3.0 NOTTAWASAGA RIVER WATERSHED Documents/reports/acs/berger_target... · also presents the target...

Assimilative Capacity Studies - Final Report June 2006 Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority

Louis Berger Group and 3-1 Greenland International, Inc.

3.0 NOTTAWASAGA RIVER WATERSHED

This section provides a resource characterization overview for the 12 subwatersheds that comprise the Nottawasaga River Watershed (Map 3.0-1). For each subwatershed, information is presented on location, current and projected land use, earth resources, water resources, and CANWET modeling results for phosphorous loading. Potential phosphorous loading targets for water quality management are then presented for each subwatershed.

Three maps are provided at the end of the resource characterization overview for each of the subwatersheds. The first map is a location map that shows administrative boundaries, roads, towns, and streams. The second map is a future land use map that illustrates projected general land use patterns. The third map illustrates the stream network and monitoring locations.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: NOTTAWASAGA RIVER WATERSHED The following table (Table 3.0-1) summarizes the modeled phosphorus loads for each subwatershed under both the current condition and the approved growth scenario, and also presents the target strategy proposed, target, and target load allocations for each subwatershed.

Based on the modeling results presented from the CANWET model, an average of 46.9 tonnes per year of phosphorous are delivered to streams in the Nottawasaga River Watershed each year1. This total is significantly larger than the 25.5 tonnes per year target derived by conversion of the PWQO based instream guideline of 0.03 mg/L to a target load (calculated by multiplying the total yearly flow from each subwatershed by the 0.03 mg/L guideline), and would require a watershed-wide phosphorus load reduction of approximately 46% to meet a PWQO based phosphorus target.

Examination of the phosphorus loads at the subwatershed level shows that 11 of 12 subwatersheds produce phosphorus loads above a PWQO-based subwatershed load

1 This number requires qualification when reported for the Nottawasaga River Watershed in this manner. In this study, phosphorus loads are calculated at the mouth of each subwatershed based on the land use and point sources existing within each subwatershed. In other words, reported phosphorus loads represent the amount of phosphorus that would exit the subwatershed assuming that no additional phosphorus inputs are provided by other subwatersheds. Clearly, this is not the case for the Lower Nottawasaga River Watershed, which receives flow, and therefore phosphorus, from the eleven other subwatersheds modeled in this study. Thus, the total phosphorus load as presented: 1) does not reflect the total phosphorus load exiting the Nottawasaga River and entering Georgian Bay, and 2) phosphorus loads estimated for the Lower Nottawasaga subwatershed, do not take into account loads from other subwatersheds. Presentation of phosphorus loads in this manner is intended to allow for the comparison between subwatersheds with respect to their individual impact on the overall total phosphorus load produced in the watershed as a whole. For additional information concerning estimates of the phosphorus concentrations in the Lower Nottawasaga River refer to the following report: CANWET™ Modeling Project: Lake Simcoe and Nottawasaga River Basins Final Report (Greenland International, Inc., 2006).



target. However, a review of aquatic sampling data, a recent survey of stream health, and input from knowledgeable NVCA staff suggests that many of the subwatersheds were modeled as producing high levels of phosphorus load, are not considered impaired, and in fact support high quality aquatic communities and instream habitats.

To account for the apparent contradiction between the modeled phosphorus loads and assessments of stream health, the targeting strategy proposed for the Nottawasaga River watershed included a range of potential pairings between the status of the modeled loads when compared to the PWQO objectives, and qualitative assessment of stream and overall watershed health. This pairing resulted in the use of three (of the possible four) potential categories for setting subwatershed level phosphorus load targets depending on whether the PWQO based load target was met and whether the subwatershed is considered impaired (See Chapter 1).

Under the target setting strategy described in Chapter 1, 11 of the 12 subwatersheds would either accept the PWQO based target load, or, total phosphorus loads under the committed growth scenario with assumed BMP implementation. Only one of the BMP implementation scenarios allowed for a reduction in the modeled phosphorus loads below the PWQO based load target, thereby setting the target load for this watershed, Black Creek1, equal to the PWQO based load target. Targets for the remaining 10 subwatersheds were set equal to the phosphorus load levels modeled under the approved growth scenario with BMP implementation.

Under the committed growth scenario, phosphorus loads produced in the Nottawasaga River watershed decrease by nearly 2% simply as a result of the conversion of agricultural lands to urban land uses2. Under the proposed target setting strategy, nearly all subwatersheds show a notable decrease (14% or greater) in modeled phosphorus loads. Only the Bear Creek subwatershed showed effectively no change relative to the existing condition due to a canceling effect between the anticipated increase in phosphorus as a result of committed growth and the amount of reduction provided by the BMP scenario proposed.

Based on the targets proposed for each subwatershed, all 6 subwatersheds considered biologically impaired would have reduced phosphorus loads under the committed growth

1 Please note that the Black Creek Subwatershed is referred to as the Willow Creek Subwatershed in the Assimilative Capacity Studies CANWET™ Modeling Project Lake Simcoe and Nottawasaga River Basins 2 Although this suggests that development may help to improve water quality, it should be noted that additional impacts associated with development such as increased sediment loadings would be a concern. This is especially the case on the east side of the watershed, where a number of brook trout and brown trout streams lie within the “increased sediment” zone (5-33% increase; Greenland International Consulting LTD, 2006) and may be sensitive to increased turbidity/sediment deposition. New research in southern Ontario also suggests that trout production in these systems is likely to be compromised when catchment imperviousness exceeds 7% (Strobl, Ministry of Natural Resources, pers.comm. to Dave Featherstone of NVCA)



scenario with BMP implementation. The estimated gross total cost of the implementing the proposed reduction scenario would be approximately $138 million dollars.

Model estimates suggest that the total watershed phosphorus load could be reduced by 23% if the BMP scenarios proposed are implemented in all subwatersheds. However, little improvement in the overall phosphorus levels would be anticipated for the added expenditure of roughly $11.2 million dollars. Regardless of whether the proposed target strategy is applied or a complete BMP implementation scenario is proposed, the total load would not meet the PWQO for the watershed as a whole based on the model estimates.



Table 3.0-1 Summary of Modeled Loads, Targets , and Allocations: Nottawasaga River Watershed

Subwatershed C

urre

nt

Con

ditio

n

App

rove

d G

row

th

Scen

ario

Cha

nge

from

C

urre

nt

Con

ditio

n

App

rove

d G

row

th w

ith

BM

P B

MP

Cos

t (M

illio

ns o

f D

olla

rs)

BM

P C

ost p

er

Kg

Red

uctio

n (D

olla

rs)

Con

ditio

n A

sses

smen

t

Cur

rent

C

ondi

tion

mee

ts P

WQ

O?

Tar

get S

ettin

g St

rate

gy

NPS

WL

A

MO

S

Tar

get L

oad

(ton

es/y

ear)

PWQ

O

Mee

t PW

QO

?

Bear 863 1,020 157 859 $8.1 $50,275 Impaired NO B 773 0 86 859 791 NO Boyne 4,893 4,821 -72 3,627 $16.7 $13,994 Unimpaired NO C 2,227 1,037 363 3,627 2,408 NO Coates Creek 1,056 1,010 -46 814 $6.5 $33,080 Impaired NO B 733 0 81 814 777 NO Innisfil 7,105 6,978 -128 5,427 $28.2 $18,208 Impaired NO B 4,260 624 543 5,427 3,603 NO Lower Nottawasaga 5,308 4,929 -379 4,051 $21.8 $24,772 Impaired NO B 2,765 881 405 4,051 3,742 NO Mad 4,681 4,624 -58 3,553 $10.5 $9,775 Unimpaired NO C 3,096 102 355 3,553 3,062 NO Marl 1,929 1,813 -116 1,532 $3.9 $14,061 Impaired NO B 1,379 0 153 1,532 955 NO Matheson 3,090 3,160 70 2,642 $11.2 $21,688 Unimpaired YES A 2,844 0 316 3,160 3,791 YESMcIntyre 8,205 7,860 -345 5,984 $11.9 $6,350 Impaired NO B 5,020 365 598 5,984 1,255 NO Pine 3,950 4,008 57 3,149 $18.5 $21,601 Unimpaired NO C 2,829 5 315 3,149 1,675 NO Upper Nottie 5,200 5,236 36 4,110 $8.0 $7,148 Unimpaired NO C 3,699 0 411 4,110 2,722 NO Black Creek 712 800 87 584 $4.0 $18,366 Unimpaired NO C 627 0 70 696 696 YES1

TOTAL 46,993 46,258 -735 36,334 $149.4 $15,050 NA NA NA 30,253 3,014 3,696 36,964 25,478 NO 1 - Watersheds that were able to meet the PWQO as a result of BMP reductions. In the event that the modeled BMP scenario allows for the reduction of phosphorus loads below the PWQO load, the Target Load for the subwatershed defaults to the PWQO-based load target itself.



Map 3.0-1: The Nottawasaga River Watershed



3.1 UPPER NOTTAWASAGA 3.1.1 LOCATION The Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed is 36,339 hectares in size and comprises 12% of the Nottawasaga River Watershed. It is located in the southwestern portion of the Nottawasaga River Watershed, with the Boyne River Subwatershed to the north, Innisfil Creek to the east, and Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed to the northeast (See Map 3.1-1). The majority of the subwatershed (79%) is part of Dufferin County with the remainder falling in the Simcoe region. The Town of Mono lies in the central portion of the subwatershed, the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio to the east, the Township of Grey Amaranth to the west, Town of New Tecumseth to the northeast, the Township of Mulmur to the north, and the Town of Orangeville and the Town of Caledon to the south. Map 3.1-1 shows all subwatershed administrative boundaries, roads, towns, and streams. Transportation Routes The Upper Nottawasaga subwatershed has one major road, Highway 10. It runs north/south, through the subwatershed. Average road density in the subwatershed is 1.2 km/km2. Table 3.1-1 shows road classes and their lengths within the subwatershed.

3.1.2 LAND USE Land use in the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed is dominated by agricultural (64%) and forested lands (26%). Urban areas make up only a small portion of subwatershed land use (2%) and are predominately characterized as high intensity developments. In the south, development is focused around the Town of Orangeville. Development is also focused in small insular areas throughout the subwatershed. Table 3.1-2 and Map 3.1-2 show current land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area. Based on future land use projections, urban areas are anticipated to expand by roughly 2%. Agricultural uses are expected to decline slightly to 63%, but will still remain the dominant land use type. Only negligible reductions in forested land cover, and other land uses are expected. Table 3.1-2 and Map 3.1-2 show future land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area, and the differences between current and future land use distributions.

Table 3.1-1: Road Length by Class

Road Type Length Highway 22 km

Local Road 425 km Total 447 km



Table 3.1-2: Land Use/Land Cover in the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed General Land

Use Land Use Current (Ha)

Current %

Future (Ha)

Future %

Difference (Ha)

Difference%

Low Intensity Developed 19 < 1% 689 2% 670 2% Urban or

Developed High Intensity Developed 563 2% 716 2% 152 0%

Hay / Pasture 4,841 13% 4,669 13% -172 0% Row Crop 18,281 50% 17,848 49% -433 -1%

Agriculture Sod Farm / Golf

Course 56 < 1% 56 < 1% 0 0%

Mixed Woodland 4,019 11% 3,835 11% -184 -1%

Deciduous Woodland 3,087 8% 3,046 8% -41 0%

Coniferous Woodland 2,295 6% 2,239 6% -56 0%

Forest and Vegetative

Cover Transitional N/A

Emergent Wetland N/A

Woody Wetland 2,903 8% 2,812 8% -92 0% Wetland/Water

Water 128 < 1% 116 < 1% -11 0% Road 0 0% 19 < 1% 19 0%

Other Mineral Aggregate 147 < 1% 295 1% 148 0%

Total 36,339 99% 36,339 99% 0% 0%

3.1.3 EARTH RESOURCES Topography/Geology The Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed has a maximum elevation of 527 m, a minimum of 207 m, and an average elevation of 393 m (above MSL). The majority of the subwatershed is flat, with over 55% of its area comprised of slopes less than 5%. Steeper sloped areas above 5% are predominately found in the central portion of the subwatershed, or along major streams. Table 3.1-3 shows area and percent cover relative to each slope class. Headwaters above the Niagara Escarpment lie within the gently undulating Dundalk Till Plain; mid-reaches bisect steep slopes associated with the Niagara Escarpment which are mantled by the Horseshoe Moraines; lower reaches bisect the sand plains of the Simcoe Lowlands.

Table 3.1-3: Slope Classes in the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed

Slope % Area (Hectares)

% of subwatershed

0-2% 9,595 26% 2-5% 10,871 30% 5-10% 7,724 21%

10-20% 5,271 15% 20-50% 2,756 8% 50+% 122 0% Total 36,339 100%



Soils

Hydrogroup The majority of soils in the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed are hydrogroup A soils (62%) found throughout the watershed. Hydrogroup B soils are the next most abundant, and are concentrated around the southwest and northeast. Hydrogroup C soils cover only a minor portion of the subwatershed (8%), and are predominately found in the northeast and southwest portions of the subwatershed. Hydrogroup classifications have not been identified for 9% of the subwatershed. These areas are located throughout the subwatershed. Table 3.1-4 shows area and percent cover relative to each hydrogroup. Dischargers There are no dischargers in the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed. Permits to Take Water There are 49 permits to take water in the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed. Of these, 26 are for agricultural use, five for commercial use, two for miscellaneous use, and 16 for water supply use (Table 3.1-5). Table 3.1-5: Permits to Take Water in the Upper Nottawasaga River Subwatershed

General Purpose Specific Purpose Number of Permits Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 18 Agricultural Nursery 3 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 3 Agricultural Sod Farm 1 Agricultural Tobacco 1 Commercial Bottled Water 3 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 2

Miscellaneous Dams and Reservoirs 1 Miscellaneous Heat Pumps 1 Water Supply Communal 8 Water Supply Municipal 7 Water Supply Other - Water Supply 1

Total 49

Table 3.1-4: Soil Hydrogroups in the Upper Nottawasaga

Subwatershed

Hydrogroup Area (Hectares) %

A 22,532 62% B 7,047 19% C 2,828 8% D 514 1%

N/A 3,418 9% Total 36,339 100%



3.1.4 WATER RESOURCES According to available data, there are only four named streams in the Upper Nottawasaga subwatershed: North Branch Nott River, South Branch Nott River, Sheldon Creek, and Nottawasaga River. There is approximately 569 kilometers of streams in the entire subwatershed. The North Branch Nottawasaga River and South Branch Nottawasaga River begin in the western portion of the subwatershed and flow eastward. These two streams join to form the Nottawasaga River. Sheldon Creek joins the Nottawasaga River as it flows west toward Alliston. Waterbodies There are no major waterbodies in the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed. Wetlands Woody wetlands comprise 2,903 ha (8%) of the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed and are located primarily in the west central areas. Biological Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status The NVCA considers the Upper Nottawasaga River watershed to be a high quality, unimpaired, trout supporting subwatershed. The Upper Nottawasaga River is part of the Niagara Escarpment World Biosphere Reserve. Extensive forest cover is located throughout the escarpment zone near the downstream reaches of the Upper Nottawasaga. Moderate to intensive agricultural practices are conducted on tablelands downstream of the escarpment. In addition, there is a broad agricultural flood plain immediately below the escarpment zone with a narrow, incised, and well forested valley system through the lowlands. Impairments (where present) within the watershed are associated with municipal drains, on-line ponds, sparse riparian cover, and cattle access. Biological and habitat monitoring was conducted within the watershed in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2001. The majority of stations sampled within the watershed were considered “unimpaired” and the surrounding land uses tended to be rural residential neighborhoods, golf courses, and some agricultural areas located along the upper to middle portions of the mainstem of Upper Nottawasaga River (Map 3.1-3). Immediate riparian zone surrounding these “unimpaired” stations was most often a forested buffer strip. Stations considered “below potential” and “impaired” were predominantly surrounded by agricultural land uses and the riparian zone was often composed of an old field, meadow, or narrow vegetative strip. One tributary located near the headwaters was considered “impaired”. Stream health constraints noted for these “below potential” and “impaired” areas included rural non-point sources, habitat degradation, loss of riparian areas, irrigation pipes traversing the stream, water extractions, upstream ponds, and unfenced cattle.



Based on this data, the NCVA classified the 22% of total stream miles in the watershed as ‘unimpaired’, 14% as ‘below potential’, and 2% as ‘impaired’. Stream heath is considered “below potential” both in several of the headwater tributaries and along the lower reaches of the Upper Nottawasaga River which flow through primarily agricultural areas. Fish sampling was also conducted within the watershed by NVCA Ministry of Natural Resources and others from 1961 to the present. The majority of fish sampled were indicative of cold water streams. In recent samples, both young and adult brook trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout were considered common within the Upper Nottawasaga River watershed. Taken together, the macroinvertebrate and fish sampling data suggest that the majority of the Upper Nottawasaga River Subwatershed can generally be considered unimpaired. Ambient Surface Water Quality Data Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status Water quality monitoring station 3005702802 is located in the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed and is situated approximately 10 km upstream from the confluence with the Lower Nottawasaga River (Map 3.1-3). A bulleted summary of the results of the available water quality data at the Upper Nottawasaga River station is listed below:

DO concentrations consistently met the PWQO for cold and warm water biota. Field pH values were within the range of the PWQOs (ranged between 8.11 and

8.27). Average total phosphorous concentrations in the Upper Nottawasaga

subwatershed were the lowest measured in the entire Nottawasaga River watershed. In addition, these values were consistently below the PWQO of 0.03 mg/L (mean: 0.015 mg/L, min.: 0.005 mg/L, max.: 0.040 mg/L). Ortho phosphorus concentrations were generally low, suggesting that total phosphorus is largely comprised of organic phosphorus.

Based on measurements of TKN and NO3-N in 2003, the average total nitrogen concentrations were low (mean: 0.97 mg/L, min.: 0.70 mg/L, max.: 1.27 mg/L), with nitrate and organic nitrogen as the dominant nitrogen forms.

3.1.5 CANWET MODELING RESULTS Based on the CANWET modeling results, the existing yearly average total phosphorus load from the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed accounts for approximately 11% of the total phosphorus load delivered to streams in the Nottawasaga River Watershed. This load, under both the current and committed growth scenarios exceeds the PWQO based load target for all months except April.



Modeling results for both existing and committed growth scenarios showed that average loads were highest in March, during the spring thaw as well as later in the year in June. Conversion of the modeled loads to an average monthly concentration shows that total phosphorus concentrations are generally highest during baseflow conditions occurring in June through November (Figure 3.1-1).

Figure 3-1: A and B- Phosphorous Load and Phosphorous Concentrations in the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed.

3.1.6 TARGET SETTING The following table (Table 3.1-6) presents the average yearly phosphorus load derived from each source in the subwatershed under current conditions, the approved growth scenario, and the approved growth scenario with implementation of BMPs. The primary source of phosphorus in the Upper Nottawasaga subwatershed under existing conditions is derived from cropland (69%).

A

B

Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed Loads

0100200300400500600700800900

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us L

oad

(kg)

ExistingCondition

CommittedGrowthScenarioPWQO BasedLoad

Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed Phosphorus Concentrations

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MAY

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us C

onc.

(mg/

L) ExistingCondition

CommittedGrowthScenarioPWQO



Under the approved growth scenario, there is a projected increase in total phosphorus loads of less than 1% without the implementation of BMPs. However, modeling analysis suggests that this load can be reduced by 21.5% through the implementation of BMPs. Thus, modeling results suggest that total phosphorus loads overall would decrease by 21% relative to current condition in this subwatershed under an approved growth scenario assuming BMPs were implemented.

BMP Scenario The BMP scenario developed for this subwatershed is shown in Table 3.1-7. Based on the scenario developed, the total estimated cost for implementation of all proposed BMPs is approximately $8 million. Roughly 42% of this cost is derived from stream protection BMPs such as streambank fencing, riparian buffer protection, and streambank stabilization. Of the remainder, more than 37% of the cost is comprised of Urban BMP implementation such as detention basins, constructed wetlands, and bioretention areas, while 20% results from agricultural BMPs, such as nutrient management, strip cropping/contour farming, and terraces and diversions. All costs associated with this analysis should be considered gross estimates presented for comparative purposes only.

Table 3.1-6. Phosphorus Loads By Source in the Upper Nottawasaga River Subwatershed

Source Existing (kg/year)

Committed Growth Scenario (kg/year)

Change (Existing

Condition to Committed

Growth)

Committed Growth

(with BMPs)(kg/year)

BMP Reduction Potential

Difference between

Existing and Committed

Growth w/BMPs

NPS Load Allocation (kg/year)

Hay/Pasture 298 291 -8 300 3% -2 300 Crop Land 3593 3535 -58 2455 -31% 1138 2455 Other 632 701 68 691 -1% -59 691 Low Intensity Development 0 0 0 0 -100% 0 0 High Intensity Development 37 63 26 50 -21% -13 50 Stream Bank Erosion 2 2 0 2 -3% 0 2 Groundwater 473 480 7 447 -7% 26 447 Point Source 0 0 0 0 - 0 - Septic System 165 165 0 165 0% 0 165

TOTAL 5,200 5,236 36 4,111 22% 1,090 4,111



Table 3.1-7. BMP Scenario for the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed

Land Use Model Input*

Length (km)

Row Crops Crop Residue Management & Cover Crops 20% N/A Strip Cropping / Contour Farming 25% N/A Crop Rotation & Cover Crops 15% N/A Crop Rotation & Crop Residue Management 15% N/A Nutrient Management 50% N/A Hay/Pasture Nutrient Management 5% N/A Grazing Land Management 20% N/A Streams Streams with Vegetated Buffer Strips N/A 30 km Streams with Fencing N/A 5 km Length of Stream With Bank Stabilization N/A 15 km Urban Lands High Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 25% N/A Low Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 88% N/A Urban Streams High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km Low Density Urban Streams with Stabilization N/A 1 km Low Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0.5 km

* For description of inputs and BMP scenario development see Chapter 1 3.1.7 LOAD ALLOCATION Based on water quality and aquatic community conditions presented above, this subwatershed has been considered unimpaired, but modeled phosphorus load estimates exceed the PWQO based target load. Thus, option C was used to determine the proposed phosphorus load target. Under this option, the target was set to equal the total phosphorus load estimated under the committed growth scenario with the assumed implementation of BMPs. The following table presents the allocations for the Upper Nottawasaga subwatershed.

Table 3.1-8: Allocations for the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed

NPS Load (kg/year)

WLA (kg/year)

MOS (kg/year)

Target Load

(kg/year) 3,699 0 411 4,110



Map 3.1-1: Location Map – Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed



Map3.1-2: Future Land Use – Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed



Map 3.1-3. Stream Network and Monitoring Locations – Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed



3.2 BOYNE RIVER

3.2.1 LOCATION The Boyne River Subwatershed is 24,411 hectares in size and comprises 8% of the Nottawasaga River Watershed. It is located in the southwestern portion of the Nottawasaga River Watershed, with the Pine River Subwatershed to the north, Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed to the south, and Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed to the east (Map 3.2-1). The majority of the subwatershed (61%) is part of Dufferin County, with the remainder falling in the Simcoe County. The Township of Mulmur lies in the central portion of the subwatershed, the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio to the east, the Township of Melancthon to the west, the Township of Grey Amaranth and the Town of Shelburne to the southwest, and the Township of Essa to the northeast. Shelburne and Alliston are the major towns within the Boyne River Subwatershed. Map 3.2-1 shows all subwatershed administrative boundaries, roads, towns, and streams. Transportation Routes Two major roads traverse the watershed, Highway 89 and Highway 10. Highway 89 runs east/west through Shelburne and Alliston, and Highway 10 runs north/south through the Town of Shelburne. Average road density in the subwatershed is 1.5 km/km2. Table 3.2-1 shows road classes and their lengths within the subwatershed.

3.2.2 LAND USE The Boyne River Subwatershed is dominated by agricultural land uses (72%) and forested lands (17%). Urban areas make up only a small proportion of the subwatershed land use (6%) and are predominately high intensity developments. Most of the development is in the east around Alliston, and some in the west around the Town of Shelburne. Table 3.2-2 and Map 3.2-2 show current land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area. Based on future land use projections, urban areas are anticipated to expand by roughly 5%. Agricultural uses will decline slightly to 67%, but will still remain the dominant land use type. Only negligible reductions in forested land cover, and other land uses will be observed. Table 3.2-2 and Map 3.2-2 show future land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area, and the differences between current and future land use distributions.

Table 3.2-1.: Road Length by Class





Table 3.2-2: Land Use/Land Cover in the Boyne River Subwatershed General Land


Current %

Future (Ha)

Future %

Difference (Ha)

Difference%


Developed High Intensity Developed 1,508 6% 2,102 9% 594 2%

Hay / Pasture 2,953 12% 2,676 11% -277 -1% Row Crop 14,584 60% 13,553 56% -1,031 -4%


Course 130 1% 129 1% -1 0%

Mixed Woodland 2,046 8% 1,953 8% -94 0% Deciduous Woodland 1,019 4% 995 4% -25 0%




Emergent Wetland N/A Woody Wetland 842 3% 815 3% -27 0%

Wetland/Water

Water 152 1% 108 < 1% -44 0% Road 0 0% 234 1% 234 1% Other

Mineral Aggregate 97 < 1% 412 2% 315 1% Total 24,411 100% 24,411 100%

3.2.3 EARTH RESOURCES

The Boyne River Subwatershed has a maximum elevation of 528 m, a minimum of 202 m, and an average elevation of 384 m (above MSL). The majority of the subwatershed is flat, with over 65% of its area comprised of slopes less than 5%. Steeper sloped areas above 5% are predominately found in the central portion of the subwatershed, or along major streams. Table 3.2-3 shows area and percent cover relative to each slope class. Headwaters above the Niagara Escarpment lie within the gently undulating Dundalk Till Plain; mid-reaches bisect steep slopes associated with the Niagara Escarpment which are mantled by the Horseshoe Moraines; lower reaches bisect the sand plains of the Simcoe Lowlands.

Table 3.2-3: Slope Classes in the Boyne River Subwatershed Slope % Area

(Hectares) % of

subwatershed 0-2% 8,251 34% 2-5% 7,742 32%

5-10% 4,788 20% 10-20% 2,515 10% 20-50% 1,074 4% 50+% 43 0% Total 24,411 100%



Soils Hydrogroup

The majority of soils in the Boyne River Subwatershed are well drained (Hydrogroup A soils, 49%). Hydrogroup B soils are the next most abundant at 34%, and hydrogroup C soils cover only a minor portion of the subwatershed (10%). Hydrogroup classifications have not been identified for 7% of the subwatershed. Table 3.2-4 shows area and percent cover relative to each hydrogroup. Dischargers There is one discharger in the Boyne River Subwatershed, the Sir Fredrick Banting WPCP. The Sir Fredrick Banting WPCP has a rated flow of 2,037,570 m3/year, a planned flow of 3,107,610 m3/year, and the mean observed flow is not known. Permits to Take Water There are 35 permits to take water in the Boyne River Subwatershed. Of these, 16 are for agricultural use, two are for commercial use, five for dewatering, four for industrial, one for institutional, and seven for water supply. Table 3.2-5 shows the permit purpose.

Table 3.2-5: Permits to Take Water in the Boyne River Subwatershed General Purpose Specific Purpose Number of

Permits Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 6 Agricultural Nursery 4 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 3 Agricultural Sod Farm 3 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 2 Dewatering Pits and Mineral Aggregate 5 Industrial Aggregate Washing 2 Industrial Other - Industrial 2

Institutional Schools 2 Water Supply Municipal 7

Total 36

3.2.4 WATER RESOURCES Streams The Boyne River flows eastward approximately 23 km through the subwatershed, accepting drainage from major tributaries flowing through the Town of Shelburne in the southwest of the subwatershed, and Alliston in the east.

Table 3.2-4: Soil Hydrogroups in the Boyne River Subwatershed


A 11,972 49% B 8,421 34% C 2,339 10%

N/A 1,679 7% Total 24,411 100%



Waterbodies According to available data, there are no major waterbodies in the Boyne River Subwatershed. Wetlands Woody wetlands comprise 842 ha (3%) of the Boyne River Subwatershed and are located along the Boyne River east of Shelburne and in areas west of the Niagara Escarpment. Biological Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status The NVCA considers the Boyne River subwatershed to be a high quality, unimpaired, trout supporting subwatershed. Moderate forest cover extends through the escarpment system along the Boyne River. Agricultural land uses and wetlands are located in headwaters above the escarpment with several municipal drains present. Downstream of Airport Road, there are moderate agricultural land uses, aggregates, and sparse riparian cover. An on-line reservoir, Earl Rowe Provincial Park, is located immediately upstream of the Town of Alliston. Impairments located within the subwatershed are associated with municipal drains, on-line ponds, sparse riparian cover, cattle access, aggregates, and urbanization. In addition, there may be potential nutrient impairment from the Town of Shelburne WWTP, but additional studies are required to determine the impact of this treatment facility (NVCA, 2006). Biological and habitat monitoring was conducted within the watershed in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2001 (Map 3.2-3). Based on these surveys, five sampling areas within the watershed were assessed as ‘below potential’. Surrounding land use in these areas was commonly urban with impoundments located upstream of the sample site. Two streams were assessed as ‘impaired’ due to surrounding agricultural land uses. Only one stream segment located within the watershed was assessed as ‘unimpaired’. The majority of these samples were collected within agricultural areas above the escarpment system. Based on this data, of the NCVA classified stream miles in the watershed (approximately 42% of all stream miles), 18% were classified as ‘below potential’, 13% were considered ‘impaired’, and 10% were considered ‘unimpaired’. The majority of streams that were classified are located in the highly agricultural headwaters. Therefore, although stream segments within the subwatershed were considered ‘below potential’, NVCA considers the Boyne River Watershed overall ‘unimpaired.’ Fish sampling was also conducted within the watershed by NVCA, Ministry of Natural Resources, and others from 1961 to the present from 1961 to the present. The majority of fish sampled were indicative of cold water streams. In recent samples, both young and adult brook trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout were considered common within the Boyne River.



Taken together, the macroinvertebrate and fish sampling data suggest that the majority of the Boyne River watershed can be considered unimpaired although a portion of the drainage is considered ‘below potential’. Ambient Surface Water Quality Data Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status Water quality monitoring station 3005700702 is located in the Boyne River subwatershed, is situated downstream of Alliston, and is approximately 0.5 km upstream of its confluence with the Lower Nottawasaga River (Map 3.2-3). A bulleted summary of the results of the available water quality data at the Boyne River monitoring station is listed below.

DO concentrations consistently met the PWQOs for cold and warm water biota. Field pH values were within the range of the PWQOs (ranges between 7.91 and

8.13). Average BOD5 concentrations were consistently low (mean: 1.01 mg/L, min.: 0.4

mg/L, max.: 1.69 mg/L). Average total phosphorous concentrations were slightly higher than the PWQO of

0.03 mg/L (mean: 0.035 mg/L, min.: 0.008 mg/L, max.: 0.144 mg/L). Ortho phosphorus concentrations were generally low, suggesting that total phosphorus is comprised largely of organic phosphorus.

Total nitrogen concentrations were generally elevated (mean: 2.85 mg/L, min.: 1.98 mg/L, max.: 4.27 mg/L). Nitrate and organic nitrogen were considered the dominate nitrogen forms.



3.2.5 CANWET MODELING RESULTS Based on the CANWET modeling results, the existing yearly average total phosphorus load from the Boyne Subwatershed accounts for approximately 10% of the total phosphorus load delivered to streams in the Nottawasaga River Watershed. This load, under both the current and committed growth scenarios exceeds the PWQO based load target for all months except April. Modeling results for both existing and committed growth scenarios showed that average loads were highest in March, during the spring thaw as well as later in the year in June. Conversion of the modeled loads to an average monthly concentration shows that total phosphorus concentrations are generally highest during baseflow conditions occurring in June through November (Figure 3.2-1). A

B

Boyne River Subwatershed Loads

0100200300400500600700800900

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

CMonth

Phos

phor

us L

oad

(kg)

ExistingCondition


Boyne River Subwatershed Phosphorus Concentrations

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us C

onc.

(mg/



Figure 3-2: A and B - Phosphorous Load and Phosphorous Concentrations in the Boyne River Subwatershed.



3.2.6 TARGET SETTING The following table (Table 3.2-6) presents the average yearly phosphorus load derived from each source in the subwatershed under current conditions, the approved growth scenario, and the approved growth scenario with implementation of BMPs. The primary source of phosphorus in the Boyne subwatershed under existing conditions is derived from cropland (72%). Under the approved growth scenario, there is a projected decrease in total phosphorus loads of 1% without the implementation of BMPs. Modeling analysis suggests that this load can be further reduced by approximately 25% through the implementation of BMPs. Overall, modeling results suggest that total phosphorus loads would decrease by 26% relative to the current condition in this subwatershed under an approved growth scenario assuming BMPs were implemented.

Table 3.2-6 Phosphorus Loads By Source in the Boyne Subwatershed



Change (Existing


Growth)

Committed Growth



Difference between


Growth w/BMPs


Hay/Pasture 271 245 -26 242 -1% 29 242

Crop Land 3,728 3,470 -258 2,469 -29% 1,260 2,469

Other 177 123 -54 123 0% 54 123 Low Intensity Development 0 2 2 1 -80% 0 1

High Intensity Development 151 428 277 275 -36% -124 275

Stream Bank Erosion 7 14 6 14 1% -7 14

Groundwater 450 430 -20 396 -8% 55 396

Point Source 37 37 0 37 0% 0 -

Septic System 72 72 0 72 0% 0 72

TOTAL 4,893 4,821 -72 3,627 25% 1,266 3,590

BMP Scenario The BMP scenario developed for this subwatershed is shown in Table 3.2-7. Based on the scenario developed, the total estimated costs for implementation of all proposed BMP is approximately $16.7 million. Roughly 78% of this cost is derived from Urban BMP implementation such as detention basins, constructed wetlands, and bioretention areas. Of the remaining costs, 13% is comprised of agricultural BMPs, such as nutrient management, strip cropping/contour farming, and terraces and diversions, while 9% results from stream protection BMPs such as streambank fencing, riparian buffer protection, and streambank stabilization. All costs associated with this analysis should be considered gross estimates presented for comparative purposes only.



Table 3.2-7. BMP Scenario for the Boyne River Subwatershed

Land Use Model Input* Length (km) Row Crops Crop Residue Management & Cover Crops 20% N/A Strip Cropping / Contour Farming 25% N/A Crop Rotation & Cover Crops 15% N/A Crop Rotation & Crop Residue Management 15% N/A Nutrient Management 50% N/A Hay/Pasture Nutrient Management 5% N/A Grazing Land Management 20% N/A Streams Streams with Vegetated Buffer Strips N/A 20 km Streams with Fencing N/A 5 km Length of Stream With Bank Stabilization N/A 5 km Urban Lands High Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 35% N/A Low Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 93% N/A Urban Streams High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 3 km High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 2 km Low Density Urban Streams with Stabilization N/A 0 km

Low Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km * For description of inputs and BMP scenario development see Chapter 1

3.2.7 LOAD ALLOCATION Based on water quality and aquatic community conditions presented above, this subwatershed has been considered unimpaired, but modeled phosphorus load estimates exceed the PWQO based target load. Thus, option C was used to determine the proposed phosphorus load target. Under this option, the target was set to equal the total phosphorus load estimated under the committed growth scenario with the assumed implementation of BMPs. The following table presents the allocations for the Boyne River subwatershed.

Table 3.2-8: Allocations for the Boyne River Subwatershed

NPS Load

(kg/year)

WLA (kg/year)

MOS (kg/year)

Target Load (kg/year)

2,227 1,037 363 3,627



Map 3.2-1: Location Map – Boyne River Subwatershed



Map 3.2-2: Future Land Use – Boyne River Subwatershed



Map 3.2-3: Stream Network and Monitoring Locations – Boyne River Subwatershed



3.3 PINE RIVER

3.3.1 LOCATION The Pine River Subwatershed is 35,048 hectares in size and comprises 12% of the Nottawasaga River Watershed. It is located in the southwestern portion of the Nottawasaga River Watershed, with the Mad River Subwatershed to the north, Boyne River Subwatershed to the south, and Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed to the east (See Map 3.3-1). The majority of the subwatershed (62%) is part of Dufferin County with the remainder part of Simcoe and CFB Borden. The Township of Mulmur lies in the central portion of the subwatershed, the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio to the east, CFB Borden to the far east, the Township of Melancthon to the west, the Township of Grey Amaranth and the Town of Shelburne to the southwest, the Township of Essa to the southeast, and the Township of Clearview to the north. CFB Borden and Angus are the major towns within the Pine River Subwatershed, with Angus being the largest. Map 3.3-1 shows all subwatershed administrative boundaries, roads, towns, and streams. Transportation Routes This subwatershed has no major roads, and local roads are sparse in the majority of the subwatershed, except for areas near CFB Borden and Angus. Average road density in the subwatershed is 1.3 km/km2. Four County roads lie within the subwatershed. Table 3.3-1 shows road classes and their lengths within the subwatershed.

3.3.2 LAND USE Land use in the Pine River subwatershed is dominated by agricultural (56%) and forested lands (33%). Urban areas make up approximately 5% of the area and are predominately characterized as high intensity development areas. In the north, development is focused around Angus with smaller areas of development located throughout the subwatershed. Average road density in the subwatershed is 1.9 km/km2. Table 3.3-1 and Map 3.3-2 show current land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area. Based on future land use projections, urban areas are anticipated to expand by roughly 2%. Agricultural uses are expected to decline slightly to 53%, but will still remain the dominant land use type. Only negligible reductions in forested land cover and other land uses are anticipated. Table 3.3-1 and Map 3.3-2 show future land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area, and the differences between current and future land use distributions.






Table 3.3-2: Land Use/Land Cover in the Pine River Subwatershed

General Land Use Land Use Current

(Ha) Current

% Future (Ha)

Future %

Difference (Ha)

Difference%



Hay / Pasture 4,267 12% 4,020 11% -247 -1% Row Crop 15,341 44% 14,540 41% -802 -2%

Agriculture

Sod Farm / Golf Course 89 < 1% 89 < 1% 0 0%

Mixed Woodland 4,637 13% 4,420 13% -217 -1%



Forest and Vegetative Cover

Transitional N/A Emergent Wetland N/A


Water 187 1% 173 < 1% -15 0% Road 0 0% 503 1% 503 1%

Other Mineral Aggregate 96 < 1% 87 < 1% -10 0%

Total 35,048 100% 35,048 100% 0 0%

3.3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Topography/Geology The Pine River Subwatershed has a maximum elevation of 542 m, a minimum of 184 m, and an average elevation of 342 m (above MSL). The majority of the subwatershed is flat, with 63% of its area comprised of slopes less than 5%. Steeper sloped areas above 5% are predominately found in the western third of the subwatershed. Table 3.3-3 shows area and percent cover relative to each slope class. Headwaters above the Niagara Escarpment lie within the gently undulating Dundalk Till Plain; mid-reaches bisect steep slopes associated with the Niagara Escarpment which are mantled by the Horseshoe Moraines; lower reaches bisect the sand plains of the Simcoe Lowlands.

Table 3.3-3: Slope Classes in the Pine River Subwatershed


% of Subwatershed

0-2% 12,617 36% 2-5% 9,463 27%

5-10% 6,309 18% 10-20% 4,556 13% 20-50% 2,103 6% > 50% 0 < 1% Total 35,048 100%



Soils

Hydrogroup The majority of soils in the Pine River Subwatershed are hydrogroup A or B soils (69%). Hydrogroup A soils are predominately found in the central portions of the subwatershed while hydrogroup B soils, the next most abundant, are located mostly to the west. Hydrogroup C soils cover only a minor portion of the subwatershed (9%), and are predominately found in the central portions of the subwatershed. Hydrogroup classifications have not been identified for 23% of the subwatershed. Table 3.3-4 shows area and percent cover relative to each hydrogroup. Dischargers There is one discharger in the Pine River Subwatershed, the CFB Borden WWTP. The rated, mean observed, and planned flow rates were unavailable for this study. Permits to Take Water There are 33 permits to take water in the Pine River Subwatershed. Of these, 22 are for agricultural use and eleven for water supply. Table 3.3-5 shows the permit purpose within the subwatershed.

Table 3.3-5: Permits to Take Water in the Pine River Subwatershed General Purpose Specific Purpose Number of Permits

Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 15 Agricultural Nursery 5 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 1 Agricultural Sod Farm 1

Water Supply Campgrounds 2 Water Supply Municipal 9

Total 33

3.3.4 WATER RESOURCES Streams According to available data, there are only two named streams in the Pine River—Lisle Creek and Pine River. The Pine River begins in the western portion of the subwatershed and flows east. Lisle Creek drains the northern portion of the subwatershed, and joins the Pine River just before the village of Borden. There is approximately 587 kilometers of streams in the entire subwatershed.

Table 3.3-4: Soil Hydrogroups in the Pine River Subwatershed


A 13,318 38% B 10,514 30% C 3,154 9%

N/A 8,061 23% Total 35,048 100%



Waterbodies There are no major waterbodies in the Pine River Subwatershed. Wetlands Woody wetlands comprise 1,873 ha (5%) of the Pine River Subwatershed and are predominately located in the central portion of the watershed. Biological Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status The NVCA considers the Pine River Subwatershed to be a high quality, unimpaired, trout supporting subwatershed. It is part of the Niagara Escarpment system and the World Biosphere Reserve. Agricultural land uses and wetlands are located in the headwaters above the escarpment with some municipal drains, while there is extensive forest cover in the mid to downstream reaches of the subwatershed. Between Airport Road and CFB Borden, moderate agriculture land uses and some sparse riparian buffers are intermixed with a forested (swamp/upland) valley system. Impairments within the watershed are generally associated with municipal drains, on-line ponds, localized sparse riparian cover, and cattle access (NVCA, 2006). Biological and habitat monitoring was conducted within the watershed in 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2001. The majority of the samples collected were considered ‘unimpaired’ (Map 3.3-3). One sample collected on Bear Creek was considered ‘below potential’ due to the surrounding rural agricultural land use. Another sample collected on a tributary to the Pine River was also considered ‘impaired’ due to the surrounding agricultural land use impacts. Fish sampling was conducted within the watershed by NVCA, Ministry of Natural Resources, and others from 1961 to the present. The majority of fish sampled were indicative of cold water streams. In recent samples, both young and adult brook trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout were collected within the Pine River. Based on this data, the NCVA classified 19% of the total stream miles in the watershed as ‘unimpaired’ and 13% as ‘below potential’ (the remaining stream miles are unclassified). Overall, the NVCA considers the Pine River subwatershed to be unimpaired. Ambient Surface Water Quality Data – Inventory & Status Water quality station 3005701002 is located in the Pine River subwatershed and is situated approximately 1 km upstream from its confluence with the Lower Nottawasaga River (Map 3.3-3). A bulleted summary of the results of the available water quality data at the Pine River station is listed below:



DO concentrations consistently met the PWQO for cold and warm water biota. Field pH values were within the range of the PWQOs (ranged between 8.03 and

8.28). Average BOD5 concentrations were consistently low (mean: 0.98 mg/L, min.:

0.60 mg/L, max.: 2.2 mg/L). Total phosphorous concentrations were generally slightly higher than the

PWQO of 0.03 mg/L (mean: 0.035 mg/L, min.: 0.002 mg/L, max.: 0.171 mg/L). Ortho phosphorus concentrations were generally low, suggesting that total phosphorus samples were comprised largely of organic phosphorus.

Average total nitrogen concentrations were generally elevated (mean: 2.14 mg/L, min.: 1.18 mg/L, max.: 7.51 mg/L). Nitrate and organic nitrogen were considered the dominant nitrogen forms.

3.3.5 CANWET MODELING RESULTS Based on the CANWET modeling results, the existing yearly average total phosphorus load from the Pine River Subwatershed accounts for approximately 8% of the total phosphorus load delivered to streams in the Nottawasaga River Watershed. This load, under both the current and committed growth scenarios exceeds the PWQO based load target for all months. Modeling results for both existing and committed growth scenarios showed that average loads were highest in March, during the spring thaw as well as later in the year in June through August. Conversion of the modeled loads to an average monthly concentration shows that total phosphorus concentrations are generally highest during baseflow conditions occurring in May through November (Figure 3.3-1).



A

B

Pine River Subwatershed Loads

0100200300400500600700800

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us L

oad

(kg)

ExistingCondition


Pine River Subwatershed Phosphorus Concentrations

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us C

onc.

(mg/



Figure 3-3: A and B - Phosphorous Load and Phosphorous Concentrations in the Pine River Subwatershed.

3.3.6 TARGET SETTING The following table (Table 3.1-6) presents the average yearly phosphorus load derived from each source in the subwatershed under current conditions, the approved growth scenario, and the approved growth scenario with implementation of BMPs. The primary source of phosphorus in the Pine River subwatershed under existing conditions is derived from cropland (73%). Under the approved growth scenario, there is a projected increase in total phosphorus loads of 1% without the implementation of BMPs. Modeling analysis suggests that this load can be reduced by 21.4% through the implementation of BMPs. Thus, modeling total phosphorus loads overall would decrease by 20% relative to current condition in this subwatershed under an approved growth scenario assuming BMPs were implemented.



Table 3.3-6 Phosphorus Loads By Source in the Pine River Subwatershed



Change (Existing


Growth)

Committed Growth



Difference between


Growth w/BMPs


Hay/Pasture 405 384 -21 405 5% 0 405 Crop Land 2,937 2,776 -161 1,993 -28% 944 1,993 Other 366 317 -49 296 -7% 70 296 Low Intensity Development 0 5 5 1 -82% -1 1



Groundwater 132 125 -6 118 -6% 14 118 Point Source 2 2 0 2 0% 0 Septic System 0 103 103 103 0% -103 103

TOTAL 3,950 4,008 57 3,149 21% 802 3,147 BMP Scenario The BMP scenario developed for this subwatershed is shown in Table 3.3-7. Based on the scenario developed, the total estimated costs for implementation of all proposed BMP is approximately $18.5 million. Roughly 73% of this cost is derived from Urban BMP implementation such as detention basins, constructed wetlands, and bioretention areas. Of the remaining costs, 19% results from stream protection BMPs such as streambank fencing, riparian buffer protection, and streambank stabilization, while 8% is comprised of agricultural BMPs, such as nutrient management, strip cropping/contour farming, and terraces and diversions. All costs associated with this analysis should be considered gross estimates presented for comparative purposes only.

Table 3.3-7 BMP Scenario for the Pine River Subwatershed Land Use Model Input* Length (km) Row Crops Crop Residue Management & Cover Crops 20% N/A Strip Cropping / Contour Farming 25% N/A Crop Rotation & Cover Crops 15% N/A Crop Rotation & Crop Residue Management 15% N/A Nutrient Management 50% N/A Hay/Pasture Nutrient Management 5% N/A Grazing Land Management 20% N/A Streams Streams with Vegetated Buffer Strips N/A 15 km Streams with Fencing N/A 7 km Length of Stream With Bank Stabilization N/A 15 km Urban Lands High Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 3277% N/A Low Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 99% N/A



Table 3.3-7 BMP Scenario for the Pine River Subwatershed Land Use Model Input* Length (km) Urban Streams High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km Low Density Urban Streams with Stabilization N/A 2 km Low Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 1 km

* For description of inputs and BMP scenario development see Chapter 1

3.3.7 LOAD ALLOCATION Based on water quality and aquatic community conditions presented above, this subwatershed has been considered unimpaired, but modeled phosphorus load estimates exceed the PWQO based target load. Thus, option C was used to determine the proposed phosphorus load target. Under this option, the target was set to equal the total phosphorus load estimated under the committed growth scenario with the assumed implementation of BMPs. The following table presents the allocations for the Pine River subwatershed.

Table 3.3-8: Allocations for the Pine River Subwatershed

NPS Load

(kg/year)

WLA (kg/year)

MOS (kg/year)


2,829 5 315 3,149



Map 3.3-1: Location Map – Pine River Subwatershed



Map 3.3-2: Future Land Use – Pine River Subwatershed



Map 3.3-3: Stream Network and Monitoring Locations – Pine River Subwatershed



3.4 MAD RIVER

3.4.1 LOCATION The Mad River Subwatershed is 35,363 hectares in size and accounts for 12% of the Nottawasaga River Watershed. It is located in the central eastern portion of the Nottawasaga River Watershed, with the Coates Creek Subwatershed to the north, Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed to the northeast, and Pine River to the south. (See Map 3-4.1). The majority of the subwatershed (50%) is part of the Simcoe County in the central and northeast, with Grey County to the northwest (26%), Dufferin County in the south (19%), and CFB Borden in the southeast (5%). The Township of Clearview lies in the central portion of the subwatershed, the Township of Grey Highlands in the northwest, the Township of Melancthon in the southwest, the Township of Mulmur in the south, the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio to the southeast, and the Township of Essa to the far southeast. Singhampton is the only major town within the Mad River Subwatershed. Map 3.4-1 shows all subwatershed administrative boundaries, roads, towns, and streams. Transportation Routes The Mad River Subwatershed’s only major road is Country RD 9, which runs northeast to southwest and travels along side the Noisy River for more than 10 km. Average road density in the subwatershed is 1.1 km/km2. Table 3.4-1 shows road classes and their lengths within the subwatershed.

3.4.2 LAND USE The Mad River Subwatershed is dominated by agricultural land uses (63%) and forested lands (20%). Urban areas make up only a small proportion of the subwatershed land use (2%) and are predominately considered high intensity developments. In the north, development is focused around Singhampton and along Country RD 9. Table 3.4-2 and Map 3.4-2 show current land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area. Based on future land use projections, urban areas are anticipated to expand by roughly 2%. Agricultural uses are expected to decline slightly to 61%, but will still remain the dominant land use type. Only negligible reductions in forested land cover, and other land uses are projected. Table 3.4-2 and Map 3.4-2 show future land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area, and the differences between current and future land use distributions.






Table 3.4-2: Land Use/Land Cover in the Mad River Subwatershed


(Ha) Current

% Future (Ha)

Future %

Difference (Ha)

Difference%



Hay / Pasture 3,139 9% 3,036 9% -103 <1% Row Crop 19,044 54% 18,545 52% -498 -1%


Course 120 < 1% 120 < 1% 0 0%

Mixed Woodland 3,075 9% 3,020 9% -55 <1% Deciduous Woodland 2,287 6% 2,266 6% -22 <1%

Coniferous Woodland 1,684 5% 1,651 5% -33 <1%


Transitional N/A


Woody Wetland 5,189 15% 5,163 15% -25 <1% Wetland/Water

Water 124 < 1% 117 < 1% -7 <1% Road 0 0% 109 <1% 109 <1%

Other Mineral Aggregate 86 < 1% 212 1% 125 <1%

Total 35,363 100% 35,363 100%

3.4.3 EARTH RESOURCES Topography/Geology The Mad River Subwatershed has a maximum elevation of 542 m, a minimum of 180 m, and an average elevation of 412 m (above MSL). The majority of the subwatershed is flat, with almost 65% of its area comprised of slopes less than 5%. Steeper sloped areas above 5% are predominately found in the central portion of the subwatershed, or along major streams. Table 3.4-3 shows area and percent cover relative to each slope class. Headwaters above the Niagara Escarpment lie within the gently undulating Dundalk Till Plain; mid-reaches bisect steep slopes associated with the Niagara Escarpment which are mantled by the Horseshoe Moraines; lower reaches bisect the sand plains of the Simcoe Lowlands.

Table 3.4-3: Slope Classes in the Mad River Subwatershed


% of Subwatershed

0-2% 13,595 38% 2-5% 9,320 26%

5-10% 6,281 18% 10-20% 4,200 12% 20-50% 1,878 5% 50+% 89 0% Total 35,363 100%



Soils

Hydrogroup

The majority of soils in the Mad River Subwatershed are either hydrogroup B soils (60%). Hydrogroup A soils cover a smaller portion of the subwatershed (16%), and are predominately found in the east portion of the subwatershed. Table 3.4-4 shows area and percent cover relative to each hydrogroup.

Dischargers There is one discharger in the Mad River Subwatershed—the Creemore WPCP. It has a rated flow of 511,000 m3/year, a planned flow of 668,662 m3/year, and the mean observed flow is unknown. Permits to Take Water There are 13 permits to take water in the Mad River Subwatershed. Of these, five are for agriculture use, one for commercial use, one for dewatering, two for miscellaneous use, one for recreational use, and three for water supply. Table 3.4-5 shows the permit purpose within the subwatershed.

Table 3.4-5: Permits to Take Water in the Mad River Subwatershed General Purpose Specific Purpose Number of Permits

Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 4 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 1 Commercial Snowmaking 1 Dewatering Other - Dewatering 1

Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 2 Recreational Aesthetics 1 Water Supply Municipal 3

Total 13

3.4.4 WATER RESOURCES Streams According to available data, the Mad River Subwatershed contains two major streams—Mad River and Noisy River. The headwaters of Mad River form in the northwest of the subwatershed. As it flows to the southeast, it is joined by Noisy River near the center of the subwatershed, continues eastward, then flows out of the subwatershed in the northeast corner. In total, the subwatershed contains approximately 625 km of stream.

Table 3.4-4: Soil Hydrogroups in the Mad River Subwatershed


A 5,597 16% B 21,190 60% C 1,399 4% D 487 1%

N/A 6,689 19% Total 35,363 100%



Waterbodies According to available data, there are no major waterbodies in the Mad River Subwatershed. Wetlands Woody wetlands cover approximately 5,189 ha (15%) of the Mad River Subwatershed and are most concentrated in the Niagara Escarpment headwaters and in the lowland areas in the west. Biological Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status The NVCA considers the Mad River Subwatershed to be a high quality, unimpaired, trout supporting watershed. The headwaters in the southern portion of the watershed originate along the Niagara Escarpment, and flow north through a mixture of agricultural land uses and forest cover. Throughout the escarpment zone, there is abundant forest cover and within the headwaters there are extensive wetlands. There are also riparian wetlands through Glencairn, CFB Borden, and the Minesing Wetlands. However, between Creemore and the county line, agricultural land use dominates. Impairments within the watershed appear to be associated with on-line ponds, sparse riparian cover, cattle access, or altered channel forms (NVCA, 2006). Biological monitoring and habitat data were collected in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2000 (Map 3.4-3). The majority of the sampled stations were considered ‘unimpaired’ and were surrounded by either conservation land or forest. Two out of the thirteen samples collected were considered to be ‘below potential’. Both of these samples were collected at stations surrounded by agricultural land use. Based on this data, out of all stream miles within the watershed, the NCVA classified 21% as unimpaired, 14.5% as below potential, and less than 1% as impaired (the remaining stream miles are unclassified). Fish sampling was also conducted within the watershed by NVCA, Ministry of Natural Resources, and others from 1961 to the present from 1961 to the present. The majority of fish sampled were indicative of cold water streams. In recent samples, both young and adult brook trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout were collected within the Mad River. Taken together, the macroinvertebrate and fish sampling data suggest, that the majority of the watershed can be considered unimpaired. Ambient Surface Water Quality Data– Inventory & Status Water quality monitoring station 3005702102 is located in the Mad River subwatershed and is situated approximately 6 km upstream from the mouth of the Mad River (Map 3.4-3).



A bulleted summary of the results of the available water quality data at the Mad River monitoring station is listed below:

Dissolved oxygen concentrations consistently met the PWQO for cold and warm water biota.

Field pH values were consistently within the PWQOs (ranged between 8.08 and 8.3).

Average BOD5 concentrations were generally low (mean: 0.90 mg/L, min.: 0.40 mg/L, max.: 2.4 mg/L).

Average TP concentrations were slightly lower than the PWQO of 0.03 mg/L (mean: 0.027 mg/L, min.: 0.002 mg/L, max.: 0.408 mg/L). Ortho phosphorus concentrations were generally low, suggesting that total phosphorus is comprised largely of organic phosphorus.

Average total nitrogen concentrations were generally elevated (mean: 1.87 mg/L, min.: 0.35 mg/L, max.: 3.48 mg/L). Nitrate and organic nitrogen were considered the dominant nitrogen forms.

3.4.5 CANWET MODELING RESULTS Based on the CANWET modeling results, the existing yearly average total phosphorus load from the Mad River accounts for approximately 10% of the total phosphorus load delivered to streams in the Nottawasaga River Watershed. This load, under both the current and committed growth scenarios exceeds the PWQO based load target for all months except April. Modeling results for both existing and committed growth scenarios showed that average loads were highest in March, during the spring thaw. Conversion of the modeled loads to an average monthly concentration shows that total phosphorus concentrations are generally highest during baseflow conditions occurring in July through November (Figure 3.4-1).



A

B

Mad River Subwatershed Loads

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us L

oad

(kg)

ExistingCondition


Mad River Subwatershed Phosphorus Concentrations

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us C

onc.

(mg/



Figure 3-4: A and B - Phosphorous Load and Phosphorous Concentrations in the Mad River Subwatershed. 3.4.6 TARGET SETTING The following table (Table 3.1-6) presents the average yearly phosphorus load derived from each source in the subwatershed under current conditions, the approved growth scenario, and the approved growth scenario with implementation of BMPs. The primary source of phosphorus in the Mad River subwatershed under existing conditions is derived from cropland (75%). Under the approved growth scenario, there is a projected increase in total phosphorus loads of approximately 1% without the implementation of BMPs. Modeling analysis suggests that this load can be reduced by 23% through the implementation of BMPs. Thus, phosphorus loads overall would decrease by 24% relative to current condition in this subwatershed under an approved growth scenario assuming BMPs were implemented.



Table 3.4-6. Phosphorus Loads By Source in the Mad River Subwatershed



Change (Existing


Growth)

Committed Growth



Difference between


Growth w/BMPs


Hay/Pasture 213 206 -7 224 9% -11 224

Crop Land 3,504 3,427 -77 2,414 -30% 1,090 2,414

Other 228 239 12 221 -8% 7 221 Low Intensity Development 0 0 0 0 -100% 0 0



Groundwater 601 584 -18 541 -7% 60 541

Point Source 3 3 0 3 0% 0

Septic System 120 120 0 120 0% 0 120

TOTAL 4,682 4,624 -58 3,554 23% 1,128 3,551 BMP Scenario The BMP scenario developed for this subwatershed is shown in Table 3.4-7. Based on the scenario developed, the total estimated cost for implementation of all proposed BMPs is approximately $10.4 million. Roughly 57% of this cost is derived from Urban BMP implementation such as detention basins, constructed wetlands, and bioretention areas. Of the remaining costs, 24% results from stream protection BMPs such as streambank fencing, riparian buffer protection, and streambank stabilization, while 19% is comprised of agricultural BMPs, such as nutrient management, strip cropping/contour farming, and terraces and diversions. All costs associated with this analysis should be considered gross estimates presented for comparative purposes only.

Table 3.4-7 BMP Scenario for the Mad River Subwatershed Land Use Model Input* Length (km) Row Crops Crop Residue Management & Cover Crops 20% N/A Strip Cropping / Contour Farming 25% N/A Crop Rotation & Cover Crops 15% N/A Crop Rotation & Crop Residue Management 15% N/A Nutrient Management 50% N/A Hay/Pasture Nutrient Management 5% N/A Grazing Land Management 20% N/A Streams Streams with Vegetated Buffer Strips N/A 30 km Streams with Fencing N/A 10 km Length of Stream With Bank Stabilization N/A 10 km



Table 3.4-7 BMP Scenario for the Mad River Subwatershed Land Use Model Input* Length (km) Urban Lands High Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 37% N/A Low Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 94% N/A Urban Streams High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 2 km High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 1 km Low Density Urban Streams with Stabilization N/A 1 km Low Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0.5 km


3.4.7 LOAD ALLOCATION Based on water quality and aquatic community conditions presented above, this subwatershed has been considered unimpaired, but modeled phosphorus load estimates exceed the PWQO based target load. Thus, option C was used to determine the proposed phosphorus load target. Under this option, the target was set to equal the total phosphorus load estimated under the committed growth scenario with the assumed implementation of BMPs. The following table presents the allocations for the Mad River subwatershed.

Table 3.4-8: Allocations for the Mad River Subwatershed

NPS Load

(kg/year)

WLA (kg/year)

MOS (kg/year)


3,096 102 355 3,553



Map 3.4-1: Location Map – Mad River Subwatershed



Map 3.4-2. Future Land Use – Mad River Subwatershed



Map 3.4-3. Stream Network and Monitoring Locations – Mad River Subwatershed



3.5 COATES CREEK

3.5.1 LOCATION The Coates Creek Subwatershed is 8,190 hectares in size and accounts for approximately 3% of the Nottawasaga River Watershed. It is located in the northwestern portion of the Nottawasaga River Watershed, with the McIntyre Creek Subwatershed to the north and west, Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed to the east and southeast, and Mad River Subwatershed to the southwest. (Map 5.5-1). The entire subwatershed is part of the Simcoe County. The only township in the subwatershed is the Township of Clearview. New Lowell is another developed area within the subwatershed. Map 5.5-1 shows all subwatershed administrative boundaries, roads, towns, and streams. Transportation Routes This subwatershed has three major roads, County RD 9, County RD 10, and Airport Road.. Country RD 9 runs from east to west through the subwatershed. Average road density in the subwatershed is 1.2 km/km2. Table 3.5-1 shows road classes and their lengths within the subwatershed.

3.5.2 LAND USE Land use in the Coates Creek Subwatershed is dominated by agricultural (69%) and forested lands (13%). Urban areas make up only a small proportion of the subwatershed land use (2%). Development is predominantly focused 1.5 km west of Country Road 9 in the central portion of the watershed. Table 3.5-2 and Map 3.5-2 show current land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area. Based on future land use projections, urban areas are anticipated to expand by roughly 5%. Agricultural uses are expected to decline slightly to 64%, but will still remain the dominant land use type. No reductions are anticipated to occur in forested land cover, and other land uses will have only negligible changes. Table 3.5-2 and Map 3.5-2 show future land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area, and the differences between current and future land use distributions.






Table 3.5-2: Land Use/Land Cover in the Coates Creek Subwatershed General Land


Current %

Future (Ha)

Future %

Difference (Ha)

Difference%

Low Intensity Developed 1 < 1% 8 < 1% 7 <1% Urban or




Course 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Mixed Woodland 718 9% 660 8% -58 -1%

Deciduous Woodland 162 2% 151 2% -11 <1%

Coniferous Woodland 219 3% 215 3% -4 <1%




Woody Wetland 1,163 14% 1,138 14% -24 <1% Wetland/Water

Water 37 < 1% 28 < 1% -9 <1% Road 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Other Mineral Aggregate 73 1% 173 2% 100 1%

Total 8,190 100% 8,190 100%

3.5.3 EARTH RESOURCES Topography/Geology The Coates Creek Subwatershed has a maximum elevation of 420 m, a minimum of 181 m, and an average elevation of 231 m (above MSL). The majority of the subwatershed is flat, with 80% of its area comprised of slopes less than 5%. Steeper sloped areas, above 5%, are predominately found in the southwestern portion of the subwatershed, or along major streams. The headwaters lie within Corn Hill moraine with the main branch bisecting sand and clay plains of the Simcoe Lowlands before entering the Minesing Wetlands. Table 3.5-3 shows the area and percent cover relative to each slope class. No moraines are present within this subwatershed.

Table 3.5-3: Slope Classes in the Coates Creek Subwatershed


% of subwatershed

0-2% 4,794 59% 2-5% 1,738 21%

5-10% 1,117 14% 10-20% 438 5% 20-50% 102 1% 50+% 1 0% Total 8,190 100%



Soils Hydrogroup

The majority of soils in the Coates Creek subwatershed are hydrogroup B soils (48%), which are spread throughout the subwatershed. Hydrogroup A and C soils are the next most abundant, and are found in the central portion of the subwatershed. Hydrogroup D soils cover 7% of the area, and are located in the northeast. Hydrogroup classifications have not been identified for 5% of the subwatershed. Table 3.5-4 shows area and percent cover relative to each hydrogroup. Dischargers There are no dischargers in the Coates Creek Subwatershed. Permits to Take Water There is only one permit to take water in the Coates Creek Subwatershed which is used specifically for field and pasture agricultural uses.

3.5.4 WATER RESOURCES Streams The Coates Creek Subwatershed contains one major stream, Coates Creek, flowing for 17.5 km before meeting the Nottawasaga River. Waterbodies There are no major waterbodies in the Coates Creek Subwatershed. Wetlands Woody wetlands comprise 1,163 ha (14%) of the Coates Creek Subwatershed and are mostly located in the east and south. Biological Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status NVCA considers Coates Creek an ‘impaired’ subwatershed. Agricultural land uses are dominant in the headwaters, while forested cover and wetlands are prominent toward the mouth of the creek. Impairments are associated with stream alteration, sand/gravel pits

Table 3.5-4: Soil Hydrogroups in the Coates Creek Subwatershed


A 2,369 29% B 3,911 48% C 881 11% D 611 7%

N/A 418 5% Total 8,190 100%



(possible), sparse instream buffers, cattle access, on-line ponds, and possibly nutrient enrichment. New Lowell Conservation Area reservoir is located on-line in the central reach of Coates Creek (NVCA, 2006). Biological and habitat monitoring was conducted within Coates Creek once in 1996 and once in 1997 (Map 3.5-3). Both samples collected were considered ‘unimpaired’. However, these samples were conducted at a station with a forested riparian buffer and surrounding rural residential land uses. NVCA, Ministry of Natural Resources, and others conducted fish sampling within the watershed from 1961 to the present. Several species recorded within the watershed indicate that coldwater streams are present within the Coates Creek Subwatershed. Recent sampling events have shown that sculpin and brook trout are restricted to the higher quality habitat found within the main branch of Coates Creek. Based on available data and further information collected within the watershed, out of the total stream miles within the watershed, 15% are considered ‘below potential’, 8% are considered ‘impaired’, and less than 1% are considered ‘unimpaired’. The majority of streams within the watershed considered ‘below potential’ are located within developed areas or areas dominated by agricultural land uses. Overall, the Coates Creek subwatershed is considered impaired by the NVCA. Ambient Surface Water Quality Data – Inventory & Status Limited historical water quality monitoring data (Clean Up Reach Beaches Program – mid 1990s) was available for this subwatershed. 3.5.5 CANWET MODELING RESULTS Based on the CANWET modeling results, the existing yearly average total phosphorus load from the Coates Creek Subwatershed accounts for approximately 2% of the total phosphorus load delivered to streams in the Nottawasaga River Watershed. This load, under both the current and committed growth scenarios meets the PWQO based load target for all months except August. Modeling results for both existing and committed growth scenarios showed that average loads were highest in March. Conversion of the modeled loads to an average monthly concentration shows that total phosphorus concentrations are generally highest during baseflow conditions occurring in July through November (Figure 3.5-1).



A

B

Coates Creek Subwatershed Loads

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us L

oad

(kg)

ExistingCondition

CommittedGrowth Scenario

PWQO BasedLoad

Coates Creek Subwatershed Phosphorus Concentrations

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SEP

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us C

onc.

(mg/

L)

ExistingCondition


PWQO

Figure 3-5. A and B, - Phosphorous Load and Phosphorous Concentrations in the Coates Creek Subwatershed.

3.5.6 TARGET SETTING The following table (Table 3.5-5) presents the average yearly phosphorus load derived from each source in the subwatershed under current conditions, the approved growth scenario, and the approved growth scenario with implementation of BMPs. The primary source of phosphorus in the Coates Creek subwatershed under existing conditions is derived from cropland (65%). Under the approved growth scenario, there is a projected decrease in total phosphorus loads of 4% without the implementation of BMPs. However, modeling analysis suggests that this load can be reduced by approximately 19% through the implementation of BMPs. Thus, total phosphorus loads overall would decrease by 23% relative to current



condition in this subwatershed under an approved growth scenario assuming BMPs were implemented.

Table 3.5-5. Phosphorus Loads By Source in the Coates Creek Subwatershed



Change (Existing


Growth)

Committed Growth



Difference between


Growth w/BMPs


Hay/Pasture 56 54 -3 53 -1.0% 3 53

Crop Land 690 647 -43 473 -26.9% 217 473

Other 12 22 9 21 -2.3% -9 21 Low Intensity Development 0 0 0 0 -100.0% 0 0

High Intensity Development 1 4 3 2 -55.1% -1 2

Stream Bank Erosion 0 1 1 1 -11.7% -1 1

Groundwater 264 250 -14 231 -7.5% 33 231

Point Source 0 0 0 0 0

Septic System 32 32 0 33 1.7% -1 33

TOTAL 1,056 1,010 -46 814 19.4% 241 814 BMP Scenario The BMP scenario developed for this subwatershed is shown in Table 3.5-6. Based on the scenario developed, the total estimated cost for implementation of all proposed BMP is approximately $6.4 million. Roughly 74% of this cost is derived from Urban BMP implementation such as detention basins, constructed wetlands, and bioretention areas. Of the remaining costs, 15% results from stream protection BMPs such as streambank fencing, riparian buffer protection, and streambank stabilization, while 11% is comprised of agricultural BMPs, such as nutrient management, strip cropping/contour farming, and terraces and diversions. All costs associated with this analysis should be considered gross estimates presented for comparative purposes only.

Table 3.5-6 BMP Scenario for the Coates Creek Subwatershed Land Use Model Input* Length (km) Row Crops Crop Residue Management & Cover Crops 20% N/A Strip Cropping / Contour Farming 25% N/A Crop Rotation & Cover Crops 15% N/A Crop Rotation & Crop Residue Management 15% N/A Nutrient Management 50% N/A Hay/Pasture Nutrient Management 5% N/A Grazing Land Management 20% N/A



Table 3.5-6 BMP Scenario for the Coates Creek Subwatershed Land Use Model Input* Length (km) Streams Streams with Vegetated Buffer Strips N/A 3 km Streams with Fencing N/A 2 km Length of Stream With Bank Stabilization N/A 4 km Urban Lands High Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 67% N/A Low Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 75% N/A Urban Streams High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 1 km High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0.5 km Low Density Urban Streams with Stabilization N/A 0 km Low Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km


3.5.7 LOAD ALLOCATION Based on water quality and aquatic community conditions presented above, this subwatershed has been considered impaired and modeled phosphorus load estimates exceed the PWQO based target load. Therefore, Option B was used to determine the proposed phosphorus load target. Under this option, the target was set to equal the total phosphorus load estimated under the committed growth scenario with an assumed implementation of the BMP scenario. The following table presents the allocations for the Coates Creek subwatershed.

Table 3.5-7: Allocations for the Coates Creek Subwatershed

NPS Load

(kg/year)

WLA (kg/year)

MOS (kg/year)


733 0 81 814



Map 3.5-1: Location Map – Coates Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.5-2: Future Land Use – Coates Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.5-3: Stream Network and Monitoring Locations – Coates Creek Subwatershed



3.6 MCINTYRE CREEK

3.6.1 LOCATION The McIntyre Creek Subwatershed is 11,989 hectares in size, or 4% of the Nottawasaga River Watershed. It is located in the northwestern portion of the Nottawasaga River Watershed, with the Coates Creek Subwatershed to the east and south, Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed to the north and northeast, and Mad River Subwatershed to the southwest (See Map 3.6-1). The entire subwatershed is part of the Simcoe County. The Township of Clearview lies in the central and southern portions of the subwatershed while The Town of Wasaga Beach lies to the north, accounting for 97% and 3% of the subwatershed, respectively. Stayner is a major urban area within this watershed. Map 3.6-1 shows all subwatershed administrative boundaries, roads, towns, and streams. Transportation Routes Four major roads run through this subwatershed: Highways 26, Airport Road, and County Roads 10 and 91. Average road density in the subwatershed is 1.3 km/km2. Table 3.6-1 shows road classes and their lengths within the subwatershed.

3.6.2 LAND USE The McIntyre Subwatershed is dominated by agricultural land uses (83%) and forested lands (6%). Urban areas make up approximately 5% of the subwatershed land use (5%). Table 3.6-2 and Map 3.6-2 show current land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area. Based on future land use projections, urban areas are anticipated to expand by roughly 5%. Agricultural uses will decline slightly to 80%, but will still remain the dominant land use type. Only negligible reductions in forested land cover, and other land uses will be observed. Table 3.6-2 and Map 3.6-2 show future land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area, and the differences between current and future land use distributions.






Table 3.6-2: Land Use/Land Cover in the McIntyre Creek Subwatershed General Land


Current %

Future (Ha)

Future %

Difference (Ha)

Difference%

Low Intensity Developed 12 < 1% 19 < 1% 7 0% Urban or

Developed High Intensity Developed 637 5% 1,222 10% 585 5%



Course 81 1% 77 1% -3 0% Mixed

Woodland 658 5% 605 5% -53 0% Deciduous Woodland 134 1% 132 1% -2 0% Coniferous Woodland 39 < 1% 35 < 1% -4 0%




Woody Wetland 542 5% 518 4% -24 0% Wetland/Water

Water 11 < 1% 8 < 1% -3 0% Road 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Other Mineral Aggregate 7 < 1% 7 < 1% 1 0%

Total 11,989 100% 11,989 100%

3.6.3 EARTH RESOURCES

Topography/Geology The McIntyre Creek Subwatershed has a maximum elevation of 395 m, a minimum of 177 m, and an average elevation of 228 m (above MSL). The majority of the subwatershed is flat, with over 85% of its area comprised of slopes less than 5%. Steeper sloped areas above 5% are predominately found in the southwestern portion of the subwatershed, or along major streams. Table 3.6-3 shows the area and percent cover relative to each slope class. The headwaters of Lamont Creek and part of the McIntyre Creek lie within the Corn Hill moraine. The majority of the watershed lies within clay, sand, and beveled till plains associated with the Simcoe Lowlands.

Table 3.6-3: Slope Classes in the McIntyre Creek Subwatershed

Slope %

Area (Hectares)

% of Subwatershed

0-2% 7,929 66% 2-5% 2,355 20% 5-10% 1,167 10%

10-20% 461 4% 20-50% 75 1% 50+% 2 0% Total 11,989 100%



Soils Hydrogroup

The majority of soils in the McIntyre Creek subwatershed are hydrogroup B or C soils (80%). Hydrogroup C soils are predominately found in the central portions of the subwatershed. Hydrogroup B soils are the next most abundant, and are predominately found in the south and west portions of the subwatershed. Hydrogroup A soils cover only a minor portion of the subwatershed (7%), and are predominately found in the central east portions of the subwatershed. Table 3.6-4 shows area and percent cover relative to each hydrogroup. Dischargers One discharger, the Stayner WPCP, is found in the McIntyre Creek Subwatershed. This facility has a rated flow of 912,500 m3/year, a planned flow of 2,418,252 m3/year, and an unknown mean observed flow. Permits to Take Water There are four permits to take water in the McIntyre Creek Subwatershed. Of these, three are for water supply use and one is for commercial use. Table 3.6-6 shows the permits within the subwatershed.

Table 3.6-5: Permits to Take Water in the McIntyre Creek Subwatershed General Purpose Specific Purpose Number of Permits

Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 1 Water Supply Municipal 3

Total 4

3.6.4 WATER RESOURCES Streams According to available data, there are two main streams within the McIntyre Creek subwatershed, Lamont Creek and McIntyre Creek. The headwaters of McIntyre Creek are generally channelized drainages flowing through agricultural areas and municipal drains in the eastern and central portion of the subwatershed. Headwaters of Lamont Creek begin in the southwestern portion of the subwatershed and flow northeast, parallel to the watershed’s western boundary. Waterbodies There are no major waterbodies in the McIntyre Creek Subwatershed.

Table 3.6-4: Soil Hydrogroups in the McIntyre Creek Subwatershed


A 822 7% B 4,674 39% C 4,920 41% D 1,348 11%

N/A 225 2% Total 11,989 100%



Wetlands Woody wetlands comprise 542 ha (5%) of the McIntyre Creek Subwatershed and are predominantly located in the center of the subwatershed in the McIntyre Creek drainage. Biological Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status NVCA considers McIntyre Creek watershed impaired. This watershed is located in the Simcoe Lowlands geologic zone where there is only remnant coldwater habitat for trout. Agricultural land uses are dominant throughout the watershed resulting in riparian encroachment in many areas. Industrial nutrient inputs occur upstream of the Stayner WWTP with additional imputs coming from WWTP itself, which discharges to Lamont Creek downstream of the industrial plant. Impairments within the watershed are associated with urbanization, municipal drains, sparse instream buffers, cattle access, on-line ponds, and possibly nutrients (NVCA 2006). During baseflow, Lamont Creek phosphorus levels have been observed greater than 60 times the PWQO. Phosphorus levels generally decrease during storm conditions at this station as a result of dilution effects (NVCA, 2006). Fish sampling has been conducted by NVCA Ministry of Natural Resources and others from 1961 to the present along the main branch and tributaries of McIntyre Creek. Rainbow trout and occasionally sculpin are present on the main branch of McIntyre Creek downstream of Highway 26. In addition, rainbow trout are occasionally found in Lamont Creek downstream of Stayner. . Based on information collected, NCVA considers McIntyre Creek impaired. Ambient Surface Water Quality Data – Inventory & Status No formal ambient water quality data was available for this subwatershed. 3.6.5 CANWET MODELING RESULTS Based on the CANWET modeling results, the existing yearly average total phosphorus load from the McIntyre Creek subwatershed accounts for approximately 17% of the total phosphorus load delivered to streams in the Nottawasaga River Watershed. This load, under both the current and committed growth scenarios exceeds the PWQO based load target for all months. Modeling results for both existing and committed growth scenarios showed that average loads were highest in March. Conversion of the modeled loads to an average monthly concentration shows that total phosphorus concentrations are generally highest during baseflow conditions occurring in July through November (Figure 3.6-1).



A

B

McIntyre Creek Subwatershed Loads

0200400600800

10001200140016001800

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SEP

OC

T

NO

V

DEC

Month

Phos

phor

us L

oad

(kg)

ExistingCondition


McIntyre Creek Subwatershed Phosphorus Concentrations

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SEP

OC

T

NO

V

DEC

Month

Phos

phor

us C

onc.

(mg/



Figure 3-6. A and B- Phosphorous Load and Phosphorous Concentration in the McIntyre Creek Subwatershed. 3.6.6 TARGET SETTING The following table (Table 3.6-6) presents the average yearly phosphorus load derived from each source in the subwatershed under current conditions, the approved growth scenario, and the approved growth scenario with implementation of BMPs. The primary source of phosphorus in the McIntyre Creek subwatershed under existing conditions is derived from cropland (69%). Under the approved growth scenario, there is a projected decrease in total phosphorus loads of 4% without the implementation of BMPs. Modeling analysis suggests that this load can be further reduced by approximately 24% through the implementation of BMPs. Thus, total phosphorus loads overall would decrease by 27% relative to current condition in this subwatershed under an approved growth scenario assuming BMPs were implemented.



Table 3.6-6. Phosphorus Loads By Source in the McIntyre Creek Subwatershed



Change (Existing


Growth)

Committed Growth



Difference between


Growth w/BMPs


Hay/Pasture 809 764 -45 806 6% 3 806

Crop Land 6,144 5,799 -346 4,039 -30% 2,106 4,039

Other 77 74 -3 32 -57% 45 32 Low Intensity Development 0 0 0 0 -100% 0 0


Stream Bank Erosion 6 12 6 11 -3% -5 11

Groundwater 901 875 -26 797 -9% 103 797

Point Source 74 74 0 74 0% 0 -

Septic System 166 166 0 166 0% 0 166

TOTAL 8,205 7,860 -345 5,984 24% 2,221 5,910 BMP Scenario

The BMP scenario developed for this subwatershed is shown in Table 3.6-7. Based on the scenario developed, the total estimated cost for implementation of all proposed BMP is approximately $11.9 million. Roughly 66% of this cost is derived from Urban BMP implementation such as detention basins, constructed wetlands, and bioretention areas. Of the remaining costs, 28% results from stream protection BMPs such as streambank fencing, riparian buffer protection, and streambank stabilization, while 7% is comprised of agricultural BMPs, such as nutrient management, strip cropping/contour farming, and terraces and diversions. All costs associated with this analysis should be considered gross estimates presented for comparative purposes only.

Table 3.6-7 BMP Scenario for the McIntyre Creek Subwatershed

Land Use Model Input* Length (km) Row Crops Crop Residue Management & Cover Crops 20% N/A Strip Cropping / Contour Farming 25% N/A Crop Rotation & Cover Crops 15% N/A Crop Rotation & Crop Residue Management 15% N/A Nutrient Management 50% N/A Hay/Pasture Nutrient Management 5% N/A Grazing Land Management 20% N/A Streams Streams with Vegetated Buffer Strips N/A 20 km Streams with Fencing N/A 4 km Length of Stream With Bank Stabilization N/A 15 km



Table 3.6-7 BMP Scenario for the McIntyre Creek Subwatershed

Land Use Model Input* Length (km) Urban Lands High Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 48% N/A Low Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 37% N/A Urban Streams High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km Low Density Urban Streams with Stabilization N/A 2 km Low Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 1 km


3.6.7 LOAD ALLOCATION Based on water quality and aquatic community conditions presented above, this subwatershed has been considered impaired, and phosphorus levels exceed the PWQO, therefore option B was used to determine the proposed phosphorus load target. Under this option, the target was set to equal the total phosphorus load estimated under the committed growth scenario with an assumed implementation of the BMP scenario. The following table presents the allocations for the McIntyre Creeks subwatershed.

Table 3.6-8: Allocations for the McIntyre Creeks Subwatershed

NPS Load

(kg/year)

WLA (kg/year)

MOS (kg/year)


5,020 365 598 5,984



Map 3.6-1: Location Map – McIntyre Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.6-2: Future Land Use – McIntyre Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.6-3: Stream Network and Monitoring Locations – McIntyre Creek Subwatershed



3.7 MARL CREEK

3.7.1 LOCATION The Marl Creek Subwatershed is 8,909 hectares in size and accounts for 3% of the Nottawasaga River Watershed. It is located in the northern portion of the Nottawasaga River Watershed, with the Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed to the west, and Matheson Creek Subwatershed to the south and east (Map 3.7-1). The entire subwatershed is part of Simcoe County. The only township in the subwatershed is the Township of Springwater. Phelpston and Anten Mills are two small communities that also lie within this subwatershed. Map 3.7-1 shows all subwatershed administrative boundaries, roads, towns, and streams. Transportation Routes One major road, Highway 26, crosses (east/west) through the southwestern portion of the subwatershed. Average road density in the subwatershed is 1.2 km/km2. Table 3.7-1 shows road classes and their lengths within the subwatershed.

3.7.2 LAND USE The Marl Creek Subwatershed is dominated by agricultural (60%) and forested lands (25%). Urban areas make up only a small portion of the subwatershed land use (2%). Areas of development run along Highway 26, and are also spread throughout the watershed in small pockets. Table 3.7-2 and Map 3.7-2 show current land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area. Based on future land use projections, urban areas are anticipated to expand by roughly 2%. Agricultural uses are expected to decline slightly to 56%, but will still remain the dominant land use type. Forested land cover will decrease to 20%, mineral aggregate operations are expected to increase from 1% to 9%, and other land uses will have negligible changes. Table 3.7-2 and Map 3.7-2 show future land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area.






Table 3.7-2: Land Use/Land Cover in the Marl Creek Subwatershed General Land


Current %

Future (Ha)

Future %

Difference (Ha)

Difference%





Course 4 < 1% 4 < 1% 0 0%

Mixed Woodland 820 9% 633 7% -187 -2%

Deciduous Woodland 956 11% 793 9% -163 -2%

Coniferous Woodland 486 5% 322 4% -164 -2%




Woody Wetland 1,000 11% 908 10% -91 -1 Wetland/Water

Water 42 < 1% 21 < 1% -22 0 Road 0 0% 0 0% 0 0

Other Mineral Aggregate 89 1% 823 9% 734 8

Total 8,909 100% 8,909 100%

3.7.3 EARTH RESOURCES Topography/Geology The Marl Creek Subwatershed has a maximum elevation of 295 m, a minimum of 180 m, and an average elevation of 221 m (above MSL). The majority of the subwatershed is flat, with almost 90% of its area comprised of slopes less than 5%. Steeper sloped areas above 5% are predominately found in the northeastern portion of the subwatershed, or along major streams. The majority, or over 4/5th of the subwatershed, falls within the Simcoe Lowlands geologic feature. Table 3.7-3 shows area and percent cover relative to each slope class. The majority of the subwatershed lies within slay, sand, and beveled plains associated with the Simcoe lowlands.

Table 3.7-3: Slope Classes in the Marl Creek Subwatershed

Slope %

Area (Hectares)

% of subwatershed

0-2% 5,599 63% 2-5% 2,309 26% 5-10% 635 7%

10-20% 284 3% 20-50% 81 1% 50+% 1 0% Total 8,909 100%



Soils

Hydrogroup

Soils in the Marl Creek Subwatershed are roughly evenly divided among all four hydrogroups. Hydrogroup C soils are found throughout the subwatershed. Hydrogroup A soils are predominantly in the east and northeast. Hydrogroup D are predominately found in the northwest and southwest portions of the subwatershed. Hydrogroup B is found everywhere excluding southern areas. Hydrogroup classifications have not been identified for 21% of the subwatershed. These areas include the majority of the northeast, and large portions of the center of the subwatershed. Table 3.7-4 shows the area and percent cover relative to each hydrogroup. Dischargers There are no dischargers present in the Marl Creek Subwatershed. Permits to Take Water There are a total of eight permits to take water in the Marl Creek Subwatershed. Of these, five are for water supply, one for agricultural use, and two for industrial use. Table 3.7-6 shows the number of permits within the subwatershed.

Table 3.7-6: Permits to Take Water in the Marl Creek Subwatershed General Purpose Specific Purpose Number of Permits

Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 1 Industrial Aggregate Washing 2

Water Supply Communal 2 Water Supply Municipal 3

Total 8

3.7.4 WATER RESOURCES Streams According to available data, the Marl Creek Subwatershed contains only one major stream, Marl Creek, which travels for 11.9 km and flows southwest through the subwatershed.

Table 3.7-4: Soil Hydrogroups in the Marl Creek Subwatershed


A 2,319 26% B 1,859 21% C 2,402 27% D 2,103 24%

N/A 226 3% Total 8,909 100%



Waterbodies According to available data, there are no major waterbodies in the Marl Creek Subwatershed. Wetlands Woody wetlands comprise 1,000 ha (11%) of the Marl Creek Subwatershed and are located primarily in the northern portion. Biological Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status According to NVCA, Marl Creek is an impaired subwatershed. Agricultural land uses are dominant in upstream areas and in downstream portions of the subwatershed, and forest cover and wetlands are dominant in the central portion. Marl Creek is considered the only significant tributary that appears more turbid than the Lower Nottawasaga River at its point of entry. Impairments located within the watershed are associated with municipal drains, sparse instream buffers, cattle access, on-line ponds, and possibly nutrient enrichment (NVCA, 2006). Biological and habitat monitoring was conducted within the watershed in 1999, 2001, and 2002 (Map 3.7-3) The majority of samples collected were considered ‘impaired’. At the majority of biological monitoring stations, the substrate is most often composed of muck and the macroinvertebrate communities tend to contain species that are highly tolerant of pollution. Impairments may be due to the surrounding agricultural land use and poor riparian habitats that are composed meadows, scrublands, pastures, tilled fields, or urban areas. Stream health constraints identified within the watershed also include stream channelization, excessive warming, nutrient enrichment due to agriculture, pasture, flashy flows due to a lack of stream buffers, and bank erosion. Based on this data, out of the total stream miles in the watershed, 16% are considered below potential, 6% ‘impaired’, and 5% ‘unimpaired’. The majority of streams considered ‘below potential’ flow through highly agricultural areas. Fish sampling was also conducted within the watershed by NVCA Ministry of Natural Resources and others from 1961 to the present The majority of fish sampled were indicative of cold water streams, and remnant brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout populations are noted. In recent samples, both young and adult brook trout were considered rare and sculpins were considered common. Taken together, the macroinvertebrate and fish sampling data suggest that the majority of the Marl Creek watershed can be considered impaired. Ambient Surface Water Quality Data – Inventory & Status Only limited historical water quality monitoring data (Clean Up Rural beaches Program- mid 1990s) is available for this subwatershed.



3.7.5 CANWET MODELING RESULTS Based on the CANWET modeling results, the existing yearly average total phosphorus load from the Marl Subwatershed accounts for approximately 4% of the total phosphorus load delivered to streams in the Nottawasaga River Watershed. This load, under both the current and committed growth scenarios exceeds the PWQO based load target for the months August through November. Modeling results for both existing and committed growth scenarios showed that average loads were highest in March, during the spring thaw as well as later in the year in June. Conversion of the modeled loads to an average monthly concentration shows that total phosphorus concentrations are generally highest during baseflow conditions occurring in June through November (Figure 3.7-1). A

B

Marl Creek Subwatershed Loads

0100200300400500600700800

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

CMonth

Phos

phor

us L

oad

(kg)

ExistingCondition


Marl Creek Subwatershed Phosphorus Concentrations

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us C

onc.

(mg/



Figure 3-7. A and B - Phosphorous Load and Phosphorous Concentrations in the Marl Creek Subwatershed.



3.7.6 TARGET SETTING The following table (Table 3.7-5) presents the average yearly phosphorus load derived from each source in the subwatershed under current conditions, the approved growth scenario, and the approved growth scenario with implementation of BMPs. The primary source of phosphorus in the Marl Creek subwatershed under existing conditions is derived from cropland (52%). Under the approved growth scenario, there is a projected decrease in total phosphorus loads of 6% without the implementation of BMPs. Modeling analysis suggests that this load can be further reduced by approximately 15.5% through the implementation of BMPs. Thus, total phosphorus loads overall would decrease by 21% relative to current condition in this subwatershed under an approved growth scenario assuming BMPs were implemented.

Table 3.7-5. Phosphorus Loads By Source in the Marl Creek Subwatershed



Change (Existing


Growth)

Committed Growth

(with BMPs)

(kg/year)


Difference between


Growth w/BMPs

NPS Load Allocation(kg/year)

Hay/Pasture 279 257 -22 258 0% 21 258 Crop Land 1,004 940 -65 684 -27% 320 684 Other 291 255 -36 254 0% 37 254 Low Intensity Development 0 0 0 0 -100% 0 0

High Intensity Development 1 6 5 1 -86% 1 1

Stream Bank Erosion 0 0 0 0 -100% 0 0

Groundwater 308 309 2 290 -6% 17 290 Point Source 0 0 0 0 0 Septic System 46 46 0 45 -1% 1 45

TOTAL 1,929 1,813 -116 1,532 16% 397 1,532 BMP Scenario The BMP scenario developed for this subwatershed is shown in Table 3.7-6. Based on the scenario developed, the total estimated cost for implementation of all proposed BMP is approximately $3.9 million. Roughly 68% of this cost is derived from Urban BMP implementation such as detention basins, constructed wetlands, and bioretention areas. Of the remaining costs, 22% results from stream protection BMPs such as streambank fencing, riparian buffer protection, and streambank stabilization, while 10% is comprised of agricultural BMPs, such as nutrient management, strip cropping/contour farming, and terraces and diversions. All costs associated with this analysis should be considered gross estimates presented for comparative purposes only.



Table 3.7-6 BMP Scenario for the Marl Creek Subwatershed Land Use Model Input* Length (km) Row Crops Crop Residue Management & Cover Crops 20% N/A Strip Cropping / Contour Farming 10% N/A Crop Rotation & Cover Crops 15% N/A Crop Rotation & Crop Residue Management 15% N/A Nutrient Management 50% N/A Hay/Pasture Nutrient Management 5% N/A Grazing Land Management 20% N/A Streams Streams with Vegetated Buffer Strips N/A 10 km Streams with Fencing N/A 2 km Length of Stream With Bank Stabilization N/A 3 km Urban Lands High Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 53% N/A Low Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 90% N/A Urban Streams High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 2 km High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 1 km Low Density Urban Streams with Stabilization N/A 0 km Low Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km

* For description of inputs and BMP scenario development see Chapter 1 3.7.7 LOAD ALLOCATION Based on water quality and aquatic community conditions presented above, this subwatershed has been considered impaired and modeled phosphorus load estimates exceed the PWQO based target load. Therefore, Option B was used to determine the proposed phosphorus load target. Under this option, the target was set to equal the total phosphorus load estimated under the committed growth scenario with an assumed implementation of the BMP scenario. The following table presents the allocations for the Coates Creek subwatershed.

Table 3.7-7: Allocations for the Marl Creek Subwatershed

NPS Load

(kg/year)

WLA (kg/year)

MOS (kg/year)


1,379 0 153 1,532



Map 3.7-1: Location Map – Marl Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.7-2: Future Land Use – Marl Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.7-3: Stream Network and Monitoring Locations – Marl Creek Subwatershed



3.8 MATHESON CREEK

3.8.1 LOCATION The Matheson Creek Subwatershed is 34,582 hectares in size and accounts for approximately 11% of the Nottawasaga River Watershed. This subwatershed is located in the northeastern portion of the Nottawasaga River Watershed, with the Marl Creek Subwatershed to the west, the Lower Nottawasaga and Black Creek Subwatersheds to the southwest, Lake Simcoe’s Barrie Creeks Subwatershed to the southeast, Oro South Creeks Subwatershed to the east, and Hawkestone Creek Subwatershed to the northeast (Map 3.8-1). The majority of the subwatershed (61%) is part of the Simcoe County while the remainder is part of City of Barrie. The Township of Oro-Medonte lies in the eastern portion of the subwatershed, the Township of Springwater to the west, City of Barrie to the southeast, and Toy to the north. Map 3.8-1shows all subwatershed administrative boundaries, roads, towns, and streams. Transportation Routes This subwatershed has 5 major roads—Highways 400, 93, 26, 12, and 11. Highways 26 and 12 run southeast/northwest, 400 and 93 run north/south, and 11 runs east/west. Average road density in the subwatershed is 1.6 km/km2. Table 3.8-1 shows road classes and their lengths within the subwatershed.

3.8.2 LAND USE The Matheson Creek subwatershed is dominated by agricultural (49%) and forested lands (30%). Urban areas make up approximately 5% of the subwatershed land use. In the south, development is focused around the outskirts of the City of Barrie. Development is also focused along Highway 400 and along Highway 11 throughout the subwatershed. Table 3.8-2 and Map 3.8-2 show current land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area. Based on future land use projections, urban areas are anticipated to expand by roughly 4%, with most of this expansion coming in the form of urban land use. Agricultural uses are expected to decline slightly to 47%, but will still remain the dominant land use type. Only negligible reductions in forested land cover, and other land uses are expected. Table 3.8-2 and Map 3.8-2 show future land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area.






Table 3.8-2: Land Use/Land Cover in the Matheson Creek Subwatershed General Land


Current %

Future (Ha)

Future %

Difference (Ha)

Difference%




Agriculture

Sod Farm / Golf Course 206 1% 197 1% -9 0%

Mixed Woodland 3,778 11% 3,555 10% -224 -1%


Coniferous Woodland 3,194 9% 2,974 9% -220 -1%




Water 400 1% 383 1% -17 0% Road 0 0% 5 < 1% 5 0%


Total 34,582 100% 34,582 100%

3.8.3 EARTH RESOURCES Topography/Geology The Matheson Creek Subwatershed has a maximum elevation of 412 m, a minimum of 180 m, and an average elevation of 262 m (above MSL). The majority of the subwatershed is comprised of slopes less than 5%. Steeper sloped areas above 5% are found throughout the subwatershed. Table 3.8-2 shows area and percent cover relative to each slope class. Headwaters of Matheson Creek and portion of Willow Creek arise on the Oro Moraine. The main branch of Matheson Creek flows through sand plain that bisects the Oro Moraine and Simcoe Uplands. Headwater tributaries of Willow Creek flow across rolling till plains of the Simcoe Uplands to Little Lake. Main branch of Willow Creek then enters sand plain, joining with Matheson Creek and flowing into Minesing Wetlands.

Table 3.8-3: Slope Classes in the Matheson Creek Subwatershed

Slope %

Area (Hectares)

% of subwatershed

0-2% 13,135 38% 2-5% 11,918 34% 5-10% 6,065 18%

10-20% 2,657 8% 20-50% 793 2% 50+% 14 0% Total 34,582 100%



Soils Hydrogroup

The majority of soils in the Matheson Creek Subwatershed are hydrogroup A or B soils (83%). Hydrogroup B soils are predominately found throughout the subwatershed, extending into the Oro Moraine. Hydrogroup A soils are the next most abundant, and are found in the central areas of the subwatershed, as well as in the moraine. Hydrogroup classifications have not been identified for 10% of the subwatershed. Table 3.8-4 shows area and percent cover relative to each hydrogroup. Dischargers There are no dischargers in this subwatershed. Permits to Take Water There are 33 permits to take water in the Matheson Creek Subwatershed. Of these, thirteen are for commercial use, three for industrial use, two for miscellaneous use, and fifteen for water supply. Table 3.8-6 shows the purpose of the permits within the subwatershed.

Table 3.8-5: Permits to Take Water in the Matheson Creek Subwatershed General Purpose Specific Purpose Number of Permits

Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 13 Industrial Aggregate Washing 2 Industrial Pipeline Testing 1

Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 2 Water Supply Municipal 15

Total 33 3.8.4 WATER RESOURCES

Streams According to available data, there are two major streams in the Matheson Creek subwatershed Matheson Creek and Willow Creek. Willow Creek begins in the eastern portion of the watershed and flows west into Matheson Creek. Matheson Creek, parallels the western boundary of the subwatershed, flows south, then flows west after its confluence with Willow Creek. These streams cover 593 kilometers within the entire subwatershed.

Table 3.8-4: Soil Hydrogroups in the Matheson Creek Subwatershed Hydrogroup Area

(Hectares) %

A 11,199 32% B 17,568 51% C 1,684 5% D 783 2%

N/A 3,348 10% Total 34,582 100%



Waterbodies The one waterbody located in this subwatershed is Little Lake. Wetlands Woody wetlands comprise 4,785 ha (14%) of the Matheson Creek Subwatershed and are mostly located in the north central portion of the watershed. Biological Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status The NVCA considers the Matheson Creek subwatershed to be a high quality, unimpaired, trout and warmwater sportfish subwatershed. Warmwater sportfish habitat is located in the Minesing Wetlands and in Little Lake (a natural lake on Willow Creek). Within Matheson Creek subwatershed, forest cover is relatively extensive and has a higher percentage of in comparison to the Willow Creek catchment. Agricultural fields and altered channels are found below the confluence of Willow Creek and Matheson at the Minesing Wetlands. Impairments within the watershed are generally associated with sparse riparian cover, cattle access, urbanization, on-line ponds, and stream alterations. Areas within Matheson Creek watershed are considered significant urban growth areas (Place to Grow) (NVCA, 2006). Biological monitoring and habitat data were collected in 1996, 1997, 1998, and 2000 (Map 3.8-3). The majority of the sampled stations were considered ‘unimpaired’ and were often surrounded by agricultural land uses and rural residential developments. The immediate riparian buffer surrounding these streams tended to be forested. Two out of the thirteen samples collected were considered to be ‘below potential’, both of which were surrounded by agricultural land use. Samples collected at the station located on East Bayfield Creek were considered ‘impaired’ potentially due to commercial and residential land uses and a scrubland dominant riparian habitat. Samples collected at Little Lake at several different monitoring stations were inconclusive. Fish sampling was conducted within the watershed by NVCA Ministry of Natural Resources and others from 1961 to the present. The majority of fish sampled were indicative of cold water streams. In recent samples, both young and adult brook trout, and brown trout were collected within the Mad River. Brook trout are common in the headwaters of Matheson Creek and brown trout are common throughout Matheson Creek and in Willow Creek downstream of Little Lake. Overall, the NCVA classified 13% out or the total stream miles in the watershed as ‘unimpaired’ and 5% ‘below potential’. The majority of the unimpaired streams flow through woodlands or the Minesing Wetlands. Based on this information, the majority of the watershed can be considered unimpaired.



Ambient Surface Water Quality Data Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status Water quality station 3005703002 is located in the Willow Creek catchment and is situated approximately 3 km upstream from its confluence with Matheson Creek (Map 3.8-3). A bulleted summary of the results of the available water quality data at the Willow Brook station is listed below:

DO concentrations consistently met the PQWOs for cold and warm water biota. Field pH values were consistently within the range of PQWOs (ranged between

7.88 and 8.27). Average total phosphorous concentrations were generally slightly below the

PWQO of 0.03 mg/L (mean: 0.026 mg/L, min.: 0.010 mg/L, max.: 0.055 mg/L). Ortho phosphorus concentrations were generally low suggesting that total phosphorus is comprised largely of organic phosphorus.

Average total nitrogen concentrations were elevated (mean: 1.09 mg/L, min.: 0.96 mg/L, max.: 1.25 mg/L), with nitrate and organic nitrogen as the dominant nitrogen forms.

No water quality monitoring stations are present in this subwatershed. 3.8.5 CANWET MODELING RESULTS Based on the CANWET modeling results, the existing yearly average total phosphorus load from the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed accounts for approximately 7% of the total phosphorus load delivered to streams in the Nottawasaga River Watershed. This load, under both the current and committed growth scenarios exceeds the PWQO based load target from August through November. Modeling results for both existing and committed growth scenarios showed that average loads were higher in March during the spring thaw, as well as later in the year in June. Conversion of the modeled loads to an average monthly concentration shows that total phosphorus concentrations are generally highest during baseflow conditions occurring in June through November (Figure 3.8).



A

B

Matheson Creek Subwatershed Loads

0100200300400500600700800

JAN

FEB

MA

R

APR

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SEP

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us L

oad

(kg)

ExistingCondition


Matheson Creek Subwatershed Phosphorus Concentrations

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.14

JAN

FEB

MA

R

APR

MAY JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

CMonth

Phos

phor

us C

onc.

(mg/



Figure 3-8: A and B - Phosphorous Load and Phosphorous Concentration in the Matheson Creek Subwatershed.



3.8.6 TARGET SETTING The following table (Table 3.8-6) presents the average yearly phosphorus load derived from each source in the subwatershed under current conditions, the approved growth scenario, and the approved growth scenario with implementation of BMPs. The primary source of phosphorus in the Matheson Creeks subwatershed under existing conditions is derived from cropland (64%). Under the approved growth scenario, there is a projected increase in total phosphorus loads of 2% without the implementation of BMPs. The projected phosphorus load under the approved growth scenario can be reduced by approximately 16% through the implementation of BMPs. Thus, assuming the implementation of BMPs, the total phosphorus load under the approved growth scenario will decrease from the current estimated load by 14% for this subwatershed.

Table 3.8-6 Phosphorus Loads By Source in the Matheson Creek Subwatershed



Change (Existing


Growth)

Committed Growth

(with BMPs)

(kg/year)


Difference between


Growth w/BMPs


Hay/Pasture 201 180 -21 236 0 -35 236 Crop Land 1,978 1,873 -105 1,443 0 534 1,443 Other 154 238 84 181 0 -27 181 Low Intensity Development

0 4 3 1 -1 -1 1

High Intensity Development

119 237 118 182 0 -63 182

Stream Bank Erosion

4 8 5 8 0 -4 8

Groundwater 522 508 -15 478 0 44 478 Point Source 0 0 0 0 - 0 Septic System 113 113 0 113 0 0 113

TOTAL 3,090 3,160 70 2,642 0 448 2,642 BMP Scenario The BMP scenario developed for this subwatershed is shown in Table 3.8-7. Based on the scenario developed, the total estimated cost for implementation of all proposed BMP is approximately $11.2 million. Roughly 90% of this cost is derived from Urban BMP implementation such as detention basins, constructed wetlands, and bioretention areas. The remaining 9% is comprised of agricultural BMPs, such as nutrient management, strip cropping/contour farming, and terraces and diversions, while 2% results from stream protection BMPs such as streambank fencing, riparian buffer protection, and streambank stabilization. All costs associated with this analysis should be considered gross estimates presented for comparative purposes only.



Table 3.8-7 BMP Scenario for the Matheson Creek Subwatershed Land Use Model Input * Length (km) Row Crops Crop Residue Management & Cover Crops 20% N/A Strip Cropping / Contour Farming 15% N/A Crop Rotation & Cover Crops 15% N/A Crop Rotation & Crop Residue Management 15% N/A Nutrient Management 50% N/A Hay/Pasture Nutrient Management 5% N/A Grazing Land Management 20% N/A Streams Streams with Vegetated Buffer Strips N/A 3 km Streams with Fencing N/A 2 km Length of Stream With Bank Stabilization N/A 1 km Urban Lands High Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 28% N/A Low Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 79% N/A Urban Streams High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km Low Density Urban Streams with Stabilization N/A 0 km Low Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km


3.8.7 LOAD ALLOCATION

Based on water quality and aquatic community conditions presented above, this subwatershed has been considered unimpaired and modeled phosphorus load estimates are below the PWQO based target load. Therefore, option A was used to determine the proposed phosphorus load target. Under this option, the target was set to equal the total phosphorus load estimated under the committed growth scenario without the implementation of BMPs. The following table presents the allocations for the Upper Nottawasaga subwatershed.

Table 3.8-8: Allocations for the Matheson

Creeks Subwatershed NPS Load

(kg/year)

WLA (kg/year)

MOS (kg/year)

Target Load

(kg/year) 2,844 0 316 3,160



Map 3.8-1: Location Map – Matheson Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.8-2: Future Land Use – Matheson Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.8-3: Stream Network and Monitoring Locations – Matheson Creek



3.9 BLACK CREEK

3.9.1 LOCATION The Black Creek Subwatershed is 7,459 hectares in size accounting for 2% of the Nottawasaga River Watershed. It is located in the northeastern portion of the Nottawasaga River Watershed, with the Matheson Creek Subwatershed to the north, Bear Creek Subwatershed to the south, Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed to the west, and Lake Simcoe’s Barrie Creeks Subwatershed to the east (Map 3.9-1). Over 99% of the subwatershed is part of the Simcoe County while the remainder is part of the City of Barrie. The Township of Springwater comprises the majority of the subwatershed. Map 3.9-1 shows all subwatershed administrative boundaries, roads, towns, and streams. Transportation Routes One major road, Highway 26, runs from east to west through the northeastern portion of the subwatershed. Average road density in the subwatershed is 0.9 km/km2. Table 3.9-1 shows road classes and their lengths within the subwatershed.

3.9.2 LAND USE Land use in the Black Creek Subwatershed is dominated by agricultural lands (38%) and wetland (38%). Urban areas make up only a small proportion of the subwatershed land use (2%). Table 3.9-2 and Map 3.9-2 show current land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area. This watershed is considered a significant urban growth area (Place to Grow) and a new development is imminent (Snow Valley) along with the Snow Valley ski resort. Based on future land use projections, urban areas are anticipated to expand by roughly 1%. Agricultural uses are expected to decline slightly to 34%. Only negligible reductions in forested land cover, and other land uses are expected. Table 3.9-2 and Map 3.9-2 show future land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area, and the differences between current and future land use distributions.






Table 3.9-2: Land Use/Land Cover in the Black Creek Subwatershed


(Ha) Current

% Future (Ha)

Future %

Difference (Ha)

Difference

% Low Intensity

Developed 6 < 1% 4 < 1% -2 0% Urban or Developed High Intensity

Developed 133 2% 250 3% 118 2%

Hay / Pasture 740 10% 649 9% -91 -1% Row Crop 2,088 28% 1,903 26% -185 -2%

Agriculture

Sod Farm / Golf Course 29 < 1% 29 < 1% -1 0%

Mixed Woodland 621 8% 498 7% -123 -2%

Deciduous Woodland 510 7% 454 6% -56 -1%






Water 15 < 1% 11 < 1% -4 0% Road 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%


Total 7,459 100% 7,459 100% 0 0%

3.9.3 EARTH RESOURCES Topography/Geology The Black Creek Subwatershed has a maximum elevation of 322 m, a minimum of 180 m, and an average elevation of 231 m (above MSL). The majority of the watershed is flat, with 81% of its area comprised of slopes less than 5%. Steeper sloped areas above 5% are predominately found in the central portion of the watershed. The majority of the subwatershed falls within the Simcoe Lowlands. Table 3.9-3 shows area and percent cover relative to each slope class. The headwaters of Black Creek portion of the Willow Creek Subwatershed arise on rolling till plains of the Simcoe Uplands. They descend the Algonquin Bluffs and enter wetlands associated with the Minesing Wetlands.

Table 3.9-3: Slope Classes in the Black Creek Subwatershed


Proportion of watershed (%)

0-2% 4,019 54% 2-5% 2,040 27%

5-10% 721 10% 10-20% 399 5% 20-50% 274 4% >50% 6 < 1% Total 7,459 100%



Soils Hydrogroup

The majority of soils in the Black Creek Subwatershed are hydrogroup A or unclassified soils. Hydrogroup A soils are predominately found in the east and hydrogroup B soils in the central and northeastern portions of the subwatershed. Table 3.9-4 shows area and percent cover relative to each hydrogroup.

Dischargers No dischargers are present in the Black Creek Subwatershed. Permits to Take Water There are a total of 49 permits to take water in the Black Creek Subwatershed. Of these, 26 are for agricultural use, five for commercial use, two for miscellaneous use, and 16 for water supply use. Table 3.9-5 shows the purpose of the permits located within the subwatershed.

Table 3.9-5: Permits to Take Water in the Black Creek Subwatershed

General Purpose Specific Purpose Number of Permits Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 18 Agricultural Nursery 3 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 3 Agricultural Sod Farm 1 Agricultural Tobacco 1 Commercial Bottled Water 3 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 2

Miscellaneous Dams and Reservoirs 1 Miscellaneous Heat Pumps 1 Water Supply Communal 8 Water Supply Municipal 7 Water Supply Other - Water Supply 1

Total 49

3.9.4 WATER RESOURCES Streams There are 111 kilometers of streams in the Black Creek Subwatershed. According to available data, Black Creek is the major stream in the subwatershed. The majority of tributaries are found in the eastern portion of the subwatershed and flow north.

Table 3.9-4: Soil Hydrogroups in the Black Creek Subwatershed

Hydrogroup Area (Hectares) % A 2,706 36% B 1,747 23% C 213 3% D 19 0%

N/A 2,774 37% Total 7,459 100%



Waterbodies There are no major waterbodies in the Black Creek Subwatershed. Wetlands Woody wetlands comprise 2,851 ha (38%) of the Black Creek Subwatershed. The majority of this acreage is part of the Minesing Wetlands in the western portions of the subwatershed. Biological Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status According to NVCA, Black Creek Subwatershed, is considered an unimpaired watershed. In contrast to the Nottawasaga River, which is isolated from its wetlands by levees for most of its length, Black Creek is well connected to its wetland floodplains. Although the mid- to downstream reaches of Black Creek are within forested swamp (an extension of the Minesing Wetlands), the headwaters are predominantly surrounded by agricultural land uses. These headwater reaches are considered to range from impaired to unimpaired. Impairments within the watershed are associated with urbanization and surrounding agricultural land uses. In addition, the main branch is considered below potential but is generally deemed unimpaired since the natural channel form is established through the Minesing Wetlands. Biological and habitat monitoring has been conducted within the Black Creek Subwatershed in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 (Map 3.9-3). The majority of samples collected along Black Creek, were considered ‘unimpaired’. The land use surrounding the sampling stations is primarily rural residential and the riparian habitat is well forested. Two other samples collected along Black Creek tributaries were considered ‘below potential’ due to surrounding urban land use. Fish sampling was conducted within the watershed by NVCA Ministry of Natural Resources and others from 1961 to the present. The majority of fish sampled were indicative of cold water stream habitats. In recent samples, sculpins and both young and adult brown trout were sampled within Black Creek. In addition NVCA has noted that several of the upstream branches of Black Creek support brook trout. Based on this data, the NCVA classified 29% of the total stream miles in the watershed as ‘impaired’, 14% ‘below potential’, and 5% ‘impaired’. The majority of the ‘unimpaired’ streams flow through extensions of the Minesing Wetlands. Stream areas assessed as either ‘below potential’ or ‘impaired’ are generally located in the headwaters and are often surrounded by agricultural land uses. Taken together, the macroinvertebrate and fish sampling data suggest that the majority of the Black Creek subwatershed can be considered unimpaired.



Ambient Surface Water Quality Data – Inventory & Status There are no water quality stations in the Bear Creek Subwatershed. 3.9.5 CANWET MODELING RESULTS Based on the CANWET modeling results, the existing yearly average total phosphorus load from the Black Creek Subwatershed accounts for approximately 2% of the load entering the lake. This load, under both the current and committed growth scenarios meets the PWQO based load target for all months except August and October. Modeling results for both existing and committed growth scenarios showed that average loads were highest in March, during the spring thaw as well as later in the year in June. Conversion of the modeled loads to an average monthly concentration shows that total phosphorus concentrations are generally highest during baseflow conditions occurring in June through November (Figure 3.9-1).

A

B

Willow Creek Subwatershed Loads

0100200300400500600700800

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us L

oad

(kg)

ExistingCondition


Willow Creek Subwatershed Phosphorus Concentrations

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

JAN

FEB

MA

R

APR

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SEP

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us C

onc.

(mg/



Figure 3-9: A and B - Phosphorous Load and Phosphorous Concentrations in the Black Creek Subwatershed.



3.9.6 TARGET SETTING The following table (Table 3.9-6) presents the average yearly phosphorus load derived from each source in the subwatershed under current conditions, the approved growth scenario, and the approved growth scenario with implementation of BMPs. The primary source of phosphorus in the Black Creek subwatershed under existing conditions is derived from cropland (63%). Under the approved growth scenario, there is a projected increase in total phosphorus loads of 12% without the implementation of BMPs. However, modeling analysis suggests that this load can be reduced by 27% through the implementation of BMPs. Taken together, modeling results suggest that total phosphorus loads overall would decrease by 18% relative to current condition in this subwatershed under an approved growth scenario assuming BMPs were implemented.

Table 3.9-6. Phosphorus Loads By Source in the Black Creek Subwatershed



Change (Existing


Growth)

Committed Growth



Difference between


Growth w/BMPs


Hay/Pasture 72 63 -9 63 0% 9 63

Crop Land 452 413 -39 205 -50% 247 205

Other 68 203 134 202 0% -134 202 Low Intensity Development 0 0 0 0 -100% 0 0


Stream Bank Erosion 0 0 0 0 -100% 0 0

Groundwater 102 96 -6 93 -4% 10 93

Point Source 0 0 0 0 0

Septic System 17 17 0 17 0% 0 17

TOTAL 712 800 87 584 27% 128 584 BMP Scenario The BMP scenario developed for this subwatershed is shown in Table 3.9-7. Based on the scenario developed, the total estimated cost for implementation of all proposed BMP is approximately $3.9 million. Roughly 56% of this cost is derived from stream protection BMPs such as streambank fencing, riparian buffer protection, and streambank stabilization. Of the remainder, more than 39% of the cost is comprised of Urban BMP implementation such as detention basins, constructed wetlands, and bioretention areas, while 5% results from agricultural BMPs, such as nutrient management, strip cropping/contour farming, and terraces and diversions. All costs associated with this analysis should be considered gross estimates presented for comparative purposes only.



Table 3.9-7 BMP Scenario for the Black Creek Subwatershed Land Use Model Input * Length (km) Row Crops Crop Residue Management & Cover Crops 20% N/A Strip Cropping / Contour Farming 10% N/A Crop Rotation & Cover Crops 15% N/A Crop Rotation & Crop Residue Management 15% N/A Nutrient Management 50% N/A Hay/Pasture Nutrient Management 5% N/A Grazing Land Management 20% N/A Streams Streams with Vegetated Buffer Strips N/A 15 km Streams with Fencing N/A 5 km Length of Stream With Bank Stabilization N/A 10 km Urban Lands High Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 47% N/A Low Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 0% N/A Urban Streams High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km Low Density Urban Streams with Stabilization N/A 1 km Low Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0.5 km


3.9.7 LOAD ALLOCATION

Based on water quality and aquatic community conditions presented above, this subwatershed has been considered unimpaired, but modeled phosphorus load estimates exceed the PWQO based target load. Thus, option C was used to determine the proposed phosphorus load target. Under this option, the target was set to equal the total phosphorus load estimated under the committed growth scenario with the assumed implementation of BMPs. The following table presents the allocations for the Black Creek subwatershed.

Table 3.9-8: Allocations for the Black Creek

Subwatershed NPS Load

(kg/year)

WLA (kg/year)

MOS (kg/year)

Target Load

(kg/year) 627 0 70 696



Map 3.9-1: Location Map – Black Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.9-2: Future Land Use – Black Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.9-3: Stream Network and Monitoring Locations – Black Creek Subwatershed



3.10 BEAR CREEK

3.10.1 LOCATION The Bear Creek Subwatershed is 8,820 hectares in size and accounts for 3% of the Nottawasaga River Watershed. It is located in the central east portion of the Nottawasaga River Watershed, with the Black Creek Subwatershed to the north, Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed to the west, south, and Lake Simcoe’s Lovers Creek Subwatershed to the east (Map 3.10-1). The majority of the subwatershed (82%) is part of the Simcoe County, while the remainder is part of the City of Barrie. The Township of Essa lies in the southwest portion of the subwatershed, the City of Barrie to the east, the Township of Springwater to the north, and the Town of Innisfil to the southeast. The City of Barrie is the major urban centre in this subwatershed. Map 3.10-1 shows all subwatershed administrative boundaries, roads, towns, and streams. Transportation Routes There are no major highways in this subwatershed. However, two major roads County Roads 27 and 90 are within this subwatershed. Average road density in the subwatershed is 1.9 km/km2. Table 3.10-1 shows road classes and their lengths within the subwatershed.

3.10.2 LAND USE Land use in the Bear Creek subwatershed is dominated by agricultural (50%) and forested lands (20%). Urban areas make up approximately 12% of the subwatershed. Several areas within the watershed have been identified as significant urban growth areas. Table 3.10-2 and Map 3.10-2 show current land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area. Based on future land use projections, urban areas are anticipated to expand by roughly 7%. Agricultural uses are expected to decline slightly to 43%, but will still remain the dominant land use type, while forested land will decrease by 3%. Table 3.10-2 and Map 3.10-2 show future land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area.






Table 3.10-2: Land Use/Land Cover in the Bear Creek Subwatershed General Land


Current %

Future (Ha)

Future %

Difference (Ha)

Difference%


Developed High Intensity

Developed 1,032 12% 1,455 16% 423 5%

Hay / Pasture 1,025 12% 836 9% -189 -2% Row Crop 3,050 35% 2,614 30% -436 -5%


Course 305 3% 305 3% 0 0%

Mixed Woodland 787 9% 657 7% -130 -1% Deciduous Woodland 531 6% 407 5% -124 -1%



Transitional N/A


Woody Wetland 1,444 16% 1,333 15% -110 -1% Wetland/Water

Water 52 1% 28 < 1% -24 <1% Road 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%


Total 8,820 100% 8,820 100%

3.10.3 EARTH RESOURCES Topography/Geology The Bear Creek Subwatershed has a maximum elevation of 321 m, a minimum of 185 m, and an average elevation of 252 m (above MSL). The majority of the subwatershed (75%) is comprised of slopes less than 5%. Steeper sloped areas above 5% are predominately found in the central and northwest portions of the subwatershed, as well as along major streams. The headwaters of Bear Creek arise on the rolling till plains of the Simcoe Uplands and quickly enter steep topography associated with the Algonquin Bluffs. The lower tributaries and main branch flow through the sand plains and wetlands of the Simcoe Lowlands. Table 3.10-3 shows area and percent cover relative to each slope class. There are no moraines in this subwatershed.

Table 3.10-3: Slope Classes in the Bear Creek Subwatershed


% of subwatershed

0-2% 4,223 48% 2-5% 2,508 28% 5-10% 1,088 12%

10-20% 705 8% 20-50% 293 3% 50+% 3 0% Total 8,820 100%



Soils Hydrogroup

Soils of hydrogroup A are the most common in the subwatershed (45%). Hydrogroup B soils are the next most abundant (31%), while hydrogroup C soils cover only a minor portion (10%). Hydrogroup classifications have not been identified for 13% of the subwatershed. Table 3.10-4 shows area and percent cover relative to each hydrogroup. Dischargers There are no dischargers present in the Bear Creek Subwatershed. Permits to Take Water There are a total of 18 permits to take water in the Bear Creek Subwatershed. Of these, twelve are for agricultural use, two for commercial use, and four for water supply. Table 3.19-5 shows the permit purpose within the subwatershed.

Table 3.10-5: Permits to Take Water in the Bear Creek Subwatershed

General Purpose Specific Purpose Number of Permits Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 4 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 7 Agricultural Sod Farm 1 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 2

Water Supply Campgrounds 1 Water Supply Communal 1 Water Supply Municipal 2

Total 18 Water Resources Streams According to available data, the Bear Creek Subwatershed contains only one major stream, Bear Creek, which has a total length of 137 km. Bear Creek flows westward through the subwatershed to meet the Nottawasaga River near Angus. Waterbodies According to available data, there are no major waterbodies in the Bear Creek Subwatershed.

Table 3.10-4: Soil Hydrogroups in the Bear Creek Subwatershed


A 3,997 45% B 2,768 31% C 868 10% D 19 < 1

N/A 1,168 13% Total 8,820 100%



Wetlands Woody wetlands comprise 1,444 ha (15%) of the Bear Creek Subwatershed, and are concentrated in the northern portion of the subwatershed. Biological Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status According to NCVA, Bear Creek is an impaired subwatershed. Impairments within the watershed are associated with urbanization, stream alteration (along County Road 27/CR 90), on-line ponds, and sparse riparian areas. Although NVCA has classified this subwatershed as “impaired” the level of impairment is marginal compared to other impaired systems in the watershed. Although the watershed is considered impaired, brook trout have been observed in the head waters and within the mid-reaches of Bear Creek. Within the headwaters, there is a large wetland, and in the middle and lower portions of the watershed there is extensive forest cover along riparian zones. The Utopia Conservation Area reservoir is on-line in the mid-reach of the Bear Creek watershed. Groundwater discharges originate from lowland and upland contact within the Algonquin bluffs. Biological and habitat monitoring has been conducted within the Bear Creek watershed in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 (Map 3.10-3). Although the watershed is considered ‘impaired’, the majority of biological samples collected were ranked as ‘unimpaired’. These samples were taken on upstream reaches surrounded by forested riparian buffers and either wetland, forest, or rural residential land uses. One sample assessed as ‘impaired’ was collected in channelized stream surrounded by residential land uses. Overall stream health constraints and impairment factors identified included the surrounding rapidly urbanizing areas, highways, and channelization. Fish sampling has noted that, rainbow trout are present downstream of the Utopia Conservation Area reservoir. Stream health assessment report that many of the streams are considered below potential, especially along mainstream Bear Creek. According to assessments conducted by NVCA, out all the streams in the watershed, 2% ranked as ‘impaired’, 13% were considered below potential, and 13% were considered ‘unimpaired’. The majority of the stream miles considered ‘below potential’ flow through agricultural lands. Ambient Surface Water Quality Data Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status Limited historical water quality monitoring data (Clean Up Rural Beaches Program – mid 1990s) is available for this subwatershed.



3.10.4 CANWET MODELING RESULTS Based on the CANWET modeling results, the existing yearly average total phosphorus load from the Bear Creek Subwatershed accounts for approximately 2% of the load entering the lake. This load, under both the current and committed growth scenarios meets the PWQO based load target for all months except August and October. Modeling results for both existing and committed growth scenarios showed that average loads were highest in March, during the spring thaw as well as later in the year in June. Conversion of the modeled loads to an average monthly concentration shows that total phosphorus concentrations are generally highest during baseflow conditions occurring in June through November (Figure 3.10-1). A

B

Bear Creek Subwatershed Loads

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DEC

Month

Phos

phor

us L

oad

(kg)

ExistingCondition


Bear Creek Subwatershed Phosphorus Concentrations

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SEP

OC

T

NO

V

DEC

Month

Phos

phor

us C

onc.

(mg/



Figure 3-10: A and B - Phosphorous Load and Phosphorous Concentrations in the Bear Creek Subwatershed.



3.10.5 TARGET SETTING The following table (Table 3.10-6) presents the average yearly phosphorus load derived from each source in the subwatershed under current conditions, the approved growth scenario, and the approved growth scenario with implementation of BMPs. The primary source of phosphorus in the Bear Creek subwatershed under existing conditions is derived from cropland (61%). Under the approved growth scenario, there is a projected increase in total phosphorus loads of 15.4% without the implementation of BMPs. However, modeling analysis suggests that this load can be reduced by 16% through the implementation of BMPs. Taken together, modeling results suggest that total phosphorus loads overall would decrease by less than 1% relative to current condition in this subwatershed under an approved growth scenario assuming BMPs were implemented.

Table 3.10-6. Phosphorus Loads By Source in the Bear Creek Subwatershed



Change (Existing


Growth)

Committed Growth



Difference between


Growth w/BMPs


Hay/Pasture 74 59 -14 113 92% -40 113 Crop Land 525 444 -80 317 -29% 207 317 Other 90 251 161 196 -22% -106 196 Low Intensity Development 0 1 1 0 -100% 0 0



Groundwater 122 119 -4 114 -4% 9 114 Point Source 0 0 0 0 0 Septic System 4 54 49 54 0% -50 54

TOTAL 863 1,020 157 859 16% 4 859 BMP Scenario The BMP scenario developed for this subwatershed is shown in Table 3.10-7. Based on the scenario developed, the total estimated cost for implementation of all proposed BMPs is approximately $8 million. Roughly 84% of this cost is derived from Urban BMP implementation such as detention basins, constructed wetlands, and bioretention areas. Of the remaining costs, 9% results from stream protection BMPs such as streambank fencing, riparian buffer protection, and streambank stabilization, while 7% is comprised of agricultural BMPs, such as nutrient management, strip cropping/contour farming, and terraces and diversions. All costs associated with this analysis should be considered gross estimates presented for comparative purposes only.



Table 3.10-7 BMP Scenario for the Bear Creek Subwatershed Land Use Model Input * Length (km)

Row Crops Crop Residue Management & Cover Crops 20% N/A Strip Cropping / Contour Farming 25% N/A Crop Rotation & Cover Crops 15% N/A Crop Rotation & Crop Residue Management 15% N/A Nutrient Management 50% N/A Hay/Pasture Nutrient Management 5% N/A Grazing Land Management 20% N/A Streams Streams with Vegetated Buffer Strips N/A 4 km Streams with Fencing N/A 2 km Length of Stream With Bank Stabilization N/A 3 km Urban Lands High Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 29% N/A Low Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 84% N/A Urban Streams High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 1 km High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0.5 km Low Density Urban Streams with Stabilization N/A 0 km Low Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 0 km


3.10.6 LOAD ALLOCATION B Based on water quality and aquatic community conditions presented above, this subwatershed has been considered impaired and modeled phosphorus load estimates exceed the PWQO based target load. Therefore, Option B was used to determine the proposed phosphorus load target. Under this option, the target was set to equal the total phosphorus load estimated under the committed growth scenario with an assumed implementation of the BMP scenario. The following table presents the allocations for the Bear Creek subwatershed.

Table 3.10-8: Allocations for the Bear Creek Subwatershed

NPS Load

(kg/year)

WLA (kg/year)

MOS (kg/year)

Target Load

(kg/year) 773 0 86 859



Map 3.10-1: Location Map – Bear Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.10-2: Future Land Use – Bear Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.10-3: Stream Network and Monitoring Locations – Bear Creek Subwatershed



3.11 INNISFIL CREEK

3.11.1 LOCATION The Innisfil Creek Subwatershed is 48,996 hectares in size comprising 16% of the Nottawasaga River Watershed. It is located in the southeastern portion of the Nottawasaga River Watershed, with the Upper Nottawasaga Subwatershed to the southwest, Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed to the south, Lake Simcoe’s West Holland Subwatershed to the east, Innisfil Creek to the northeast, and Lovers Creek Subwatershed to the north (See Map 3.11-1). The majority of the subwatershed (84%) is part of the Simcoe County while the remainder is part of Peel region and the Township of King to the south, and Dufferin County to the southwest. The towns of New Tecumseth lies in the central portion of the subwatershed, Innisfil to the northeast, the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio to the east, The Town of Bradford-West Gwillimbury to the central east, the Township of Essa to the northeast, Town of Caledon to the south, and the Town of Mono to the southwest. In addition, very small portions of Peel and York Regions (Town of Caledon and the Township of King Township) lie within this subwatershed. Larger communities within this subwatershed are Beeton, Tottenham, and Cookstown. Map 3.11-1 shows all subwatershed administrative boundaries, roads, towns, and streams. Transportation Routes This subwatershed has four major roads—Highways 9, 89, 400, and Line 8. Highway 400 runs north/south, and Highways 9, 89, and Line 8 run east/west. In addition County Roads 10 and 27 also run through this subwatershed and are more heavily traveled than Line 8. Average road density in the subwatershed is 1.4 km/km2. Table 3.11-1 shows road classes and their lengths within the subwatershed.

3.11.2 LAND USE The Innisfil Creek Subwatershed is dominated by agricultural (78%) and forested lands (18%). Urban areas make up only a small proportion of the subwatershed land use (3%). Table 3.11-2 and Map 3.11-2 show current land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area. Based on future land use projections, urban areas are anticipated to expand by roughly 4%, with most of the development evenly divided between low and high density development. Agricultural uses are expected to decline slightly to 74%, but will still remain the dominant land use type. Forested land cover will decrease to 14%, but other land uses will observe negligible changes. Table 3.11-2 and Map 3.11-2 show future land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area, and the differences between current and future land use distributions.






Table 3.11-2: Land Use/Land Cover in the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed


(Ha) Current

% Future (Ha)

Future %

Difference (Ha)

Difference%

Low Intensity Developed 80 < 1% 1,562 3% 1,482 3% Undeveloped or




Course 2,203 4% 2,202 4% -1 -<1%

Mixed Woodland 3,667 7% 3,418 7% -249 -1%

Deciduous Woodland 2,300 5% 2,140 4% -160 -<1%

Coniferous Woodland 1,289 3% 1,135 2% -154 -<1%



Woody Wetland 1,734 4% 1,713 3% -21 -<1% Wetland/Water

Water 99 < 1% 93 < 1% -7 -<1% Road 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Other Mineral Aggregate 210 < 1% 670 1% 460 1%

Total 48,996 100% 48,996 100%

3.11.3 EARTH RESOURCES Topography/Geology The Innisfil Creek Subwatershed has a maximum elevation of 427 m, a minimum of 206 m, and an average elevation of 257 m (above MSL). The majority of the subwatershed (68%) is comprised of slopes less than 5%. Table 3.11-3 shows the area and percent cover relative to each slope class. The headwaters of Innisfil creek is within the Simcoe Uplands and Oak Ridges Moraine, but much of the drainage is in the Simcoe Lowlands. The Oak Ridges moraine extends into the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed in the southeast, comprising less than 1% of the total subwatershed area.

Table 3.11-3: Slope Classes in the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed

Slope %

Area (Hectares)

% of subwatershed

0-2% 17,639 36% 2-5% 15,679 32% 5-10% 10,289 21%

10-20% 4,410 9% 20-50% 980 2% 50+% 0 0% Total 48,996 100%



Soils Hydrogroup

Soils in the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed are roughly evenly divided between A, B, and C hydrologic groups. Hydrogroup A soils cover 23% of the subwatershed, and are predominately found in the southern portion of the subwatershed in association with the Oak Ridges Moraine. Hydrogroup B soils (36%) are spread throughout the subwatershed. Hydrogroup C soils (33%) are largely found in the southern half of the subwatershed. Hydrogroup classifications have not been identified for 6% of the subwatershed. Table 3.11-4 shows area and percent cover relative to each hydrogroup. Dischargers There are two dischargers in the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed, the Tottenham WPCP and Cookstown WWTP. The Tottenham WPCP has a rated flow of 1,489,930 m3/year, a planned flow of 1,790,325 m3/year, and the mean observed flow is not known. Rated flow for Cookstown WWTP is 301,130 m3/year, while planned and observed flow are not known. Permits to Take Water There are a total of 122 permits to take water in the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed. Of these, 72 are for agricultural use, one for commercial use, four for industrial use, one for miscellaneous use, and 44 for water supply use. Table 3.11-6 shows the purpose of each permit type present within the subwatershed.

Table 3.11-5: Permits to Take Water in the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed

General Purpose Specific Purpose Number of Permits Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 36 Agricultural Market Gardens / Flowers 3 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 15 Agricultural Sod Farm 18 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 1

Industrial Aggregate Washing 2 Industrial Food Processing 1 Industrial Pipeline Testing 1

Miscellaneous Other - Miscellaneous 1 Water Supply Campgrounds 3 Water Supply Communal 7 Water Supply Municipal 30 Water Supply Other - Water Supply 4

Total 122

Table 3.11-4: Soil Hydrogroups in the Innisfil Creek

Subwatershed Hydrogroup Area

(Hectares) %

A 11,269 23% B 17,639 36% C 16,169 33% D 980 2%

N/A 2,940 6% Total 48,996 100%



3.11.4 WATER RESOURCES

Streams According to available data, the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed contains five major streams—Innisfil Creek, Bailey Creek, Beeton Creek, Penville Creek, and Cookstown Creek. In total the subwatershed contains 175 km of stream. The headwaters of Innisfil Creek form in the northeast of the subwatershed. As Innisfil Creek flows to the southwest it is joined by Cookstown Creek, then Penville Creek, and finally Bailey Creek, before heading northwest to the Nottawasaga River. Waterbodies According to available data, there are no major waterbodies in the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed. Wetlands Woody wetlands comprise 1,734 ha (4%) of the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed and are located mostly to the north central areas and within the poorly drained portions of the Simcoe Lowlands. Biological Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status According to NVCA, Innisfil Creek is an impaired subwatershed. Although forested headwaters are relatively unimpaired, there are significant impairments downstream in areas with reduced forest cover along Innisfil and Bailey Creeks. Intensive agriculture is practiced in the lowlands along with water-taking from the creek for polder farming. Riparian encroachment and municipal drains are common. Impairments associated with turbidity due to sediments and or nutrients may be due to water-taking, cattle access, sparse riparian habitat, municipal drains, on-line ponds, and/or urbanization. Biological and habitat monitoring was conducted in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 (Map 3.11-3). Overall, the majority of stations sampled were considered impaired. Impaired streams were most often surrounded by either urban land uses or agriculture with riparian buffers composed of either mowed lawns, sod farms, meadows, or old fields. Stream substrates were composed of either sand, silt, or gravel and the majority of macroinvertebrate samples were dominated by pollution tolerant species. Although the majority of streams were consider impaired, several headwater streams were assessed as unimpaired and supported habitat for brook trout and rainbow trout as well as some habitat for warm water sportfish. These stream reaches were often surrounded by forested areas and had minimal agricultural drainage.



Stream health assessed within the watershed was generally considered impaired especially along mainstream Innisfil Creek. According to assessments conducted by NVCA, out of all the streams in the watershed, 6% have been considered below potential, 13% have been considered ‘impaired’, and 3% have been ranked as ‘unimpaired’. Therefore, based on biological data and assessments, the Innisfil Creek subwatershed is considered impaired. Ambient Surface Water Quality Data Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status Two water quality monitoring stations are located in the Innisfil Creek subwatershed (Map 3.11-3). Station 3005703102 is situated on Bailey Creek (downstream of the Bailey/Beeton confluence). Station 3005703202 is located on Innisfil Creek at Sideroad 10. . A bulleted summary of the results of the available water quality data on the Innisfil Creek is listed below:

DO concentrations for both stations consistently met the PWQOs for warm and cold water biota.

Field pH values for both stations were within the range of PWQO (the combined ranges were between 7.88 and 8.31).

Average TP concentrations for both stations were generally considerably higher than the PWQO of 0.03 mg/L (mean: 0.056 mg/L for 3005703102 and 0.048 mg/L for 3005703202). Ortho phosphorus concentrations were generally low, suggesting that organic phosphorus the dominant component.

Average total nitrogen concentrations for both stations were generally elevated (mean: 2.18 mg/L for 3005703102 and 2.02 mg/L for 3005703202). Nitrate and organic nitrogen were the dominant nitrogen forms.

3.11.5 CANWET MODELING RESULTS Based on the CANWET modeling results, the existing yearly average total phosphorus load from the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed accounts for approximately 15% of the total phosphorus load delivered to streams in the Nottawasaga River Watershed. This load, under both the current and committed growth scenarios exceeds the PWQO based load target for all months. Modeling results for both existing and committed growth scenarios showed that average loads were highest in March during the spring thaw as well as later in the year in June. Conversion of the modeled loads to an average monthly concentration shows that total phosphorus concentrations are generally highest during baseflow conditions occurring in June through November (Figure 3.11-1).



A

B

Innisfil Creek Subwatershed Loads

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NO

V

DEC

Month

Phos

phor

us L

oad

(kg)

ExistingCondition


Innisfil Creek Subwatershed Phosphorus Concentrations

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OC

T

NO

V

DEC

Month

Phos

phor

us C

onc.

(mg/



Figure 3-11: A and B - Phosphorous Load and Phosphorous Concentrations in the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed. 3.11.6 TARGET SETTING The following table (Table 3.11-6) presents the average yearly phosphorus load derived from each source in the subwatershed under current conditions, the approved growth scenario, and the approved growth scenario with implementation of BMPs. The primary source of phosphorus in the Innisfil Creek subwatershed under existing conditions is derived from cropland (66%). Under the approved growth scenario, there is a projected decrease in total phosphorus loads of 2% without the implementation of BMPs. Modeling analysis suggests that this load can be further reduced by 22% through the implementation of BMPs. Overall, total phosphorus loads would decrease by 24% relative to the current condition under an approved growth scenario assuming BMPs were implemented.



Table 3.11-6. Phosphorus Loads By Source in the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed



Change (Existing


Growth)

Committed Growth



Difference between


Growth w/BMPs


Hay/Pasture 487 461 -26 853 85% -366 853

Crop Land 4,687 4,463 -224 3,040 -32% 1,648 3,040

Other 572 614 41 221 -64% 351 221 Low Intensity Development 0 20 20 4 -80% -4 4



Groundwater 998 986 -12 910 -8% 89 910

Point Source 69 69 0 69 0% 0

Septic System 172 172 0 172 0% 0 172

TOTAL 7,105 6,978 -128 5,427 22% 1,679 5,357 BMP Scenario The BMP scenario developed for this subwatershed is shown in Table 3.11-7. Based on the scenario developed, the total estimated cost for implementation of all proposed BMP is approximately $28.2 million. Roughly 49% of this cost is derived from Urban BMP implementation such as detention basins, constructed wetlands, and bioretention areas. Of the remaining costs, 41% results from stream protection BMPs such as streambank fencing, riparian buffer protection, and streambank stabilization, while 10% is comprised of agricultural BMPs, such as nutrient management, strip cropping/contour farming, and terraces and diversions. All costs associated with this analysis should be considered gross estimates presented for comparative purposes only.

Table 3.11-7 BMP Scenario for the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed Land Use Model Input* Length (km) Row Crops Crop Residue Management & Cover Crops 20% N/A Strip Cropping / Contour Farming 25% N/A Crop Rotation & Cover Crops 15% N/A Crop Rotation & Crop Residue Management 15% N/A Nutrient Management 50% N/A Hay/Pasture Nutrient Management 5% N/A Grazing Land Management 20% N/A Streams Streams with Vegetated Buffer Strips N/A 100 km Streams with Fencing N/A 50 km



Table 3.11-7 BMP Scenario for the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed Land Use Model Input* Length (km) Length of Stream With Bank Stabilization N/A 50 km Urban Lands High Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 17% N/A Low Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 95% N/A Urban Streams High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 2 km High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 1 km Low Density Urban Streams with Stabilization N/A 3 km Low Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 1 km


3.11.7 LOAD ALLOCATION Based on water quality and aquatic community conditions presented above, this subwatershed has been considered impaired and modeled phosphorus load estimates exceed the PWQO based target load. Therefore, Option B was used to determine the proposed phosphorus load target. Under this option, the target was set to equal the total phosphorus load estimated under the committed growth scenario with an assumed implementation of the BMP scenario. The following table presents the allocations for the Innisfil Creek subwatershed.

Table 3.11-8: Allocations for the Innisfil Creek Subwatershed

NPS Load

(kg/year)

WLA (kg/year)

MOS (kg/year)

Target Load

(kg/year) 4,260 624 543 5,427



Map 3.11-1: Location Map – Innisfil Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.11-2: Future Land Use – Innisfil Creek Subwatershed



Map 3.11-3: Stream Network and Monitoring Locations – Innisfil Creek Subwatershed



3.12 LOWER NOTTAWASAGA

3.12.1 LOCATION The Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed is 44,486 hectares in size and comprises 15% of the Nottawasaga River Watershed. It is located in the central portion of the Nottawasaga River Watershed, with the Boyne River and Upper Nottawasaga Subwatersheds to the southwest, Coates Creek, Mad River, and Pine River Subwatersheds to the west, McIntyre Creek Subwatershed to the northwest, Maryl Creek and Matheson Creek Subwatersheds to the northeast, Black Creek, Bear Creek, and Lake Simcoe’s Lovers Creek Subwatersheds to the east, and Innisfil Subwatershed to the southeast (Map 2.12-1). All of the previously described subwatersheds provide flow to the Lower Nottawasaga subwatershed. The majority of the subwatershed (99%) is part of the Simcoe County with the remainder part of CFB (Canadian Forces Base) Borden. The Township of Essa lies in the south central portion of the subwatershed, the Township of Springwater to the northeast, the Township of Clearview to the central west, The Town of Wasaga Beach to the northwest, Innisfil to the southeast, Town of New Tecumseth to the south, the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio to the southwest, and CFB Borden to the central west. Map 2.12-1 shows all subwatershed administrative boundaries, roads, towns, and streams. Transportation Routes Highways 26, 89, and Concession 9 Sunnidale run from east to west through the subwatershed. Concession 9 Sunnidale parallels a stream for over 3 km suggesting that road/stream interactions may be a concern for this stream. Average road density in the subwatershed is 1.4 km/km2. Table 3.12-1 shows road classes and their lengths within the subwatershed.

3.12.2 LAND USE Land use in the Lower Nottawasaga subwatershed is dominated by agricultural (62%) and forested lands (17%). Urban areas make up a lesser portion of the subwatershed’s land use (6%). In the northwest, development is focused around the shoreline of Georgian Bay, with small amounts of development near Angus. Table 3.12-2 and Map 3.12-2 shows current land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area. Based on future land use projections, urban areas are anticipated to expand by roughly 4% and agricultural uses are expected to decline slightly to 58%. Only negligible reductions in forested land cover and other land uses are expected. Table 3.12-2 and Map 3.12-2 show future land use distributions in the subwatershed by location and area.






Table 3.12-2: Land Use/Land Cover in the Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed General Land


Current %

Future (Ha)

Future %

Difference (Ha)

Difference%





Course 1,076 2% 992 2% -84 <1%

Mixed Woodland 4,103 9% 3,811 9% -292 -1%

Deciduous Woodland 1,482 3% 1,384 3% -98 <1%

Coniferous Woodland 1,784 4% 1,671 4% -113 <1%



Woody Wetland 6,326 14% 6,053 14% -273 -1% Wetland/Water

Water 322 1% 285 1% -38 <1% Road 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Other Mineral Aggregate 170 < 1% 1,333 3% 1,164 3%

Total 44,486 100% 44,486 100% 3.12.3 EARTH RESOURCES

Topography/Geology The Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed has a maximum elevation of 314 m, a minimum of 176 m, and an average elevation of 220 m (above MSL). The majority of the subwatershed (85%) is comprised of slopes less than 5%. Steeper sloped areas above 5% are predominately found in the southern portion of the subwatershed, or along major streams. Steep areas are also associated with the parabolic sand dunes at the Town of Wasaga Beach. The Nottawasaga River cuts through the Edenvale Moraine downstream of Minesing. The headwaters of tributaries in the southern portion of the watershed often arise within the rolling tills of the Simcoe Uplands. Table 3.12-3 shows area and percent cover relative to each slope class. Moraines are not present in this subwatershed.

Table 3.12-3: Slope Classes in the Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed Slope

% Area

(Hectares) % of

Subwatershed 0-2% 27,685 62% 2-5% 10,352 23% 5-10% 3,784 9%

10-20% 1,755 4% 20-50% 860 2% 50+% 50 0% Total 44,486 100%



Soils Hydrogroup

The majority of soils in the Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed are hydrogroup A or B soils (67%). Hydrogroup C and D soils account for 15% and 7% of the subwatershed, respectively. Hydrogroup classifications have not been identified for 11% of the subwatershed. Table 3.12-4 shows area and percent cover relative to each hydrogroup. Dischargers There are three dischargers in the Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed, the Wasaga Beach WPCP, Angus WPCP, and the New Tecumsuth Regional WPCP. The Wasaga Beach WPCP has a planned flow of 5,748750 m3/year, while the rated and mean observed flows were unknown. Angus WPCP has a rated flow of 2,011,520, and a planned flow of 3,613,500 m3/year while the mean observed flow was unknown. New Tecumsuth Regional WPCP had a rated flow of 1,848,000, while the mean observed and planned flows are unknown. Permits to Take Water There are 54 permits to take water in the Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed. Of these, 24 are for agricultural use, two for commercial use, one for dewatering use, four for miscellaneous use, and 23 for water supply use. Table 3.12-5 shows the purpose of each permit located within the subwatershed.

Table 3.12-5 Permits to Take Water in the Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed General Purpose Specific Purpose Number of Permits

Agricultural Field and Pasture Crops 16 Agricultural Other - Agricultural 3 Agricultural Sod Farm 4 Agricultural Tender Fruit 1 Commercial Bottled Water 1 Commercial Golf Course Irrigation 1 Dewatering Construction 1

Miscellaneous Pumping Test 2 Miscellaneous Wildlife Conservation 2 Water Supply Campgrounds 1 Water Supply Communal 4 Water Supply Municipal 18

Total 54

Table 3.12-4: Soil Hydrogroups in the Lower Nottawasaga

Subwatershed Hydrogroup Area

(Hectares) %

A 13,346 30% B 16,460 37% C 6,673 15% D 3,114 7%

N/A 4,893 11% Total 44,486 100%



3.12.4 WATER RESOURCES Waterbodies There are no major waterbodies in the Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed. Wetlands Woody wetlands comprise 6,326 ha (14%) of the Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed. The majority of this area falls within the Minesing Wetlands. Biological Monitoring Data – Inventory & Status This watershed provides an important salmonid migratory corridor, lake sturgeon (provincially rare; S3) migratory and spawning habitat, and warmwater sportfish habitat (NVCA, 2006). Brook trout and rainbow trout are present in Baxter and Egbert Creeks. Rainbow trout use the main river as a migratory corridor. The downstream reaches of other minor tributaries pick up significant groundwater discharge as they cut into the river valley. These reaches often support rainbow trout and Chinook salmon. The main river provides migratory and spawning habitat for lake sturgeon as well as habitat for warmwater sportfish such as walleye, northern pike and smallmouth bass. However, according to NVCA, the Lower Nottawasaga River between Innisfil Creek and it’s confluence with Georgian Bay is considered to be impaired. Impairments within the watershed are associated with high turbidity during the growing season (potentially due to high nutrient concentrations), high suspended sediment loads, and flow reductions from water-taking. Intensive agricultural land uses on tablelands upstream of the Town of Angus and are associated with significant water-taking for irrigation. Minesing Wetlands, and its ability to assimilate sediment and nutrients from runoff throughout the entire basin, is a critical component of the Nottawasaga River watershed. During spring and isolated storm events throughout the year, floodwaters spread out through the wetland floodplain providing natural filtering of runoff before entering the lower reaches of the subwatershed and eventually Georgian Bay. However, these flood flows are constrained within the channel during lesser storms and throughout much of the year by natural levees limiting the assimilative capacity of the swamp. Biological and habitat monitoring was conducted within the watershed in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000 (Map 3.12-3). The majority of samples were considered ‘impaired’ or ‘below potential’. Of the ‘impaired’ and ‘below potential’ streams, most are surrounded by either agricultural or urban land uses. Riparian buffers in these areas were often composed of narrow vegetative buffers or parking lots. The NVCA considers major stream health constraints in the Lower Nottawasaga subwatershed to include municipal drains, channelized banks, low base flow conditions, and rural and urban non-point sources.



Fish sampling was conducted within the watershed by NVCA Ministry of Natural Resources and others from 1961 to the present. The majority of fish sampled were indicative of cold water streams. In recent samples, both young and adult brook trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout were sampled along tributaries of the lower Nottawasaga River near the Township of Essa. However, very few individuals have been recorded along the mainstem lower Nottawasaga River. Overall, the NCVA classified 22% of total stream miles in the watershed as ‘below potential’, 6% as ‘impaired’, and 5% as ‘unimpaired’. Areas considered ‘below potential’ are located along the entire lower mainstream Nottawasaga River, and along the majority of tributaries within agricultural areas. Although the majority of the watershed is considered either ‘below potential’ or ‘impaired’, those few streams feeding into the Lower Nottawasaga considered ‘unimpaired’ are either within an undisturbed wetland system or located in forested headwater tributaries. Overall, the macroinvertebrate and fish sampling data suggest that the majority of the Lower Nottawasaga River watershed can be considered impaired. Ambient Surface Water Quality Data – Inventory & Status Two water quality stations are located in the Lower Nottawasaga River subwatershed. Station 3005702902 is situated approximately 16 km upstream from the Nottawasaga Bay and station 3005702502 is located approximately 1 km upstream from the confluence with the Nottawasaga Bay (Map 3.12-3). A bulleted summary of the results of the available water quality data at the Lower Nottawasaga River subwatershed is listed below:

DO concentrations at both stations were consistently above the PWQOs for both cold and warm water biota.

Field pH values for both stations were within the PQWO (combined ranged between 7.44 and 8.27).

Specific conductivity remained between 441 and 656 µS/cm for both stations. Average BOD5 concentrations were slightly elevated (mean: 1.42 mg/L, min.: 0.96 mg/L, max.: 2.2 mg/L).

Average TP concentrations for both stations were consistently higher than the PWQO of 0.03 mg/L (mean: 0.040 mg/L for 3005702902 and 0.052 mg/L for 3005702502). Ortho phosphorus concentrations were generally low suggesting that total phosphorus is comprised largely of organic phosphorus.

Average total nitrogen concentrations were elevated at both stations (mean: 5.93 mg/L for 3005702902 and 1.77 mg/L for 3005702502). Nitrate and organic nitrogen were considered the dominate nitrogen forms.



3.12.5 CANWET MODELING RESULTS Based on the CANWET modeling results, the existing yearly average total phosphorus load from the Lower Nottawasaga River Subwatershed accounts for approximately 11% of the total phosphorus load delivered to streams in the Nottawasaga River Watershed. This load, under both the current and committed growth scenarios exceeds the PWQO based load target for all months. Modeling results for both existing and committed growth scenarios showed that average loads were highest in June and also in March during the spring thaw (Figure 3.12-1). Note, to avoid misinterpretation of results, modeled loads were not converted to an average monthly concentration for this subwatershed (See footnote, Chapter 3 Summary of Results pg. 3-1). A

B

Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed Loads

0100200300400500600700800900

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AUG

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DEC

Month

Phos

phor

us L

oad

(kg)

ExistingCondition


PWQO BasedLoad

Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed Phosphorus Concentrations

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

JAN

FEB

MA

R

AP

R

MA

Y

JUN

JUL

AU

G

SE

P

OC

T

NO

V

DE

C

Month

Phos

phor

us C

onc.

(mg/



PWQO

Figure 3-12: A and B - Phosphorous Load and Phosphorous Concentration in the

Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed.



3.12.6 TARGET SETTING The following table (Table 3.12-6) presents the average yearly phosphorus load derived from each source in the subwatershed under current conditions, the approved growth scenario, and the approved growth scenario with implementation of BMPs. The primary source of phosphorus in the Lower Nottawasaga subwatershed under existing conditions is derived from cropland (60%). Under the approved growth scenario, there is a projected decrease in total phosphorus loads of 7% without the implementation of BMPs. Modeling analysis suggests that this load can be further reduced by 18% through the implementation of BMPs. Taken together, this suggests that total phosphorus loads overall would decrease by 24% relative to current condition in this subwatershed under an approved growth scenario assuming BMPs were implemented.

Table 3.12-6. Phosphorus Loads By Source in the Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed



Change (Existing


Growth)

Committed Growth



Difference between


Growth w/BMPs


Hay/Pasture 356 326 -30 528 62% -172 528

Crop Land 3,179 2,908 -272 2,123 -27% 1,056 2,123

Other 283 385 102 183 -53% 100 183 Low Intensity Development 0 2 2 0 -84% 0 0



Groundwater 742 727 -15 684 -6% 58 684

Point Source 335 335 0 335 0% 0 -

Septic System 295 24 -271 24 -1% 271 24

TOTAL 5,308 4,929 -379 4,051 18% 1,257 3,716

BMP Scenario The BMP scenario developed for this subwatershed is shown in Table 3.12-7. Based on the scenario developed, the total estimated cost for implementation of all proposed BMP is approximately $21.7 million. Roughly 65% of this cost is derived from Urban BMP implementation such as detention basins, constructed wetlands, and bioretention areas. Of the remaining costs, 28% results from stream protection BMPs such as streambank fencing, riparian buffer protection, and streambank stabilization, while 7% is comprised of agricultural BMPs, such as nutrient management, strip cropping/contour farming, and



terraces and diversions. All costs associated with this analysis should be considered gross estimates presented for comparative purposes only.

Table 3.12-7 BMP Scenario for the Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed

Land Use Model Input * Length (km) Row Crops

Crop Residue Management & Cover Crops 20% N/A Strip Cropping / Contour Farming 10% N/A

Crop Rotation & Cover Crops 15% N/A Crop Rotation & Crop Residue Management 15% N/A

Nutrient Management 50% N/A Hay/Pasture

Nutrient Management 5% N/A Grazing Land Management 20% N/A

Streams Streams with Vegetated Buffer Strips N/A 50 km

Streams with Fencing N/A 25 km Length of Stream With Bank Stabilization N/A 25 km

Urban Lands High Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 25% N/A Low Density Urban Land Serviced by Ponds 93% N/A

Urban Streams High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 2.5 km High Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 1 km

Low Density Urban Streams with Stabilization N/A 2.5 km Low Density Urban Streams with Buffers N/A 1 km

* For description of inputs and BMP scenario development see Chapter 1 3.12.7 LOAD ALLOCATION Based on water quality and aquatic community conditions presented above, this subwatershed has been considered impaired and modeled phosphorus load estimates exceed the PWQO based target load. Therefore, Option B was used to determine the proposed phosphorus load target. Under this option, the target was set to equal the total phosphorus load estimated under the committed growth scenario with an assumed implementation of the BMP scenario. The following table presents the allocations for the Lower Nottawasaga subwatershed.

Table 3.12-8: Allocations for the Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed

NPS Load

(kg/year)

WLA (kg/year)

MOS (kg/year)

Target Load

(kg/year) 2,765 881 405 4,051



Map 3.12-1a: Location Map – Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed (Northern Portion)



Map 3.12-1b: Location Map – Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed (Southern Portion)



Map 3.12-2: Future Land Use – Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed



Map 3.12-3a: Stream Network and Monitoring Locations – Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed (Northern Portion)



Map 3.12-3b Stream Network and Monitoring Locations – Lower Nottawasaga Subwatershed

3.0 NOTTAWASAGA RIVER WATERSHED Documents/reports/acs/berger_target... · also presents the target...

Documents

Transcript of 3.0 NOTTAWASAGA RIVER WATERSHED Documents/reports/acs/berger_target... · also presents the target...