creek 411 1,638 1, ,45 5,99 2.4% Maskinonge River 971 2, , % Oro Creeks North 1, , , % Oro Creeks South 1,198 1,52 1, ,74 2.3% Pefferlaw-Uxbridge Brook 1,29 9,839 9,28 7,413 1, ,449 2,136 1,851 44, % Ramara Creeks 5,631 1,415 1,66 3, , % Talbot River 3, , , % West Holland * 4,815 12,37 5,157 2, ,82 1,693 2,151 3, % Whites Creek 3,783 1,82 1,92 1, , % Total (ha) 55,281 58,328 42,927 39,178 3,16 4, ,366 1,961 22,793 25,68 1.% % of Total 22.1% 23.3% 17.1% 15.6% 1.2% 1.7%.2% 5.3% 4.4% 9.1% 1.% *total area does not include polder areas Base-Case Scenario 13

17 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe 2.5 Results and Discussion Table 2-4 summarizes the Base-Case scenario TP loads by subwatershed and also by land cover type/source. Within the table a subtotal column sums the TP load resulting from runoff. Loads from polders and septics (within a 1 m band of the lake) are considered to be direct-to-lake discharge; they are listed in the runoff section of the table but not included in the runoff totals. The TP loads to the right of the runoff subtotal are from point sources above monitoring stations and point sources below monitoring stations; neithercontributes directly to the runoff load. (Point sources above monitoring stations are within the subwatersheds and contribute to the tributary load, while point sources below monitoring stations deposit loads directly into the lake.) The runoff load to the lake is 77% of the total load. The watersheds with the highest TP contribution to the lake are Barrie Creeks (14.4%), East Holland (14.1%), West Holland (13.3%), and Oro Creeks North (9.8%). + Base-Case Scenario 14

18 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Table 2-4. Base Case Scenario Annual Average Total Phosphorus Delivered Loads (kg/year) - January 24 - December 27 Land Use Category Controllable Agricultural Urban Other Uncontrollable Point Source Subwatershed Hay-Pasture Cropland Turf-Sod Tile Drainage Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development Septics * Polder* Quarry Unpaved Road Transition Forest Wetland Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Total Point Source above Point Source below Total (kg/yr) % of total Barrie Creeks , ,16 3,131 8, % Beaver River 418 1, , ,48 6.% Black River 34 1, , , % East Holland 299 1, , , , % Georgina Creeks , 2,18 3.7% Hawkestone Creek % Hewitts Creek % Innisfil Creeks , ,49 6.1% Lovers Creek % Maskinonge River , , % Oro Creeks North 1, , ,93 1,114 5, % Oro Creeks South ,58 1.8% Pefferlaw- Uxbridge Brook , ,437 6.% Ramara Creeks , ,66 3.6% Talbot River ,774 2,858 5.% West Holland 126 1, , ,16 5, , % Whites Creek ,217 1, % Total (kg/yr) 4,159 1, , ,15 4,44 2,645 1, ,496 4,783 44, ,354 57,215 1.% % of Total 7.3% 19.% 1.5% 4.% 1.4% 26.5% 7.7% 4.6% 1.8%.5%.7%.2%.1% 6.1% 8.4% 77.4%.9% 9.4% 1.% *Septics and polders are considered direct-to-lake discharges and thus are not included in the Runoff Total, however the loads of these sources were included in the total phosphorus load. Base-Case Scenario 15

19 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe 3. Growth Modeling Scenario In order to prepare preliminary estimates of potential loading of phosphorus from stormwater due to new development, a projection of the total area of new development within the watershed was undertaken. This estimate was based on adopted and draft official plans prepared by the municipalities in the watershed. To determine the area of new development in designated greenfield areas, the total amount of existing built-up areas was subtracted from the estimate of land designated and projected to accommodate population and employment growth. Since the conformity process to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is still ongoing, the information used to calculate this preliminary estimate was obtained from various sources, including mapping layers used in the Lake Simcoe Assimilative Capacity Study (OMPIR, 26), estimates of existing developed areas by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, as well as potential settlement area expansion scenarios. The maximum amount of land to be developed was assumed in order to model the growth scenario. The amount of land assumed was for analysis purposes only and is subject to change as the basis of these estimates are draft and adopted official plans that are not yet in effect and are subject to Growth Plan conformity. On this basis, the preliminary estimate of the total area within the watershed where new development might occur to 231 is approximately 17, hectares. 3.1 Growth Scenario Land Use The breakdown of acreage by watershed and land use for the Growth Scenario is shown in Table 3-1. The new settlement areas were identified through municipal draft official plans and with the assistance of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). Any "nondevelopable" land (floodplain, wetland) were then removed from the settlement areas. The settlement areas were then applied to the existing land use as high intensity development. The acreages presented in Table 3-1 are the acreages calculated by CANWET using ArcView 3.3. Overall, the trend from Base-Case to Growth Scenario was either a decrease or no change in every land cover type except for high intensity development. High intensity development increased from 9 to 14% of the total watershed area which is an increase of 12,793 ha from the base case scenario. This increase in area provides a better perspective on the impact of the land use change within each subwatershed. Growth Scenario 16

20 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Table 3-1. Growth Scenario Land Use by Subwatershed Land Use Category (ha) Subwatershed Hay-Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf-Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development Total (ha) % of total Barrie Creeks ,974 3,73 1.5% Beaver River 11,215 8,95 2,648 6, , ,27 32, % Black River 5,567 7,476 7,665 8, ,832 2,117 2,618 37, % East Holland* 2,173 3,71 3,8 2, , ,125 1,632 9,85 24,57 9.8% Georgina Creeks 263 1, ,289 4,91 2.% Hawkestone Creek 1, , , % Hewitts Creek ,752.7% Innisfil Creeks 1,729 2,756 1,53 1, ,4 1, % Lovers Creek 289 1, ,243 5,99 2.4% Maskinonge River 834 2, , % Oro Creeks North 1, , ,226 7, % Oro Creeks South 1, , ,74 2.3% Pefferlaw/Uxbridge Brook 9,863 9,531 8,778 7,411 1, ,236 2,136 2,828 44, % Ramara Creeks 5,332 1,386 1,372 3, ,489 13, % Talbot River 2, , , % West Holland* 4,421 11,187 4,817 2, ,612 1,693 3,949 3, % Whites Creek 3,729 1,789 1,81 1, , % Total (ha) 52,556 54,296 39,79 39,163 3,41 3, ,74 1,96 35,28 25,68 1.% % of Total 21.% 21.7% 15.8% 15.6% 1.2% 1.4%.2% 4.7% 4.4% 14.% 1.% *total area does not include polder areas Base-Case Scenario 17

21 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe 3.2 Implementation of the Growth Scenario The Growth Scenario was implemented using the calibrated CANWET model for the Base-Case Scenario. Modeling for the growth scenario incorporated the same weather data as the base-case scenario. The point sources were also assumed to be continuous from the base-case to the growth scenarios. The only modifications to the Base-Case Scenario input files include the projected Growth Scenario land use, the soil-phosphorus associated with the future land use, and the inclusion of the point source Silani Cheese which came online in December 27, at the very end of the base-case modeling period. Total phosphorus loads from the Growth Scenario are presented in Table 3-2. Factsheets detailing the Base-Case and the Growth Scenario are detailed in Appendix B. It is important to note that the phosphorus loads from each subwatershed are calibrated to existing conditions and land uses. In the case of urban development, the existing conditions include a range of levels of stormwater management and treatment. However, future major urban development in the watershed will require a high level of stormwater management and, as a result, the phosphorus load from new development may be over-estimated in the Growth Scenario. Table 3-2 indicates that the watersheds contributing the most TP load to the lake are East Holland (17.8%), West Holland (12.8%), Barrie Creeks (12.3%), and Oro Creeks North (9.1%). The land cover types that contribute the most TP to the lake under the Growth Scenario are High Intensity Development (41.2%) and Cropland (13.8%). The runoff-associated TP load consists of 8.1% of the total load. Growth Scenario 18

22 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Table 3-2. Growth Case Scenario Annual Average Total Phosphorus Delivered Loads (kg/year) - January 24 - December 27 Land Use Category Controllable Agricultural Urban Other Uncontrollable Point Source Subwatershed Hay-Pasture Cropland Turf-Sod Tile Drainage Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development Septics * Polder* Quarry Barrie Creeks , ,98 2,774 8, % Beaver River 412 1, , , % Black River 29 1, , , , % East Holland 232 1, , , , % Georgina Creeks , ,938 3,46 4.3% Hawkestone Creek % Hewitts Creek % Innisfil Creeks , , ,54 6.3% Lovers Creek ,146 1, % Maskinonge River , , % Oro Creeks North 1, , , ,57 9.1% Oro Creeks South , % Pefferlaw- Uxbridge Brook , , % Ramara Creeks , ,47 3.4% Talbot River ,41 3, % West Holland 116 1, ,78 2, ,73 6, , % Whites Creek ,264 1, % Total (kg/yr) 3,957 9, , ,462 4,44 2,645 1, ,758 4,76 57, ,673 71,543 1.% % of Total 5.5% 13.8% 1.1% 3.1% 1.% 41.2% 6.2% 3.7% 1.4%.4%.5%.2%.% 5.3% 6.6% 8.1%.8% 9.3% 1.% *Septics and polders are considered direct-to-lake discharges and thus are not included in the Runoff Total, however the loads of these sources were included in the total phosphorus load. Unpaved Road Transition Forest Wetland Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Total Point Source above Point Source below Total (kg/yr) % of total Growth Scenario 19

23 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe 4. Agricultural BMP Modeling Scenario Following the estimation of the TP loads under the Growth Scenario, a scenario was implemented to determine the effect of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) on the Growth Scenario TP loads. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), Ontario Ministry of Environment (OMOE), Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority (LSRCA) collectively decided upon the percentage of achievable implementation of five row crop BMPs, one hay/pasture BMP, and three shared agricultural BMPs. These BMP implementation percentages are presented in Table 4-1. The row crops BMPs include crop residue management, strip cropping, crop rotation, cover crops, and nutrient management plans. The BMP for Hay/Pasture is nutrient management. The shared BMPs are stream kilometers with vegetated buffer strips, stream miles with fencing, and stream miles with bank stabilization. Descriptions of each BMP are in Table 4-2 Agricultural BMP Scenario 2

24 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Table 4-1. Summary of Agricultural BMP Input Percentages of Implementation Type of BMP by Land Use Barrie Creeks Beaver River Black River East Holland Georgina Creeks Hawkestone Creek Hewitts Creek Innisfil Creeks Lovers Creek Maskinonge River Oro Creeks North Oro Creeks South Pefferlaw / Uxbridge Brook Ramara Creeks Talbot River West Holland Whites Creek Row Crops Crop residue management N/A 2% 2% 15% 1% 25% 5% 15% 5% 15% 3% 25% 15% 3% 25% 15% 2% Strip cropping N/A 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Crop rotation N/A 1% 2% 2% 15% 2% 5% 1% 1% 15% 3% 1% 1% 15% 5% 1% 5% Cover crops N/A 5% 5% 1% 5% 1% 1% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 15% 5% 1% 5% Nutrient management plans N/A 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Hay/Pasture Nutrient management N/A 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Agricultural Streams Stream km with vegetated buffer strips N/A 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Stream km with fencing N/A 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Stream km with bank stabilization N/A % 5% 1% 5% % 5% 15% 5% 1% 1% 5% 5% % % 15% 2% Agricultural BMP Scenario 21

25 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Table 4-2. Agricultural BMP Descriptions Land Cover Agricultural BMP's CANWET Description Crop residue management (also called conservation tillage) refers to the planned use of crop residue to protect the soil surface. This is one of the most commonly-used BMPs, and includes the use of residue from corn or soybean stalks, small grain straw, or the residue from vegetables and other crops. There are many forms of this management Crop Residue Management practice including no-till planting, mulch tillage, and other tillage techniques that leave crop residue on the soil surface. In general, crop residue management or conservation tillage is defined as any production system that leaves at least 3% of the soil surface covered with crop residue after planting to reduce soil erosion by water (Ritter and Shirmohammadi, 21). Strip Cropping A system of placing crops in strips or bands on or near the contour. The strips are usually in even widths of 9 to 12 feet, although uneven widths may be required in areas of rolling or irregular topography. Historically, this practice has been defined as the use of alternating strips of row crops with strops of either small grain or hay. Nowadays, though, strips with high levels of plant residue (>5%) are often used instead. Row Crops Crop Rotation Cover Crops Nutrient Management This conservation practice (often called conservation crop rotation) is defined as the use of different crops in a specified sequence on the same farm field. Crop rotations may be as simple as a 2-year rotation of corn and soybeans or an 8 year rotation of 4 years of silage corn and 4 years of hay. It could also be a more complex scheme involving a mixture of crops such as corn, small grain, soybeans and forages spread over 6-8 years or more. There are several reasons for using crop rotations; although the primary one is to reduce soil erosion, thereby reducing the quantities of sediment and sediment bound pollutants such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticides. When addressing excess nutrients on agricultural land, cover crops are often included in the rotation sequence. Similarly, crop rotations are often combined with other BMPs. The use of annual or perennial crops to protect the soil from erosion during the time period between the harvesting and planting of the primary crop. The use of such crops can also improve the soil health and offer the opportunity for additional income (as with the planting of winter wheat). Additionally, cover crops can store needed nutrients over the winter, prevent their loss, and act as a type of "green" manure in the spring if the cover crop is left in the field or plowed under before planting the primary crop. Refers to the planned use of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients to sustain optimum crop production while at the same time protecting the quality of nearby water resources. The implementation of this practice usually entails the development of a farm-wide nutrient management plan that is based on established OMAFRA criteria as summarized in the province s nutrient management planning software tool, NMAN. An important objective of such a plan is to optimize forage and crop yields while minimizing nutrient loss to surface and ground water resources. This approach often involves using other BMPs such as providing adequate cover crops and devising appropriate crop rotations to reduce (or augment) overall nutrients loads on a farm.as described by Beegle and Lanyon (1994), most farms can be described as having a nutrient deficit, an adequate nutrient balance, or an excess of nutrients. Similarly, farms can usually be categorized as being crop systems farms, crop/livestock farms, or intensive livestock farms. The basic problem in the case of intensive livestock farms is that there is not sufficient cropland on the farm to utilize the quantities of nutrients being generated by livestock. Consequently, the major issue to be addressed in a nutrient management plan in this instance is how to reduce this surplus via on-site and/or off-site solutions. Agricultural BMP Scenario 22

26 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Table 4-2. Agricultural BMP Descriptions Land Agricultural BMP's Cover Hay/Pasture Agricultural (Shared) Nutrient Management Vegetated Buffer Strips Streambank Protection Streambank Fencing Streambank Stabilization Source: PRediCT Users Guide, 26 CANWET Description The utilization of practices that ensure adequate vegetation cover in order to prevent excessive soil erosion due to over-grazing and other forms of overuse. It is becoming more common for farmers to reduce feeding costs by establishing rotational grazing systems on improved pastureland or by planting hay or legumes to use as feed for their livestock. In addition to providing feed for livestock, establishing grasses and legumes as part of crop rotations also protects land areas from excessive soil erosion and adds needed nitrogen to the soil base. Areas of land maintained by some type of permanent vegetation for the purpose of trapping pollutants contained in surface runoff from adjacent land areas. Pollutants are removed to varying degrees via the processes of filtration, infiltration, absorption, adsorption, uptake, volatilization, and deposition, with the predominant processes tending to be the infiltration of dissolved pollutants and deposition of sediment-attached pollutants. Fencing that prohibits cattle from trampling stream banks, destroying protective vegetation, and stirring up sediment in the streambed. In addition to reducing direct soil loss caused by streambank degradation, fencing also reduces nutrient loads caused by defecation and urination of the animals in the stream. Rip-rap and/or gabion walls are installed along the edges of a stream to protect the banks during periods of heavy stream flow, thereby reducing direct streambank erosion. With this approach the banks are often covered with rocks, grass, trees, shrubs, and other protective surfaces to reduce erosion as well. 4.1 Implementation of the BMP Scenario A module of CANWET called the Pollution Reduction Impact Comparison Tool (PRedICT) was used to determine the amount of TP reduction achieved from the implementation of a set of agricultural BMPs. After each model run in CANWET, a scenario file was created specific to that model run. This scenario file was used as input to PRedICT and populated with the fields for the areas (ha) used for the growth scenario as well as agricultural land on slope >3%, streams in agricultural areas (km), total stream length (km), and unpaved road length (km). The average TP loads determined in the Growth Scenario for hay/pasture, cropland, low intensity development, high intensity development, unpaved roads, streambank, groundwater, point sources, and septics were manually entered into the scenario editor within PRedICT. The proposed percent of implementation of the agricultural and hay/pasture BMPs were also entered into the scenario editor. The shared BMPs (stream kilometers with vegetated buffer strips, streams miles with fencing, and stream miles with bank stabilization) were entered into the scenario editor as kilometers practiced and kilometers proposed (calculated from a percentage). The shared BMPs lengths were estimated using the stream length in the agricultural areas. The Agricultural BMP Scenario 23

27 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe agricultural BMPs have efficiency coefficients that determine the amount of reduction implementing a BMP will have on the total phosphorus loads. The implementation of the PRedICT model generates an output of the Growth Scenario loads (initial) and the BMP Scenario loads (results). It should be noted that urban BMPs, as well as some agricultural BMPs (terraces and diversions, grazing land management) were not modeled in this analysis. Total phosphorus loads from the BMP Scenario are presented in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 indicates that the watersheds contributing the most TP load to the lake are East Holland (18.1%), Barrie Creeks (12.9%), West Holland (12.6%), and Oro Creeks North (9.3%). The sources contributing the most TP to the lake under the Growth Scenario are High Intensity Development (43.5%) and Cropland (9.8%), and Point Sources below the (9.8%). The runoff-associated TP load consists of 78.9% of the total load. Factsheets detailing the Growth and BMP Scenarios are presented in Appendix C. In addition, within Appendix C is a table summarizing the phosphorus reduction efficiencies from PRedICT used in the BMP Scenario. Agricultural BMP Scenario 24

28 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Table 4-3. Agricultural BMP Scenario Annual Average Total Phosphorus Delivered Loads (kg/year) - January 24 - December 27 Controllable Land Use Category Agricultural Urban Other Uncontrollable Point Source Subwatershed Hay-Pasture Cropland Turf-Sod Tile Drainage Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development Septics * Polder* Quarry Unpaved Road Transition Forest Wetland Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Total Point Source above Point Source below Total (kg/yr) % of total Barrie Creeks , ,97 2,774 8, % Beaver River 46 1, , ,37 4.5% Black River , , , % East Holland , , , % Georgina Creeks , ,766 2, % Hawkestone Creek % Hewitts Creek % Innisfil Creeks , , ,25 6.3% Lovers Creek ,87 1,99 1.6% Maskinonge River , ,22 3.3% Oro Creeks North 1, , , , % Oro Creeks South , % Pefferlaw-Uxbridge , , % B k Ramara Creeks , , % Talbot River ,278 3,362 5.% West Holland 114 1, ,78 2, ,73 5, , % Whites Creek ,11 1, % Total (kg/.yr) 3,892 6, , ,462 4,44 2,645 1, ,263 4,77 53, ,673 67,749 1.% % of Total 5.7% 9.8% 1.1% 3.3% 1.1% 43.5% 6.5% 3.9% 1.5%.4%.5%.2%.% 4.8% 6.9% 78.9%.8% 9.8% 1.%.% *Septics and polders are considered direct-to-lake discharges and thus are not included in the Runoff Total, however the loads of these sources were included in the total phosphorus load. Agricultural BMP Scenario 25

29 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe 5. Conclusions The purpose of the study is to estimate the existing phosphorus levels delivered to the lake under existing (Base-Case) and future conditions (Growth Scenario) as well as under conditions when best management practices are implemented on agricultural areas (BMP Scenario). Part of this investigation also includes a detailed analysis of the phosphorus load by source (nonpoint sources from rural and urban land uses and point sources) in each subwatershed. The study reviews the opportunities for phosphorus reduction within the watershed which were not included in the modeling. 5.1 Total Phosphorus Loads: Base, Growth, and BMP Scenarios When analyzing the similarities and differences from the base, growth, and BMP scenarios, the following conclusions can be drawn: Overall, surface runoff is the largest contributor of phosphorus loads accounting for 77 percent under base-case scenario and 8 percent under the growth scenario. Of the non runoff sources (point sources above the monitoring station, septic systems, polder, point sources below the monitoring station), the point sources below the monitoring stations delivered the highest amount of total phosphorus loads accounting for 9 percent of the total phosphorus load under the base-case and growth scenarios (Tables 2-4 and 3-2). It is important to note that the total loads of this study do not include atmospheric phosphorus deposited directly on the lake. High intensity development and cropland are the largest contributors of phosphorus among sources from runoff. In particular, this is clearly seen in the sub-watersheds Barrie Creeks, East Holland, and West Holland (Tables 2-4 and 3-2). The highest phosphorus loads are delivered from Barrie Creeks, East Holland, and West Holland under base-case and growth scenario. As shown in Table 5-1, the overall phosphorus load increases by 25 percent from the Base- Case to the Growth Scenario due to development. The biggest change (in kilograms) occurred in East Holland with 4,636 kg/yr which is followed by West Holland with 1,576 kg/yr and Black River with 1,436 kg/yr. Based on the growth scenario, all three subwatersheds are projected to show significant urban development. Conclusions 26

30 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Only selected agricultural BMP scenarios were tested in the BMP Scenario. As shown in Table 5-1, the total reduction in phosphorus load was 3,794 kg/yr (a 5% reduction of the Growth Scenario total load). The scenarios primarily impacted subwatersheds that are mainly agricultural such as Beaver River and Whites Creek where the phosphorus load was reduced by 14% and 12% respectively. Conclusions 27

31 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Table 5-1. Summary of the Total Annual Delivered Phosphorus from a Base Case, Growth, and BMP Scenario for the Lake Simcoe Watershed (kg/year) Barrie Creeks Beaver River Black River East Holland Georgina Creeks Hawkestone Creek Hewitts Creek Innisfil Creeks Scenario Base Case Scenario 8,231 3,48 4,819 8,74 2, , ,466 5,629 1,58 3,437 2,66 2,858 7,589 1,241 57,215 Growth Scenario 8,766 3,534 6,254 12,71 3, ,54 1,158 2,349 6,57 1,325 3,952 2,47 3,494 9,165 1,288 71,543 kg Change (growth - base) ,436 4, , , ,328 % Change (growth - base) 6% 4% 3% 57% 44% 3% 35% 29% 43% 6% 16% 25% 15% 17% 22% 21% 4% 25% BMP Scenario 8,765 3,37 5,717 12,24 2, ,25 1,99 2,22 6,285 1,278 3,617 2,352 3,362 8,54 1,134 67,749 kg Change (BMP - growth) ,794 % Change (BMP - growth) % -14% -9% -4% -6% -6% -7% -6% -5% -5% -3% -4% -8% -2% -4% -7% -12% -5% Lovers Creek Maskinonge River Oro Creeks North Oro Creeks South Pefferlaw / Uxbridge Brook Ramara Creeks Talbot River West Holland Whites Creek Total Conclusions 28

32 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe 5.2 Opportunities for Phosphorus Reduction The previous sections of the report presented the results of the watershed modeling implemented to estimate the phosphorus loading from each subwatershed under different scenarios. Based on estimates from current models, phosphorus loadings would need to be reduced to a level of approximately 44 tonnes per year to achieve the proposed dissolved oxygen target of 7 milligrams per liter (mg/l). This long-term goal of 44 tonnes per year of phosphorus loadings will support a self-sustaining coldwater fish community and include the airborne atmospheric deposition of phosphorus directly to the lake. This section of the report discusses further opportunities to reduce phosphorus in the Lake Simcoe watershed beyond the reductions modeled in the BMP scenario. The BMP modeling scenario employed only a subset of established agricultural BMPs as summarized in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. There are many other opportunities for phosphorus reductions that include not only phosphorus reductions on agriculture land including polders (Holland Marsh and smaller polders) but also on urban areas, point sources, septic systems (onsite sewage systems within 1 meters of Lake Simcoe), and atmospheric deposition in the Lake Simcoe watershed. As part of the Lake Simcoe Environmental Management Strategy (LSEMS) considerable phosphorus reduction over the last 25 years has been achieved already. The LSEMS included phosphorus caps on sewage treatment plants that resulted in the most effective phosphorus reducing STPs in Ontario, Enhanced or Level 1 stormwater treatment required for all new urban development, and the expansion of stewardship projects in which the community is educated in activities to further reducing phosphorus loads. The following section summarizes existing and potential reduction actions by phosphorus source (OMOE, June 21). Urban Stormwater Runoff As the largest contributor of phosphorus entering Lake Simcoe there are a number of simple and innovative ways to reduce phosphorus loads from urban stormwater runoff. Retrofit/Maintenance of existing stormwater management facilities to enhance reduction of phosphorus such as stormwater ponds, catchbasin sumps, and oil/grit separators Implementation of innovative stormwater management practices Low Impact Development (LID) approaches such as green roofs, bioretention and raingardens, infiltration trenches, rainwater harvesting, soakaway pits, and permeable pavement to Conclusion 29

33 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe improve the quality and reduce the quantity of stormwater entering the Lake Simcoe subwatersheds from urban areas. Actions by Homeowners Homeowners can reduce their input of phosphorus into the watershed by eliminating/reducing the use of phosphorus rich fertilizers, planting natural meadow field lawns (requiring little/no fertilizer), and using rain barrels to harvest rainwater for lawns. Application of the red sand technology (current pilot project) at stormwater ponds to remove phosphorus Rural and Agricultural Sources of Phosphorus Numerous programs such as the Lake Simcoe Farm Stewardship Program have been applied to reduce phosphorus loading from rural and agricultural sources. Also, inventories of BMPs for stream restoration to increase vegetated riparian buffer strips and bank stabilization have been identified by LSRCA. The following lists the actions that has been applied or are planned to be applied: Fertilizer, manure, and other nutrient management techniques using appropriate storage and application methods. Application of organic materials to improve soil structure that decreases soil erosion and increase overall water conservation. Crop rotation and residue management, strip cropping, and cover crops for runoff control Balancing livestock feed to maximize efficient use of phosphorus Management of sewage biosolids (as part of the nutrient management): buffer zones between application areas and water courses, mixing biosolids with soil at application, and timing of application after rain events. Creation and enhancement of vegetated riparian buffer strips including wetland restoration, stream fencing, and stream bank stabilization: The LSRCA identified 17,125 BMP opportunities for restoration and remedial work within 17 watersheds of Lake Simcoe. The Holland Marsh and Smaller Polders There are currently four polders in the Lake Simcoe watershed located in East and West Holland watersheds (Holland Marsh which is the largest, Keswick, Colbar, Bradford Marshes). The polders are characterized by high organic carbon content with high levels of nutrients. The following lists BMPs that are currently implemented and new BMPs that are examined in pilot projects: Conclusion 3

34 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Companion cropping to reduce wind erosion Bank stabilization Irrigation and nutrient management Treatment of polder pump-off water onsite before discharge in the stream or Lake Simcoe using materials that bound the filterable reactive phosphorus Sewage Treatment Plants (STP) As part of the LSEMS, phosphorus load caps were established for all STPs in the Lake Simcoe watershed resulting in the most upgrades STPs in removing phosphorus in Ontario. Further reductions for STPs will be reevaluated in 215 during the first review of the Phosphorus Reduction Strategy. In the mean time, other measures are considered to reduce phosphorus: Reducing bypasses: STP bypasses are the discharge of untreated or partially treated sewage during mechanical failures or wet weather. New technology and best efforts should be taken to reduce or eliminate bypasses where available. Biosolids Management: BMPs should be used during land application of biosolids such as surface versus injection applications, buffer zones, timing of application (after wet weather events), and mixing of biosolids with soil to reduce runoff. Water conservation: Reduction of the amount of waste water through conservation measures to increase efficiency of the plant Water re-use: Install purple pipes within homes to flush toilets and water lawns (nonpotable water), and use treated wastewater for irrigation golf courses and sod farms. On-Site Sewage Systems within 1 m of Lake Simcoe Onsite sewage systems include septic systems that treat residential and industrial wastewater. Repair of failing sewage systems or connection to STPs. Atmospheric Deposition of Phosphorus The exact sources and contributions of atmospheric deposition of phosphorus in the Lake Simcoe watershed is part of comprehensive research project. Generally, sources of atmospheric deposition of phosphorus include pollen, combustion of fossil fuels, and wind transport of disturbed soil. Recommended actions that have been applied include: Preserving existing natural vegetation No-till techniques Conclusion 31

35 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe Planting wind breaks Leaving crop residues on the field and using cover crops Controlling the speed of traffic over unpaved roads Conclusion 32

36 Estimation of Phosphorus Loadings to Lake Simcoe 6. References Beegle, D. and Lanyon, L., Understanding the nutrient management process. J. Soil Water Conservation. Greenland, 27. CANWET Canadian Nutrient and Water Evaluation Tool (Version 3.) Haith, D.A. and Shoemaker, L.L, Generalized Watershed Loading Functions for stream flow nutrients. Water Resources Bulletin, 23(3), pp LSRCA and OMOE (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Ontario Ministry of the Environment). Draft. Annual water balances, total phosphorus budgets and total nitrogen and chloride loads for Lake Simcoe (24-27). LSRCA and OMOE Joint Technical Report. LSRCA and OMOE (Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Ontario Ministry of the Environment), 29. Report on the phosphorus loads to Lake Simcoe Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and Ontario Ministry of the Environment Joint Report. OMPIR (Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal), 26. Guide to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 26. OMOE (Ontario Ministry of the Environment), 29. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. OMOE (Ontario Ministry of the Environment), June 21. Lake Simcoe Phosphorus Reduction Strategy. OMOE (Ontario Ministry of the Environment), 21a. Lake Simcoe Water Quality Update. Ritter, W.F. and Shirmohammadi, A., 21. Agricultural Non-point Source Pollution: Watershed Management and Hydrology. Lewis Publishers, New York. Schroeter, H.O., Boyd, D.K. and Whiteley, H.R., 2. Filling gaps in meteorological data sets used for long-term watershed modeling. Ontario Water Conference, Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada. References 33

37 APPENDIX A Hydrology Calibration Total Phosphorus Calibration

38 Hydrologic Simulation: Barrie Creeks Synthesized Flow and Simulated Flow Flow (cm/mo) Jan 4 Mar 4 May 4 Jul 4 Sep 4 Nov 4 Jan 5 Mar 5 May 5 Jul 5 Sep 5 Nov 5 Jan 6 Mar 6 May 6 Jul 6 Sep 6 Nov 6 Jan 7 Mar 7 May 7 Jul 7 Sep 7 Nov 7 Jan 8 Mar 8 May 8 Jul 8 Sep 8 Nov 8 Synthesized Flow Simulated Flow Hydrologic Calibration Hydrologic Validation Simulated Flow (cm/mo) y = 1.13x R² = Synthesized Flow (cm/mo) Simulated Flow (cm/mo) y = 1.18x R² = Synthesized Flow (cm/mo) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 2

39 Barrie Creeks Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Barrie Creeks: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Estimated (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP(kg) June July August Summer ,135.8 September October November Autumn 1,11.7 1,26.3 December January February Winter Kg/month June Barrie Creeks: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 July August September October November December January February March April May March April May Spring 1, ,381.9 Total 4, ,559.2 Ratio 1.1 (Simulated/Observed) Estimated Simulated Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total TP Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest.7.1% Wetland..% Quarry 1.4.2% Turf/Sod Unpaved Road.1.% Transition 5.1.6% Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development 4, % Tile Drainage Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 5, % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below 3, % Total 8, % A 3

40 Total Phophorus (kg) Barrie Creeks: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May 27 LRSCA estimated TP CANWET simulated TP Simulated Barrie Creeks Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 R² = Estimated A 4

41 Hydrologic Simulation: Beaver River Estimated Flow vs. Simulated Flow Flow (cm/mo) Jan 4 Mar 4 May 4 Jul 4 Sep 4 Nov 4 Jan 5 Mar 5 May 5 Jul 5 Sep 5 Nov 5 Jan 6 Mar 6 May 6 Jul 6 Sep 6 Nov 6 Jan 7 Mar 7 May 7 Jul 7 Sep 7 Nov 7 Observed Flow Simulated Flow Simulated Flow (cm/mo) Hydrologic Calibration: Hydrologic Validation: y = 1.443x R² = Prorated Flow (cm/mo) Simulated Flow (cm/mo) y =.8483x R² = Prorated Flow (cm/mo) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Prorated (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Prorated (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 5

42 Beaver River Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Beaver River: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Observed (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP (kg) June July Beaver River: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 August Summer September October November Autumn Kg/month December January February Winter March 1, ,73.4 April June July August September October November December January February March April May May Spring 2,83. 2,74.2 Observed Simulated Total 3, ,394.6 Ratio (Simulated/Observed) 1.3 Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total TP Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland 1, % Forest 6..18% Wetland..% Quarry % Turf/Sod 1.9.5% Unpaved Road 5..15% Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 3, % Point Source above % Septic Systems Point Source below Total 3, % A 6

43 Total Phosphorus (kg) Beaver River: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May 27 LRSCA observed TP CANWET simulated TP 25 2 Beaver River Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 R² =.7273 Simulated Observed A 7

44 Hydrologic Simulation: Black River Estimated Flow vs. Simulated Flow Flow (cm/mo) Jan 4 Mar 4 May 4 Jul 4 Sep 4 Nov 4 Jan 5 Mar 5 May 5 Jul 5 Sep 5 Nov 5 Jan 6 Mar 6 May 6 Jul 6 Sep 6 Nov 6 Jan 7 Mar 7 May 7 Jul 7 Sep 7 Nov 7 Jan 8 Mar 8 May 8 Jul 8 Sep 8 Nov 8 Estimated Flow Simulated Flow Simulated flow (cm/mo) Hydrologic Calibration: Hydrologic Validation: y = 1.337x R² =.661 Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = x R² = Prorated flow (cm/mo) Prorated flow (cm/mo) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Prorated (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Prorated (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 8

45 Black River Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Black River: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Observed (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP (kg) June July August Summer September October November Autumn Kg/month Black River: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 December January February Winter June July August September October November December January February March April May March April 1,74.8 1,131.5 Observed Simulated May Spring 2, ,25. Total 4, ,363.4 Ratio (Simulated/Observed).987 Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total TP Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland 1, % Forest % Wetland..% Quarry % Turf/Sod..% Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 4, % Point Source above % Septic Systems % Point Source below % Total 4, % A 9

46 TP (kg) 2,2 2, 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1, Black River: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May 27 LSRCA observed TP CANWET simulated TP Jun 4 Aug 4 Oct 4 Dec 4 Feb 5 Apr 5 Jun 5 Aug 5 Oct 5 Dec 5 Feb 6 Apr 6 Jun 6 Aug 6 Oct 6 Dec 6 Feb 7 Apr 7 Black River Monthly TP (kg/month) June 24 May R² =.4757 Simulated Observed A 1

47 Hydrologic Simulation: East Holland Observed Flow vs. Simulated Flow Flow (cm/mo) Jan 4 Mar 4 May 4 Jul 4 Sep 4 Nov 4 Jan 5 Mar 5 May 5 Jul 5 Sep 5 Nov 5 Jan 6 Mar 6 May 6 Jul 6 Sep 6 Nov 6 Jan 7 Mar 7 May 7 Jul 7 Sep 7 Nov 7 Jan 8 Mar 8 May 8 Jul 8 Sep 8 Nov 8 Observed Flow Simulated Flow Hydrologic Calibration: Hydrologic Validation: Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = 1.115x R² = Prorated flow (cm/mo) 8 Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = x R² = Prorated flow (cm/mo) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Prorated (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Prorated (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 11

48 East Holland Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) East Holland: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Observed (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP(kg) June July August Summer 1, ,831. September ,79.5 October November Autumn 1, ,14. December January February Kg/month East Holland: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Winter 1,84.1 1,521.2 March 1, April 1, ,56.3 June July August September October November December January February March April May May Spring 3,36.4 3,68.6 Total 8, ,524.8 Ratio 1.2 (Simulated/Observed) Observed Simulated Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total TP Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland 1, % Forest % Wetland % Quarry % Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development 5.1.6% High Intensity Development 4, % Tile Drainage..% Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 7, % Point Source above Septic Systems Polders % Point Source below % Total 8, % A 12

49 35 East Holland: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May 27 LSRCA observed TP CANWET simulated TP Jun 4 Aug 4 Oct 4 Dec 4 Feb 5 Apr 5 Jun 5 Aug 5 Oct 5 Dec 5 Feb 6 Apr 6 Jun 6 Aug 6 Oct 6 Dec 6 Feb 7 Apr 7 Simulated East Holland Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 R² = Observed A 13

50 Hydrologic Simulation: Georgina Creeks 12 Synthesized Flow vs. Simulated Flow 1 Flow (cm/mo) Jan 4 Mar 4 May 4 Jul 4 Sep 4 Nov 4 Jan 5 Mar 5 May 5 Jul 5 Sep 5 Nov 5 Jan 6 Mar 6 May 6 Jul 6 Sep 6 Nov 6 Jan 7 Mar 7 May 7 Jul 7 Sep 7 Nov 7 Jan 8 Mar 8 May 8 Jul 8 Sep 8 Nov 8 Synthesized Flow Simulated flow Hydrologic Calibration: Hydrologic Validation: Simulated Flow (cm/mo) y =.9246x R² =.6199 Simulated Flow (cm/month) y = 1.188x R² = Synthesized Flow (cm/month) Synthesized Flow (cm/month) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 14

51 Georgina Creeks Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Georgina Creeks: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Estimated (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP (kg) June July August Summer September October November Autumn December January Kg/month Georgina Creeks: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 February Winter March June July August September October November December January February March April May April Estimated Simulated May Spring Total 1, ,961.5 Ratio (Simulated/Observed) 1. Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total TP Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest 8..38% Wetland % Quarry Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development.6.3% High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank 2.1.1% Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 2, % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below Total 2, % A 15

52 8 Georgina Creeks: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May 27 LSRCA estimated TP CANWET simulated TP TP (Kg) Georgina Creeks Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 R² =.364 Simulated Estimated A 16

53 Hydrologic Simulation: Hawkestone Creek Estimated Flow vs. Simulated Flow Flow (cm/mo) Jan 4 Mar 4 May 4 Jul 4 Sep 4 Nov 4 Jan 5 Mar 5 May 5 Jul 5 Sep 5 Nov 5 Jan 6 Mar 6 May 6 Jul 6 Sep 6 Nov 6 Jan 7 Mar 7 May 7 Jul 7 Sep 7 Nov 7 Jan 8 Mar 8 May 8 Jul 8 Sep 8 Nov 8 Estimated Flow Simulated Flow Hydrologic Calibration: Hydrologic Validation: Simluated Flow (cm/mo) y = 1.9x R² = Observed Flow (cm/mo) Simulated Flow (cm/mo) y =.94x R² = Observed Flow (cm/mo) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Observed (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Observed (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 17

54 Hawkestone Creek Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Hawkestone Creek: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Observed (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP (kg) June July August Summer September October November Autumn December January February Winter March April May Spring Total Ratio (Simulated/Observed) 1. Kg/month Hawkestone Creek: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 - May 27 June July August September October Observed November December January Simulated February March April May Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland..% Quarry % Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below Total % A 18

55 Hawkestone Creek: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May 27 Total TP (kg) LSRCA observed TP CANWET simulated TP Jun 4 Aug 4 Oct 4 Dec 4 Feb 5 Apr 5 Jun 5 Aug 5 Oct 5 Dec 5 Feb 6 Apr 6 Jun 6 Aug 6 Oct 6 Dec 6 Feb 7 Apr 7 Simulated Hawkestone Creek Monthy TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 R² = Observed A 19

56 Hydrologic Simulation: Hewitts Creeks Synthesized Flow vs. Simulated Flow Jan 4 Apr 4 Jul 4 Oct 4 Jan 5 Apr 5 Jul 5 Oct 5 Jan 6 Apr 6 Jul 6 Oct 6 Jan 7 Apr 7 Jul 7 Oct 7 Jan 8 Apr 8 Flow (cm/mo) Jul 8 Oct 8 Synthesized flow Simulated flow Hydrologic Calibration Hydrologic Validation Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = x R² =.7334 Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = x R² = Synthesized flow (cm/mo) Synthesized flow (cm/mo) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 2

57 Hewitts Creeks Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Hewitts Creek: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Estimated (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP(kg) June July August Summer September October November Autumn December January February Winter March April May Spring Total Ratio (Simulated/Observed).96 Kg/month June Hewitts Creek: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 July August September October November Estimated December January Simulated February March April May Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland.4.11% Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road.7.2% Transition % Low Intensity Development.9.23% High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal % Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total % A 21

58 Hewitts Creek: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May LSRCA estimated TP CANWET simulated TP TP (kg) Jun 4 Aug 4 Oct 4 Dec 4 Feb 5 Apr 5 Jun 5 Aug 5 Oct 5 Dec 5 Feb 6 Apr 6 Jun 6 Aug 6 Oct 6 Dec 6 Feb 7 Apr Hewitts Creek Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 R² =.6579 Simulated Estimated A 22

59 Hydrologic Simulation: Innisfil Creeks Synthesized Flow vs. Simulated Flow Jan 4 Apr 4 Jul 4 Oct 4 Jan 5 Apr 5 Jul 5 Oct 5 Jan 6 Apr 6 Jul 6 Oct 6 Jan 7 Apr 7 Jul 7 Oct 7 Flow (cm/mo) Jan 8 Apr 8 Jul 8 Oct 8 Synthesized Flow Simulated Flow Hydrologic Calibration Hydrologic Validation Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = 1.x R² = Synthesized Flow (cm/mo) Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = 1.19x R² = Synthesized Flow (cm/mo) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 23

60 Innisfil Creeks Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Innisfil Creeks: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Estimated (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP(kg) June July August Innisfil Creek: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Summer September October November Autumn December January Kg/month February Winter March June July August September October November December January February March April May April Estimated simulated May Spring 1, ,114.4 Total 2, ,693.7 Ratio 1.1 (Simulated/Observed) Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest 8..23% Wetland.1.% Quarry % Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 2, % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below % Total 3, % A 24

61 14 Innisfil Creeks: Monthly Total Phosphorous: June 24 May 27 LSRCA estimated TP CANWET simulated TP 12 1 TP (kg) Innisfil Creeks Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 R² = Simulated Estimated A 25

62 Hydrologic Simulation: Lovers Creek Observed Flow vs. Simulated Flow Jan 4 Apr 4 Jul 4 Oct 4 Jan 5 Apr 5 Jul 5 Oct 5 Jan 6 Apr 6 Jul 6 Oct 6 Jan 7 Apr 7 Jul 7 Oct 7 Jan 8 Apr 8 Flow (cm/mo) Jul 8 Oct 8 Observed flow Simulated flow Simulated flow (cm/mo) Hydrologic Calibration Hydrologic Validation y = x R² =.7334 Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = x R² = Prorated flow (cm/mo) Prorated flow (cm/mo) Calibrat ion Flow Budget Validati on Flow Budget Prorated (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Prorated (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % A 26

63 Lovers Creeks Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Lovers Creek: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Observed (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP(kg) June July August Summer September October November Autumn December Kg/month Lovers Creek: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 January February Winter March June July August September October November December January February March April May April May Observed Simulated Spring Total Ratio 1.1 (Simulated/Observed) Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 28 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland..% Quarry % Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road.4.5% Transition 3..37% Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage..% Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below Total % A 27

64 35 Lovers Creek: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May 27 LSRCA observed TP CANWET simulated TP 3 25 TP (kg) Jun 4 Aug 4 Oct 4 Dec 4 Feb 5 Apr 5 Jun 5 Aug 5 Oct 5 Dec 5 Feb 6 Apr 6 Jun 6 Aug 6 Oct 6 Dec 6 Feb 7 Apr Lovers CreeK Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 R² =.4698 Simulated Observed A 28

65 Hydrologic Simulation: Maskinonge River Estimated Flow vs. Simulated Flow Aug 6 Sep 6 Oct 6 Nov 6 Dec 6 Jan 7 Feb 7 Mar 7 Apr 7 May 7 Jun 7 Jul 7 Aug 7 Sep 7 Oct 7 Nov 7 Flow (cm/mo) Dec 7 Estimated Flow Simulated Flow Hydrologic Calibration: Oct 26 Feb 27 Hydrologic Validation: Mar 27 Jul 27 Simulated Flow (cm/mo) y =.9951x R² =.8313 Simulated Flow (cm/mo) y = 1.557x R² = Prorated Flow (cm/mo) Prorated Flow (cm/mo) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Prorated (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Prorated (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 29

66 Maskinonge River Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Maskinonge River: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Estimated (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP (kg) June July August Summer September October November Autumn December January February Kg/month Maskinonge River: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Winter March April May June July August September October November December January Estimated Simulated February March April May Spring Total 1, ,14.2 Ratio (Simulated/Observed) 1.2 Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest.5.3% Wetland.4.2% Quarry. 9.34% Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road 1.5.1% Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage..% Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 1, % Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total 1, % A 3

67 6 Maskinonge River: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May 27 LSRCA estimated TP CANWET simulated TP 5 Total Phosphorus (Kg) Jun 4 Aug 4 Oct 4 Dec 4 Feb 5 Apr 5 Jun 5 Aug 5 Oct 5 Dec 5 Feb 6 Apr 6 Jun 6 Aug 6 Oct 6 Dec 6 Feb 7 Apr Maskinonge River Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 R² = Simulated Estimated A 31

68 Hydrologic Simulation: Oro Creeks North Synthesized Flow vs. Simulated Flow Flow (cm/mo) Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Synthesized flow Simulated flow Simulated flow (cm/mo) Hydrologic Calibration: Hydrologic Validation: y = 1.151x R² = Synthesized flow (cm/mo) Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = x R² = Synthesized flow (cm/mo) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 32

69 Oro Creeks North Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Month Oro Creeks North: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Average Estimated (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP(kg) June July August Summer September October November Autumn December January February Winter March April May Spring Total 2, ,67.5 Ratio 1.5 (Simulated/Observed) Kg/month Oro Creeks North: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 June July August September October Estimated November December Simulated January February March April May Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total Load Hay/Pasture 1, % Cropland % Forest % Wetland.6.1% Quarry % Turf/Sod 3.52% Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development 1, % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 3, % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below 1, % Total 5, % A 33

70 8 Oro Creeks North: Monthly Total Phosphorous: June 24 May 27 LSRCA estimated TP CANWET simulated TP TP (kg) Oro Creeks North Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 R² =.2654 Simulated Estimated A 34

71 Hydrologic Simulation: Oro Creeks South Synthesized Flow vs. Simulated Flow Flow (cm/mo) Jan 4 Mar 4 May 4 Jul 4 Sep 4 Nov 4 Jan 5 Mar 5 May 5 Jul 5 Sep 5 Nov 5 Jan 6 Mar 6 May 6 Jul 6 Sep 6 Nov 6 Jan 7 Mar 7 May 7 Jul 7 Sep 7 Nov 7 Jan 8 Mar 8 May 8 Jul 8 Sep 8 Nov 8 Synthesized Flow Simulated Flow Hydrologic Calibration: Hydrologic Validation: Simulated Flow (cm/month) y = 1.249x R² = Synthesized Flow (cm/month) Simulated Flow (cm/month) y = 1.833x R² = Synthesized Flow (cm/month) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 35

72 Oro Creeks South Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Oro Creeks South: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Estimated (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP (kg) June July August Summer September October November Autumn December Kg/month Oro Creeks South: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 January February Winter June July August September October November December January February March April May March April May Spring Total Estimated Simulated Ratio (Simulated/Observed) 1.2 Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest.8.7% Wetland.2.2% Quarry Turf/Sod.3.3% Unpaved Road % Transition 3..28% Low Intensity Development.4.4% High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below Total 1, % A 36

73 TP (Kg) Oro Creeks South: Monthly Total Phosphorous: June 24 May 27 LSRCA Estimated TP CANWET simulated TP Oro Creek South Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 R² =.3963 Simulated Estimated A 37

74 Hydrologic Simulation: Pefferlaw Uxbridge Brook Estimated Flow vs. Simulated Flow Flow (cm/mo) Jan 4 Mar 4 May 4 Jul 4 Sep 4 Nov 4 Jan 5 Mar 5 May 5 Jul 5 Sep 5 Nov 5 Jan 6 Mar 6 May 6 Jul 6 Sep 6 Nov 6 Jan 7 Mar 7 May 7 Jul 7 Sep 7 Nov 7 Jan 8 Mar 8 May 8 Jul 8 Sep 8 Nov 8 Estimated Flow Simulated flow Simulated flow (cm/mo) Hydrologic Calibration: Hydrologic Validation: y = x R² = Prorated flow (cm/mo) Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = x R² = Prorated flow (cm/mo) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Prorated (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Prorated (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 38

75 Pefferlaw Uxbridge Brook Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Pefferlaw Uxbridge: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Observed (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP (kg) June July August Summer September October November Autumn December January February Winter March April May Spring 1,44.6 1,298.3 Total 3, ,35.5 Ratio 1.2 (Simulated/Observed) Kg/month Pefferlaw Uxbridge: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 June July August September October Observed November December January Simulated February March April May Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest 1.5.4% Wetland % Quarry % Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage.% Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 3, % Point Source above % Septic Systems % Point Source below 31..9% Total 3, % A 39

76 14 Pefferlaw Uxbridge Brook: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May 27 LRSCA observed TP CANWET simulated TP 12 Total Phosphorus (kg) Jun 4 Aug 4 Oct 4 Dec 4 Feb 5 Apr 5 Jun 5 Aug 5 Oct 5 Dec 5 Feb 6 Apr 6 Jun 6 Aug 6 Oct 6 Dec 6 Feb 7 Apr Pefferlaw Uxbridge Brook Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 R² =.5494 Simulated Observed A 4

77 Hydrologic Simulation: Ramara Creeks Synthesized Flow vs. Simulated Flow Jan 4 Mar 4 May 4 Jul 4 Sep 4 Nov 4 Jan 5 Mar 5 May 5 Jul 5 Sep 5 Nov 5 Jan 6 Mar 6 May 6 Jul 6 Sep 6 Nov 6 Flow (cm/mo) Jan 7 Mar 7 May 7 Jul 7 Sep 7 Nov 7 Synthesized Flow Simulated Flow Hydrologic Calibration: Hydrologic Validation: Simulated Flow (cm/mo) y = 1.133x R² = Synthesi zed Flow (cm/mo) Simulated Flow (cm/mo) y = x R² = Synthesized Flow (cm/mo) 6 8 Calibration Flow Bud get Validation Flow Budget Synth esized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Synth esized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % A 41

78 Ramara Creeks Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Ramara Creeks: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Average A verage Estimated Simulated (MOE LSRCA) (CAN WET) TP Month TP (kg) (kg) June July August Ramara Creeks: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Summer September October November Autumn Kg/month December January February Winter March April June July August September October November December January February March April May May Estimated Simulated Spring Total Ratio 1.2 (Simulated/Observed) Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average An nual TP Load (kg) %of Total Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland.2.1% Quarry 6.9.% Turf/Sod.33% Unpaved Road 8.2.4% Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 1, % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below % Total 2, % A 42

79 6 Ramara Creeks: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May 27 LSRCAEstimated TP CANWETsimulated TP Jun 4 Aug 4 Oct 4 Dec 4 Feb 5 Apr 5 Jun 5 Aug 5 Oct 5 Dec 5 Feb 6 Apr 6 Jun 6 Aug 6 Oct 6 Dec 6 Feb 7 Total Phosphorus (kg) Apr 7 6 Ramara Creeks Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 Simulated R² = Estimated A 43

80 Hydrologic Simulation: Talbot River Synthesized Flow vs. Simulated Flow Flow (cm/mo) Jan 4 Mar 4 May 4 Jul 4 Sep 4 Nov 4 Jan 5 Mar 5 May 5 Jul 5 Sep 5 Nov 5 Jan 6 Mar 6 May 6 Jul 6 Sep 6 Nov 6 Jan 7 Mar 7 May 7 Jul 7 Sep 7 Nov 7 Jan 8 Mar 8 May 8 Jul 8 Sep 8 Nov 8 Synthesized Flow Simulated Flow Hydrologic Calibration: Hydrologic Validation: Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = x R² = Synthesized flow (cm/mo) Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = 1.981x R² = Synthesized flow (cm/mo) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 44

81 Talbot River Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Talbot River: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Observed (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP (kg) June July August Summer Talbot River: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 September October November Autumn December January Kg/month February Winter March June July August September October November December January February March April May April May Spring 1, ,315.9 Total 2,6.8 2,169.1 Ratio 1.8 (Simulated/Observed) Observed Simulated Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland % Quarry % Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 2, % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below Total 2, % A 45

82 12 Talbot River: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May 27 LRSCA observed TP CANWET simulated TP 1 Total Phosphorus (kg) Jun 4 Aug 4 Oct 4 Dec 4 Feb 5 Apr 5 Jun 5 Aug 5 Oct 5 Dec 5 Feb 6 Apr 6 Jun 6 Aug 6 Oct 6 Dec 6 Feb 7 Apr 7 12 Talbot River Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May R² =.5114 Simulated Observed A 46

83 Hydrologic Simulation: West Holland Synthesized Flow vs. Simulated Flow Jan 4 Apr 4 Jul 4 Oct 4 Jan 5 Apr 5 Jul 5 Oct 5 Jan 6 Apr 6 Jul 6 Oct 6 Jan 7 Flow (cm/mo) Apr 7 Jul 7 Oct 7 Synthesized Flow Simulated Flow Simulated flow (cm/mo) Hydrologic Calibration Hydrologic Validation y = 1.685x R² = Synthesized flow (cm/mo) Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = x R² = Synthesized flow (cm/mo) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 47

84 West Holland Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) West Holland: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Estimated (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP(kg) June July August Summer September October November Autumn December Kg/month West Holland: Estimated and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 January February Winter 1, ,35.2 March 1, June July August September October Estimated November December January Simulated February March April May April 1, May Spring 2, ,798.6 Total 5, ,589.1 Ratio 1.2 (Simulated/Observed) Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland 1, % Forest % Wetland.3.% Quarry 1.2.2% Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition 9..12% Low Intensity Development 6.1.8% High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater 1, % Runoff Load Subtotal 5, % Point Source above Septic Systems Polders 2, % Point Source below % Total 7, % A 48

85 3 West Holland: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May 27 LSRCA Estimated TP CANWET simulated TP 25 Total Phosphorus (kg) Jun 4 Aug 4 Oct 4 Dec 4 Feb 5 Apr 5 Jun 5 Aug 5 Oct 5 Dec 5 Feb 6 Apr 6 Jun 6 Aug 6 Oct 6 Dec 6 Feb 7 Apr West Holland Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May 27 R² =.7376 Simulated Estimated A 49

86 Hydrologic Simulation: Whites Creek Synthesized vs. Simulated Flow Flow (cm/mo) Jan 4 Mar 4 May 4 Jul 4 Sep 4 Nov 4 Jan 5 Mar 5 May 5 Jul 5 Sep 5 Nov 5 Jan 6 Mar 6 May 6 Jul 6 Sep 6 Nov 6 Jan 7 Mar 7 May 7 Jul 7 Sep 7 Nov 7 Jan 8 Mar 8 May 8 Jul 8 Sep 8 Nov 8 Synthesized Flow Simulated Flow Hydrologic Calibration: Hydrologic Validation: Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = 1.46x R² = Synthesized flow (cm/mo) Simulated flow (cm/mo) y = 1.2x R² = Synthesized flow (cm/mo) Calibration Flow Budget Validation Flow Budget Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference Synthesized (cm) Simulated(cm) % Difference % % A 5

87 Whites Creek Delivered Total Phosphorus Load Calibration (24 27) Whites Creek: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Month Average Observed (MOE LSRCA) TP (kg) Average Simulated (CANWET) TP (kg) June July August Summer September October November Kg/month Whites Creek: Observed and Simulated Total Phosphorus June 24 May 27 Autumn December January February Winter June July August September October November December January February March April May March April Observed Simulated May Spring Total 1,61.1 1,132. Ratio (Simulated/Observed) 1.7 Average Annual Delivered TP Distribution January 24 December 27 Land Use Type/Source Average Annual TP Load (kg) % of Total Load Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland 1.2.1% Quarry Turf/Sod 6.3.5% Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 1, % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below Total 1, % A 51

88 6 Whites Creek: Monthly Total Phosphorus: June 24 May 27 LRSCA Observed TP CANWET simulated TP Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Total Phosphorus (kg) Dec Feb Apr 6 Whites Creek Monthly TP (Kg/Month) June 24 May R² =.4662 Simulated Observed A 52

89 Appendix B Growth Scenario Factsheets

90 Barrie Creeks Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development 2,669 4,89.8 2,974 5,74. Tile Drainage.. Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal 5,16. 5,97.5 Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below 3,131 2,774 Total 3,729 8,231. 3, Differences in total acreages are due to rounding Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 7% 1 Barrie Creeks Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios 1 TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Int Dev High Int Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario B 2

91 Beaver River Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture 11, , Cropland 9,61 1, , Forest 2, , Wetland 6,167. 6,167. Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition 1, , Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development , Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal 3,77.6 3,379.3 Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source above Total 32,611 3, ,611 3,534.3 Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 9% 1 Beaver River Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios 1 1 TP (kg) 1 1 Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario B 3

92 Black River Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture 5, , Cropland 7,734 1, ,476 1,429.4 Forest 7, , Wetland 8,756. 8,756. Quarry Turf/Sod 1, Unpaved Road Transition 2, , Low Intensity Development 2, , High Intensity Development 1, ,618 1,92.1 Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal 4,77.2 5,332.5 Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total 37,262 4, ,263 6,254.5 Differences in total acreages are due to rounding Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 3% Black River Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios TP (kg) 1 1 Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario B 4

93 East Holland Creek Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture 2, , Cropland 4,282 1, ,71 1,66.3 Forest 3, , Wetland 2, , Quarry Turf/Sod 1, , Unpaved Road Transition 1, , Low Intensity Development 1, , High Intensity Development 6,71 4, ,85 9,536.4 Tile Drainage.. Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal 7, ,121.1 Point Source above Septic Systems Polders Point Source below Total 24,58 8, ,57 12,71.1 Differences in total acreages are due to rounding Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 57% 1 1 East Holland Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Base Case Scenario Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Growth Scenario Point Source above Septic Systems Polders Point Source below B 5

94 Georgina Creeks Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland 1, , Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development ,289 1,961.8 Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal 2,.4 2,938.3 Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total 4,99 2,18.4 4,91 3,46.3 Differences in total acreages are due to rounding Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 44% 1 Georgina Creeks Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios 1 TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Base Case Scenario Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Growth Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below B 6

95 Hawkestone Creek Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture 1, , Cropland Forest 1, , Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total 4, , Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 3% 1 Hawkestone Creek Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Base Case Scenario Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Growth Scenario Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below B 7

96 Hewitts Creek Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total 1, , Differences in total acreages are due to rounding Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 35% 1 Hewitts Creek Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios 1 TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Base Case Scenario Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Growth Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below B 8

97 Innisfil Creeks Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture 1, , Cropland 2, , Forest 1, , Wetland 1, ,177.1 Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development 1, ,4 1,465.8 Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal 2, ,59. Point Source above.. Septic Systems Point Source below Total 1,64 3, ,639 4,54. Differences in total acreages are due to rounding Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 29% 1 1 Innisfil Creeks Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Base Case Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Growth Scenario Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below B 9

98 Lovers Creek Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland 1, , Forest 1, Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development 1, , Tile Drainage.. Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal ,146.4 Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total 5, ,99 1,158.4 Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 43% 1 Lovers Creek Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios 1 TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario B 1

99 Maskinonge River Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland 2, , Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development Tile Drainage.. Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal 1,64.4 1,472.6 Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total 6,335 1, ,335 2,348.6 Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 6% 1 Maskinonge River Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios 1 TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Base Case Scenario Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Growth Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below B 11

100 Oro Creeks North Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture 1,884 1,97.1 1,86 1,83.1 Cropland Forest 2, ,3 2.4 Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development 934 1, ,226 2,728.6 Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal 3,92.6 4,9. Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below 1, Total 7,389 5, ,388 6,57.5 Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 16% Differences in total acreages are due to rounding 1 Oro Creeks North Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios 1 TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Base Case Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Growth Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below B 12

101 Oro Creeks South Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture 1, , Cropland 1, Forest 1, ,436.7 Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total 5,74 1,57.5 5,74 1,324.9 Percent Change From Base Case Scenario 25% Oro Creeks South Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios 1 1 TP (kg) 1 1 Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario B 13

102 Pefferlaw/Uxbridge Brook Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture 1, , Cropland 9, , Forest 9, , Wetland 7, , Quarry 1, , Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition 2, , Low Intensity Development 2, , High Intensity Development 1, , Tile Drainage.. Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal 3,42.6 3,259.6 Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total 44,51 3, ,59 3,951.6 Differences in total acreages are due to rounding Percent Change from Base Case Scenario 15% 1 Pefferlaw Uxbridge Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios 1 TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Base Case Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Growth Scenario Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below B 14

103 Ramara Creeks Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture 5, , Cropland 1, , Forest 1, , Wetland 3, ,187.2 Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development , Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal 1,88.9 1,346.9 Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total 13,696 2, ,697 2,46.9 Differences in total acreages are due to rounding Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 17% 1 Ramara Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios 1 TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Tuf/Sod Quarry Unpaved Road Transition Base Case Scenario Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Growth Scenario Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below B 15

104 Talbot River Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture 3, , Cropland Forest 1, , Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Intensity Development High Intensity Development Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal 2, ,41.4 Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total 6,913 2, ,914 3,494.4 Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 22% Differences in total acreages are due to rounding 1 Talbot River Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios 1 TP (kg) 1 1 Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Base Case Scenario Low Int Dev High Int Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Growth Scenario Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below B 16

105 West Holland Creek Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture 4, , Cropland 12,37 1, ,187 1,63.6 Forest 5, , Wetland 2, ,614.3 Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition 1, , Low Intensity Development 1, , High Intensity Development 2, ,949 1,78.3 Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater 1,15.6 1,73.1 Runoff Load Subtotal 5, ,184.9 Point Source above (*) 27. Septic Systems Polders 4,57 2,18. 4,577 2,18. Point Source below Total 35,192 7, ,191 9,164.9 Differences in total acreages are due to rounding (*) Silani Sweet Cheese WWTP came online in December 27 Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 21% 1 West Holland Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios 1 TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Base Case Scenario Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Growth Scenario Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Polder Point Source below B 17

106 Whites Creek Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenario January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Base Case Scenario Growth Scenario Hectares TP (kg) Hectares TP (kg) Hay Pasture 3, , Cropland 1, , Forest 1, ,81 3. Wetland 1, , Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Groundwater Runoff Load Subtotal 1, ,263.9 Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total 9,268 1, ,267 1,287.9 Differences in total acreages are due to rounding Percent Change from the Base Case Scenario 4% 1 Whites Creek Total Phosphorus Base Case and Growth Scenarios TP (kg) Hay Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Base Case Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank Growth Scenario Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below B 18

107 Appendix C Agricultural BMP Scenarios

108 Table C 1: Summary of Agricultural BMP Input Percentages Type of BMP by Land Use Row Crops Barrie Creeks Beaver River Black River East Holland Georgina Creeks Hawkestone Creek Crop residue management N/A 2% 2% 15% 1% 25% 5% 15% 5% 15% 3% 25% 15% 3% 25% 15% 2% Strip cropping N/A 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Crop rotation N/A 1% 2% 2% 15% 2% 5% 1% 1% 15% 3% 1% 1% 15% 5% 1% 5% Cover crops N/A 5% 5% 1% 5% 1% 1% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1% 5% 15% 5% 1% 5% Nutrient management plans N/A 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Hay/Pasture Nutrient management N/A 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Agricultural Streams Stream miles with vegetated buffer strips 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% Stream miles with fencing N/A 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Stream miles with bank stabilization % % 5% 1% 5% % 5% 15% 5% 1% 1% 5% 5% % % 15% Hewitts Creek Innisfil Creeks Lovers Creek Maskinonge River Oro Creeks North Oro Creeks South Pefferlaw / Uxbridge Brook Ramara Creeks Talbot River West Holland Whites Creek 2% Table C 2: PRedICT Agricultural BMP Phosphorus Reduction Efficiencies Agricultural BMP Type Phosphorus Reduction Efficiency (%) Crop Residue Management 38 Strip Cropping 4 Cover Crops 36 Crop Rotation 36 Nutrient Management 28 Vegetated Buffer Strips 51 Streambank Fencing 78 Streambank Stabilization 95 C 2

109 Barrie Creeks Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest.4.4.% Wetland Quarry.5.5.% Turf/Sod Unpaved Road.1.1.% Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development 5,74. 5,74..% Tile Drainage Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 5,97.5 5,97.5.% Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below 2,774. 2,774..% Total 8, ,765.5.% *Note: Barrie Creeks has no reduction in TP because no agricultural BMPs were modeled. 6 Barrie Creeks Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios 5 4 TP (kg) Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Growth Scenario Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank BMP Scenario Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 3

110 Beaver River Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland 1,5.1 1, % Forest % Wetland...% Quarry % Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 3, , % Point Source above % Septic Systems Point Source below Total 3, , % TP (kg) Beaver River Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Growth Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage BMP Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 4

111 Black River Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland 1, % Forest % Wetland.. Quarry % Turf/Sod.. Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development 1,92.1 1,92.1.% Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 5, , % Point Source above % Septic Systems % Point Source below % Total 6, , % TP (kg) Black River Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Growth Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage BMP Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 5

112 East Holland Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland 1, % Forest % Wetland % Quarry % Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development 9, ,536.4.% Tile Drainage.. Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 12, , % Point Source above Septic Systems Polders % Point Source below % Total 12, , % Total Phosphorus (kg) East Holland Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Growth Scenario Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank BMP Scenario Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Polders Point Source below C 6

113 Georgina Creeks Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland % Quarry Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development.6.6.% High Intensity Development 1, ,961.8.% Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 2, , % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below Total 3,46.3 2, % 25 Georgina Creeks Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios 2 TP (kg) Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Growth Scenario Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage BMP Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 7

114 Hawkestone Creek Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland.. Quarry % Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below Total % 25 Hawkestone Creek Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios 2 TP (kg) Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Growth Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage BMP Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 8

115 Hewitts Creek Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland.4.4.% Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road.7.7.% Transition % Low Intensity Development.9.9.% High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal % Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below Total % 3 Hewitts Creek Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios 25 2 TP (kg) Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Growth Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage BMP Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 9

116 Innisfil Creeks Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland.1.1.% Quarry % Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development 1, ,465.8.% Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 3,59. 2, % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below % Total 4,54. 4, % TP (kg) Innisfil Creeks Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Growth Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage BMP Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 1

117 Lovers Creek Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland.. Quarry % Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road.4.4.% Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 1, , % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below Total 1, , % TP (kg) Lovers Creek Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Growth Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage BMP Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 11

118 Maskinonge River Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest.4.4.% Wetland.3.3.% Quarry % Turf/Sod Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 1, , % Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below % Total 2, , % TP (kg) Maskinonge River Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Growth Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage BMP Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 12

119 Oro Creeks North Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture 1,83.1 1, % Cropland % Forest % Wetland.6.6.% Quarry % Turf/Sod Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development 2, ,728.6.% Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 4, , % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below % Total 6,57.5 6, % 3 Oro Creeks North Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios 25 TP (kg) Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Growth Scenario Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage BMP Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 13

120 Oro Creeks South Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest.7.7.% Wetland.2.2.% Quarry Turf/Sod.3.3.% Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development.4.4.% High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below Total 1, , % TP (kg) Oro Creeks South Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Growth Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage BMP Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 14

121 Pefferlaw/Uxbridge Brook Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland % Quarry % Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 3, , % Point Source above % Septic Systems % Point Source below % Total 3, , % TP (kg) Pefferlaw/Uxbridge Brook Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenario Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Growth Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage BMP Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 15

122 Ramara Creeks Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland.2.2.% Quarry Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 1, , % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below % Total 2,46.9 2, % TP (kg) Ramara Creeks Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Growth Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage BMP Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 16

123 Talbot River Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland % Quarry % Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 3,41.4 3, % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below Total 3, , % TP (kg) Talbot River Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Growth Scenario Transition Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage BMP Scenario Stream Bank Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 17

124 West Holland Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland 1,63.6 1, % Forest % Wetland.3.3.% Quarry.6.6.% Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development 1,78.3 1,78.3.% Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater 1,73.1 1,73.1.% Runoff Load Subtotal 6, , % Point Source above % Septic Systems Polders 2,18. 2,18..% Point Source below % Total 9, , % 25 West Holland Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios 2 TP (kg) Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Growth Scenario Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank BMP Scenario Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Polders Point Source below C 18

125 Whites Creek Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios January 24 December 27 Land Use/Source Growth Scenario TP Load (kg) BMP Scenario TP Load (kg) Percent Reduction Hay/Pasture % Cropland % Forest % Wetland % Quarry Turf/Sod % Unpaved Road % Transition % Low Intensity Development % High Intensity Development % Tile Drainage % Stream Bank % Groundwater % Runoff Load Subtotal 1, , % Point Source above Septic Systems % Point Source below Total 1, , % 35 Whites Creek Total Phosphorus Growth and BMP Scenarios 3 TP (kg) Hay/Pasture Cropland Forest Wetland Quarry Turf/Sod Unpaved Road Transition Growth Scenario Low Dev High Dev Tile Drainage Stream Bank BMP Scenario Groundwater Point Source above Septic Systems Point Source below C 19

126 Appendix D Base Case Scenario Model Input Files

127 Barrie Creeks Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-2

128 Beaver River Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-3

129 Black River Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-4

130 East Holland Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-5

131 Georgina Creeks Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-6

132 Hawkestone Creek Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-7

133 Hewitts Creek Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-8

134 Innisfil Creeks Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-9

135 Lovers Creek Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-1

136 Lovers Creek Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-11

137 Maskinonge River Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-12

138 Oro Creeks North Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-13

139 Oro Creeks South Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-14

140 Pefferlaw/Uxbridge Brook Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-15

141 Ramara Creeks Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-16

142 Talbot River Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-17

143 West Holland Base Case Transport and Nutrient Files Transport File Nutrient File D-18