Jock River

• Print

The Jock River flows from wetland headwaters in Beckwith and Montague Townships near Franktown, through the rich agricultural lands in the former municipalities of Goulbourn and Nepean, and finally through Barrhaven in Ottawa’s South Urban Community to the Rideau River just north of Manotick.

• Print

Catchment Reports

The RVCA produces individual reports on the Rideau watershed’s catchments. These catchment reports are a compilation of data collected through the RVCA’s watershed monitoring and land cover classification programs.

Catchment information is used to develop subwatershed reports that summarize the health of the Rideau’s six main subwatersheds.

• Print

Jock River Subwatershed Report 2016

FLOWING CREEK CATCHMENT

The RVCA produces individual reports for 12 catchments in the Jock River subwatershed. Using data collected and analyzed by the RVCA through its watershed monitoring and land cover classification programs, surface water quality and in-stream conditions are reported for the Jock River along with a summary of environmental conditions for the surrounding countryside every six years.

This information is used to better understand the effects of human activity on our water resources, allows us to better track environmental change over time and helps focus watershed management actions where they are needed the most to help sustain the ecosystem services (cultural, aesthetic and recreational values; provisioning of food, fuel and clean water; regulation of erosion/natural hazard protection and water purification; supporting nutrient/water cycling and habitat provision) provided by the catchment’s lands and forests and waters (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).

The following sections of this report for the Flowing Creek catchment are a compilation of that work.

For other Jock River catchments and the Jock River Subwatershed Report, please visit the RVCA website at www.rvca.ca

• Print

1.0 Flowing Creek Catchment: Facts

1.1 General/Physical Geography

Municipalities

• Ottawa: (50 km2; 100% of catchment)

Geology/Physiography

• The Flowing Creek Catchment resides within a transitionary area between the Ottawa Valley Clay Plain to the east and the Smith Falls Limestone Plain to the West.  While Champlain Sea sediment (silt and clay) lie in the eastern part of the catchment at significant depths; esker and beach sands and gravels, sand plains and some glacial till blanket the central part. Bedrock lies at the ground surface throughout the western part of the catchment and is overlain by extensive organic soils
• In this catchment, bedrock includes the interbedded limestone and dolostone, sandstone with shale and limestone, dolostone, and some limestone respectively from the Gull River, Rockcliffe, Oxford and Bobcaygeon Formations. In addition, several geologic faults may pass through the catchment

Karst/Topography

• The ground surface ranges in elevation from approximately 155 masl near Hwy 7 to approximately 92 masl at the catchment’s outlet
• Surficial karst is known to exist in the northern part of the catchment

Drainage Area

• 50 square kilometers; occupies nine percent of the Jock River subwatershed, one percent of the Rideau Valley watershed

Stream Length

• Flowing Creek and tributaries: 106 km

1.2 Vulnerable Areas

Flood/Erosion Hazard

• Flowing Creek is subject to a flooding hazard during the regional storm flood (the 100 year flood). Surveys and studies undertaken in accordance with provincial standards have determined that the 100 year flood elevation in the catchment is 93.6 metres above mean sea level for the mapped extent of the regulation limit extending from Perth Street in Richmond upstream to Garvin Road 

Aquifer Vulnerability

• The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection initiative has mapped the middle of this catchment as a significant groundwater recharge area; and the western extent of the catchment as Highly Vulnerable Aquifer. Parts of Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA) C and D for the municipal wells in Richmond underlie the southern quarter of this catchment

Wetland Hydrology

• A watershed model developed by the RVCA in 2009 was used to study the hydrologic function of wetlands in the Rideau Valley Watershed, including those found in the Flowing Creek catchment

1.3 Conditions at a Glance

Water Quality

• Surface chemisty water quality rating in the Flowing Creek catchment is “Fair”at the upstream site (CK67-008) and “Poor” at the downstream site (CK67-001). The upstream site is largely influenced by elevated nutrient concentrations and high E. coli counts, while the downstream site reported persistently elevated nutrient concentrations and E. coli counts, as well as high metal concentrations (between 2004 to 2009 and 2010 to 2015). This points to a deterioration of water quality as it flows to the downstream reaches of Flowing Creek 
• Instream biological water quality conditions for Flowing Creek are unknown

Instream and Riparian

• Overall instream and riparian condition for Flowing Creek is unknown

Thermal Regime

• Warm/cool water thermal guild supporting the Jock River fishery

Fish Community

• Twenty-four species of recreational and bait fish

Shoreline Cover Type (30 m. riparian area; 2014)

• Crop and Pasture (47%)
• Woodland (20%)
• Wetland (17%)
• Transportation (7%)
• Settlement (6%)
• Meadow-Thicket (3%)
• Aggregate (1%)

Land Cover Type (2014)

• Crop and Pasture (46%)
• Woodland (24%)
• Settlement (11%)
• Wetland (9%)
• Transportation (3%)
• Aggregate (3%)
• Meadow-Thicket (3%)
• Water (<1%)

Land Cover Change (2008 to 2014)

• Woodland (-98 ha)
• Crop and Pasture (-3 ha)
• Transportation (+1 ha)
• Wetland (+1 ha)
• Water (+2 ha)
• Aggregate (+27 ha)
• Settlement (+27 ha)
• Meadow-Thicket (+43 ha)

Significant Natural Features

• Goulbourn Provincially Significant Wetland

Water Wells

• Several hundred (~700) operational private water wells in the Flowing Creek Catchment.  Groundwater uses are mainly domestic, but also include significant livestock watering, groundwater monitoring and testing, municipal and other public water supplies and commercial uses

Aggregates

• Parts of 2 bedrock quarry licenses and 4 sand and gravel pit licenses located within the catchment

Species at Risk (Elemental Occurrence)

• Spotted Turtle (Endangered)
• Blanding’s Turtle, Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark (Threatened)
• Eastern Milksnake, Snapping Turtle, Yellow Rail (Special Concern)

1.4 Catchment Care

Stewardship

• Forty stewardship projects undertaken (see Section 5)

Environmental Monitoring

• Chemical surface (in-stream) water quality collection since 2003 (see Section 2)
• Fourteen headwater drainage feature assessments in 2015 at road crossings in the catchment. The protocol measures zero, first and second order headwater drainage features and is a rapid assessment method characterizing the amount of water, sediment transport, and storage capacity within headwater drainage features (see Section 3.2)
• Groundwater chemistry information is available from the Ontario Geological Survey for a well located in the catchment

Environmental Management

• Development along Flowing Creek and in and adjacent to the Goulbourn Provincially Significant Wetland in the catchment is subject to Ontario Regulation 174-06 (entitled “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses”) that protects the hydrologic function of the wetland and also protects landowners and their property from natural hazards (flooding, fluctuating water table, unstable soils) associated with them
• Nine active Permits To Take Water (PTTW) in the Flowing Creek catchment issued for pit /quarry dewatering, industrial uses, and construction dewatering
• Ten Environmental Compliance Approvals and/or Environmental Activity and Sector Registrations in the Flowing Creek Catchment. These are mainly for municipal or private sewage works and industrial sewage works

• Print

2.0 Flowing Creek Catchment: Surface Water Quality Conditions

Surface water quality conditions in the Flowing Creek catchment are monitored by the City of Ottawa Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Program. This program provides information on the condition of Ottawa’s surface water resources; data is collected for multiple parameters including nutrients (total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and ammonia), E. coli, metals (like aluminum and copper) and additional chemical/physical parameters (such as alkalinity, chlorides, pH and total suspended solids). The locations of monitoring sites are shown in Figure 2 and Table 1.

2.1 Flowing Creek Water Quality Rating

The RVCA's water quality rating for monitored sites on Flowing Creek (CK67-001 and CK67-008) range from “Poor” to “Fair” (Table 1) as determined by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Water Quality Index (WQI)^[1]. A “Fair” rating indicates that water quality is usually protected but is occasionally threatened or impaired; conditions sometimes depart from natural or desirable levels. A “Poor” rating indicates that water quality is frequently threatened or impaired; conditions often depart from natural or desirable levels. Parameters are evaluated against established guidelines to determine water quality conditions. Those parameters that frequently exceed guidelines are presented below. Analysis of the data has been broken into two periods; 2004 to 2009 and 2010 to 2015 to examine if conditions have changed between these periods. Table 1 shows the overall rating for the monitored surface water quality sites within the Flowing Creek catchment and Table 2 outlines the Water Quality Index (WQI) scores and their corresponding ratings.

Between the 2004-2009 and 2010-2015 time frames the water quality score at site CK67-001 has declined, but has retained a rating of POOR across both periods (Table 1). There is no data available for the 2004-2009 period at site CK67-008, in the 2010-2015 period the rating was determined to be FAIR with a WQI score of 74.  The scores at these sites are largely influenced by frequent high nutrient concentrations. For more information on the CCME WQI, please see the Jock River Subwatershed Report. 

2.2 Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and may contribute to abundant aquatic vegetation growth and depleted dissolved oxygen levels. The Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) is used as the TP Guideline and states that in streams concentrations greater than 0.030 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP.  

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and ammonia (NH₃) are used as secondary indicators of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN^[2] and the PWQO of 0.020 mg/l to assess NH₃ concentrations in the Jock River.

Tables 3, 4 and 5 summarize average nutrient concentrations at monitored sites within the Flowing Creek catchment and show the proportion of results that meet the guidelines.

Monitoring Site CK67-001

The majority of samples at site CK67-001 were above the TP guideline in both the 2004-2009 and 2010-2015 periods (Figures 3, and 4) .  The number of sample results below the TP guideline improved slightly from 11 percent in 2004-2009 to 27 percent in 2010-2015 (Table 3). Though more samples were below the guideline the average TP concentrations increased from 0.057 mg/l (2003–2008) to 0.082 mg/l (2009–2014).

TKN concentrations show that the bulk of results exceeded the guideline (Figures 5 and 6); 17 percent of samples were below the guideline in the 2004-2009 period, this declined to only two percent in the 2010-2015 period. The average concentration was elevated and increased from 0.746 mg/l to 0.785 mg/l (Table 4).

In the 2004-2009 reporting period 37% of NH₃ results were below the guideline with an average concentration of 0.054 mg/l (Figure 7, Table 5). The percentage of results below the guideline declined to 22% in the 2010-2015 period, the average concentrations declined slightly to 0.050 mg/l (Figure 8, Table 5).

Monitoring Site CK67-008

TP results were typically below the guideline at site CK67-008; 84 percent of samples were below the guideline in the 2010-2015 period (Figure 4). The average TP concentration during this same time frame was 0.021 mg/l (Table 3).

The bulk of TKN results have exceeded the guideline (Figure 6), with 16 percent of samples below the guideline in the 2010-2015 period. The average concentration was elevated at 0.685 mg/l (Table 3).

The results for NH₃ indicate that occasional exceedances occurred. Seventy-five percent of results were below the guideline in the 2010-2015 reporting period (Figure 8). The average NH₃ concentration was just above the guideline at 0.022 mg/l (Table 5).

Figure 3 Total phosphorous concentrations in Flowing Creek, 2004-2009

Figure 4 Total phosphorous concentrations in Flowing Creek, 2010-2015

Figure 5 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations Flowing Creek, 2004-2009

Figure 6 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations in Flowing Creek, 2010-2015

Figure 7 Ammonia concentrations in Flowing Creek,  2004-2009

Figure 8 Ammonia concentrations in Flowing Creek, 2010-2015

 

Summary

Nutrient enrichment is a feature of Flowing Creek. Most nutrient parameters (total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and ammonia) are above guidelines at each site, apart from TP concentrations in the upstream site (CK67-008). Elevated nutrients may result in nutrient loading downstream and to the Jock River. High nutrient concentrations stimulate the growth of algae blooms and aquatic vegetation in a waterbody, and deplete oxygen levels as the vegetation dies off and decompose.  Average concentrations for TP and TKN are particularly high in April, likely due to spring time runoff conditions. Increased nutrients concentrations also appear to be an issue in the late summer and early fall.   Best management practices such as improved storms water management, enhanced shoreline buffers, preventing the use of fertilizers and restricting livestock access in agricultural areas can help to reduce nutrient enrichment. 

2.3 Escherichia coli

E. coli is used as an indicator of bacterial pollution from human or animal waste; in elevated concentrations it can pose a risk to human health. The PWQO of 100 colony forming units/100 millilitres (CFU/100 ml) is used. E. coli counts greater than this guideline indicate that bacterial contamination may be a problem within a waterbody.

Table 6 summarizes the geometric mean^[3] for the monitored sites within the Flowing Creek catchment and shows the proportion of samples that meet the E. coli guideline of 100 CFU/100 ml. The results of the geometric mean with respect to the guideline for the two periods, 2004-2009 and 2010-2015, are shown in Figures 9 and 10 respectively.

Table 6 Summary of E. coli results for Flowing Creek, 2004-2009 and 2010-2015

E. coli 2004-2009
Site	Geometric Mean (CFU/100ml)	Below Guideline	No. Samples
CK67-001	221	25%	53
CK67-008	NA	NA	NA
E. coli 2010-2015
Site	Geometric Mean (CFU/100ml)	Below Guideline	No. Samples
CK67-001	262	27%	49
CK67-008	99	43%	44

Monitoring Site CK67-001

E. coli counts at site CK67-001 indicate little change with regard to bacterial contamination (Figures 9 and 10). The proportion of samples below the guideline rose marginally from 25 percent  to 27 percent.  The count at the geometric mean increased from 221 CFU/100ml in 2004-2009 to 262 CFU/100ml in 2010-2015 (Table 6).

 

Monitoring Site CK67-008

Elevated E. coli counts at site CK67-008 occurred regularly at this site (Figure 10). Forty-three percent of samples were below the guideline in the 2010-2015 period, and the count at the geometric mean was just below the PWQO at 99 CFU/100ml (Table 6).

Figure 9 Geometric mean of E. coli results in Flowing Creek, 2004-2009

Figure 10 Geometric mean of E. coli results in Flowing Creek, 2010-2015

Summary

Bacterial contamination appears to be a significant concern in Flowing Creek; at both sites (CK67-001 and CK67-008) regular exceedances occur andthe geometric mean exceeds or is just below the guideline of 100 CFU/100ml. Best management practices such as enhancing shoreline buffers and limiting livestock access should be employed wherever possible to help to improve water quality conditions on Flowing Creek and its impact on the Jock River.

2.4 Metals

Of the metals routinely monitored in Flowing Creek, aluminum (Al), copper (Cu) and iron (Fe) reported concentrations above their respective PWQOs, particularly at the downstream site (CK67-001). In elevated concentrations, these metals can have toxic effects on sensitive aquatic species.  The PWQO for Al is 0.075 mg/l, for Cu it is 0.005 mg/l and Fe is 0.300 mg/l.

Tables 7, 8 and 9 summarize metal concentrations at sites CK67-001 and CK67-008, as well as show the proportion of samples that meet guidelines. Figures 11 to 16 show metal concentrations with respect to the guidelines for the two periods of interest, 2004-2009 and 2010-2015.

Table 7 Summary of aluminum results for Flowing Creek from 2004-2009 and 2010-2015. Highlighted values indicate average concentrations exceed the guideline

Aluminum 2004-2009
Site	Average (mg/l)	Below Guideline	No. Samples
CK67-001	0.443	2%	53
CK67-008	NA	NA	NA
Aluminum 2010-2015
Site	Average (mg/l)	Below Guideline	No. Samples
CK67-001	0.664	0%	48
CK67-008	0.071	77%	43

 

Table 8 Summary of copper results for Flowing Creek from 2004-2009 and 2010-2015. Highlighted values indicate average concentrations exceed the guideline

Copper 2004-2009
Site	Average (mg/l)	Below Guideline	No. Samples
CK67-001	0.0045	70%	53
CK67-008	NA	NA	NA
Copper 2010-2015
Site	Average (mg/l)	Below Guideline	No. Samples
CK67-001	0.0041	71%	48
CK67-008	0.0020	88%	43

Table 9 Summary of iron results for Flowing Creek from 2004-2009 and 2010-2015. Highlighted values indicate average concentrations exceed the guideline

Iron 2004-2009
Site	Average (mg/l)	Below Guideline	No. Samples
CK67-001	0.579	25%	53
CK67-008	NA	NA	NA
Iron 2010-2015
Site	Average (mg/l)	Below Guideline	No. Samples
CK67-001	0.845	25%	48
CK67-008	0.180	88%	43

Monitoring Site CK67-001

The Al concentrations at site CK67-001 far exceeded the guideline. Only two percent of samples were below the guideline from 2004-2009 (Figure 11), this declined to no results reporting below the guideline from 2010-2015 (Figure 12). The average concentration increased from 0.443 mg/l to 0.664 mg/l (Table 7).

Copper concentrations occasionally exceeded the PWQO, with 70 percent of samples below the guideline in 2004-2009 (Figure 13). The Cu concentrations were consistent into the 2010-2015 period, with 71 percent of samples below the guideline in 2010-2015 (Figure 14). The average concentration of copper marginally decreased during the two reporting periods from 0.005 mg/l to 0.004 mg/l (Table 8). 

Results from CK67-001 indicated that Fe concentrations exceeded the guideline. The proportion of samples below the guideline was unchanged at 25 percent between the two reporting periods (Figures 15 and 16). During the 2004-2009 reporting period average Fe concentrations were above the guideline with a concentration of 0.579 mg/l this increased to 0.845 mg/l in the 2010-2015 period (Table 9).

 

Monitoring Site CK67-008

Results from CK67-008 are only available for the 2010-2015 period. Results show that Al concentrations often meet the objective with 77 percent of samples below the guideline (Figure 11). The average concentration of Al was below the guideline at 0.071 mg/l (Table 7).

Copper concentrations have occasionally exceeded the guideline. In the 2010-2015 period 88 percent of samples were below the guideline (Figure 14). The average concentration was below the guideline at 0.0020 mg/l (Table 8). 

The majority of Fe results were below the guideline; 88 percent of samples were below the guideline in the 2010-2015 period (Figure 16). The average concentration was below the guideline in the 2010-2015 reporting period with a concentration of 0.180 mg/l (Table 9).

Figure 11 Average aluminum concentrations in Flowing Creek, 2004-2009

Figure 12 Average aluminum concentrations in Flowing Creek, 2010-2015

 

Figure 13 Average copper concentrations in Flowing Creek, 2004-2009

Figure 14 Average copper concentrations in Flowing Creek, 2010-2015

 

Figure 15 Average iron concentrations in Flowing Creek, 2004-2009

Figure 16 Average iron concentrations in Flowing Creek, 2010-2015

 

Summary

Concentrations of both iron and aluminum have increased within this catchment, and average concentrations exceed the guideline at site CK67-001. There has been increased development directly upstream of this site and it is possible that these increases may be due to increased runoff from surfaces and traffic. Efforts should continue to be made to identify pollution sources and implement best management practices in both the urbanized and rural areas to reduce any inputs such as storm water runoff, metal alloys, fungicides and pesticides to improve overall stream health and lessen downstream impacts.

---

¹ The City of Ottawa Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Program has also applied the CCME WQI to monitored sites. The parameters used and time periods differs between the RVCA and City of Ottawa’s application of the WQI, resulting in different ratings at some sites. 

² No Ontario guideline for TKN is presently available; however, waters not influenced by excessive organic inputs typically range from 0.100 to 0.500 mg/l, Environment Canada (1979) Water Quality Sourcebook, A Guide to Water Quality Parameters, Inland Waters Directorate, Water Quality Branch, Ottawa, Canada

³ A type of mean or average, which indicates the central tendency or typical value of a set of numbers by using the product of their values (as opposed to the arithmetic mean which uses their sum). It is often used to summarize a variable that varies over several orders of magnitude, such as E. coli counts

• Print

3.0  Flowing Creek Catchment: Riparian Conditions

3.1 Flowing Creek Instream Aquatic Habitat

3.1.1 Benthic Invertebrates

Freshwater benthic invertebrates are animals without backbones that live on the stream bottom and include crustaceans such as crayfish, molluscs and immature forms of aquatic insects. Benthos represent an extremely diverse group of aquatic animals and exhibit wide ranges of responses to stressors such as organic pollutants, sediments and toxicants, which allows scientists to use them as bioindicators.  As part of the Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network (OBBN), the RVCA has been collecting benthic invertebrates at the Garvin Road site on Flowing Creek since 2004. Monitoring data is analyzed for each sample site and the results are presented using the Family Biotic Index, Family Richness and percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera.

Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index

The Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (FBI) is an indicator of organic and nutrient pollution and provides an estimate of water quality conditions for each site using established pollution tolerance values for benthic invertebrates. FBI results for Flowing Creek catchment sample location at Garvin Road are separated by reporting period 2004 to 2009 and 2010 to 2015.  “Fair” to “Poor” water quality conditions were observed at the Flowing Creek sample location for the period from 2004 to 2015 (Fig.17) using a grading scheme developed by Conservation Authorities in Ontario for benthic invertebrates. 

Family Richness

Family Richness measures the health of the community through its diversity and increases with increasing habitat diversity suitability and healthy water quality conditions. Family Richness is equivalent to the total number of benthic invertebrate families found within a sample.   Flowing Creek site is reported to have “Fair” family richness (Fig.18).

EPT

Ephemeroptera (Mayflies), Plecoptera (Stoneflies), and Trichoptera (Caddisflies) are species considered to be very sensitive to poor water quality conditions. High abundance of these organisms is generally an indication of good water quality conditions at a sample location.  The benthic invertebrate community structure is dominated  by species that are tolerant to poor water quality conditions.  As a result, the EPT indicates that Flowing Creek sample location is reported to have “Poor” water quality (Fig.19) from 2004 to 2015.

Conclusion

Overall Flowing Creek sample location aquatic habitat conditions from a benthic invertebrate perspective is considered “Poor” from 2004 to 2015 as the samples are dominated by species that are tolerant to high organic pollution levels.

3.1.2 Thermal Regime

Many factors can influence fluctuations in stream temperature, including springs, tributaries, precipitation runoff, discharge pipes and stream shading from riparian vegetation. Water temperature is used along with the maximum air temperature (using the Stoneman and Jones method) to classify a watercourse as either warm water, cool water or cold water. Figure 20 shows where the thermal sampling sites were located on Flowing Creek.  Analysis of the data collected indicates that Flowing Creek is classified as a warm water system with cool to warm water reaches (Figure 21).  

Each point on the graph represents a temperature that meets the following criteria:

• Sampling dates between July 1st and September 7th
• Sampling date is preceded by two consecutive days above 24.5 °C, with no rain
• Water temperatures are collected at 4pm
• Air temperature is recorded as the max temperature for that day

3.1.3 Groundwater

Groundwater discharge areas can influence stream temperature, contribute nutrients, and provide important stream habitat for fish and other biota. During headwater surveys, indicators of groundwater discharge are noted when observed. Indicators include: springs/seeps, watercress, iron staining, significant temperature change and rainbow mineral film.  Figure 22 shows areas where one or more of the above groundwater indicators were observed during headwater drainage feature assessments. 

3.1.4 Fish Community

The Flowing Creek catchment is classified as a mixed community of warm and cool water recreational and baitfish fishery with 24 species observed.  Figure 23 shows the RVCA sampling locations in the Flowing Creek catchment. 

The following table contains a list of species observed in the watershed.

3.2 Flowing Creek Headwater Drainage Features Assessment

3.2.1 Headwaters Sampling Locations

The RVCA Stream Characterization program assessed Headwater Drainage Features for the Jock River subwatershed in 2015. This protocol measures zero, first and second order headwater drainage features (HDF).  It is a rapid assessment method characterizing the amount of water, sediment transport, and storage capacity within headwater drainage features (HDF). RVCA is working with other Conservation Authorities and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to implement the protocol with the goal of providing standard datasets to support science development and monitoring of headwater drainage features.  An HDF is a depression in the land that conveys surface flow. Additionally, this module provides a means of characterizing the connectivity, form and unique features associated with each HDF (OSAP Protocol, 2013). In 2015 the program sampled 14 sites at road crossings in the Flowing Creek catchment area (Figure 24).  

3.2.2 Headwater Feature Type

The headwater sampling protocol assesses the feature type in order to understand the function of each feature.  The evaluation includes the following classifications: defined natural channel, channelized or constrained, multi-thread, no defined feature, tiled, wetland, swale, roadside ditch and pond outlet.  By assessing the values associated with the headwater drainage features in the catchment area we can understand the ecosystem services that they provide to the watershed in the form of hydrology, sediment transport, and aquatic and terrestrial functions.  Six features were classified as having been channelized, four features were classified as wetland, two features were road side ditches and two features were identified as natural.  Figure 25 shows the feature type of the primary feature at the sampling locations.

3.2.3 Headwater Feature Flow

The observed flow condition within headwater drainage features can be highly variable depending on timing relative to the spring freshet, recent rainfall, soil moisture, etc.  Flow conditions are assessed in the spring and in the summer to determine if features are perennial and flow year round, if they are intermittent and dry up during the summer months or if they are ephemeral systems that do not flow regularly and generally respond to specific rainstorm events or snowmelt.  Flow conditions in headwater systems can change from year to year depending on local precipitation patterns. Figure 26 shows the observed flow conditions at the sampling locations in the Flowing Creek catchment in 2015.

3.2.4 Feature Channel Modifications

Many of the headwater drainage features within the Flowing Creek catchment area are classified as municipal drains. Channel modifications were assessed at each headwater drainage feature sampling location.  Modifications include dredging, channel hardening and mixed modifications.  The Flowing Creek catchment area had five features with no modifications, one feature was classified as being hardened, seven classified as dredged and one was identified as having mixed modifications.  Figure 27 shows the channel modifications observed at the sampling locations for Flowing Creek.

3.2.5 Headwater Feature Vegetation

Headwater feature vegetation evaluates the type of vegetation that is found within the drainage feature.  The type of vegetated within the channel influences the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem values that the feature provides.  For some types of headwater features the vegetation within the feature plays a very important role in flow and sediment movement and provides fish and wildlife habitat.  The following classifications are evaluated no vegetation, lawn, wetland, meadow, scrubland and forest.  The features assessed in the Flowing Creek catchment were classified as being dominated by wetland and meadow vegetation.  Two features were classified as having no vegetation and one feature was dominated by recently cut grasses (lawn) within the channel.  Figure 28 depicts the dominant vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Flowing Creek catchment.

3.2.6 Headwater Feature Riparian Vegetation

Headwater riparian vegetation evaluates the type of vegetation that is found along the adjacent lands of a headwater drainage feature.  The type of vegetation within the riparian corridor influences the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem values that the feature provides to the watershed.  Five sample locations in Flowing Creek were dominated by natural vegetation in the form of scrubland and meadow vegetation. Nine sample locations were dominated by other forms of vegetation of either crops or ornamental grasses. Figure 29 depicts the type of riparian vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Flowing Creek catchment.

3.2.7 Headwater Feature Sediment Deposition

Assessing the amount of recent sediment deposited in a channel provides an index of the degree to which the feature could be transporting sediment to downstream reaches (OSAP, 2013).  Evidence of excessive sediment deposition might indicate the requirement to follow up with more detailed targeted assessments upstream of the site location to identify potential best management practices to be implemented.  Conditions ranged from no deposition observed to extensive deposition recorded. Figure 30 depicts the degree of sediment deposition observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Flowing Creek catchment.

3.2.8 Headwater Feature Upstream Roughness

Feature roughness will provide a measure of the amount of materials within the bankfull channel that could slow down the velocity of water flowing within the headwater feature (OSAP, 2013).  Materials on the channel bottom that provide roughness include vegetation, woody debris and boulders/cobble substrates.  Roughness can provide benefits in mitigating downstream erosion on the headwater drainage feature and the receiving watercourse by reducing velocities.  Roughness also provides important habitat conditions for aquatic organisms. The sample locations in the Flowing Creek catchment area ranged from minimal to extreme roughness conditions. Figure 31 shows the feature roughness conditions at the sampling locations in the Flowing Creek catchment.

• Print

4.0 Flowing Creek Catchment: Land Cover

Land cover and any change in coverage that has occurred over a six year period is summarized for the Flowing Creek catchment using spatially continuous vector data representing the catchment during the spring of 2008 and 2014. This dataset was developed by the RVCA through heads-up digitization of 20cm DRAPE ortho-imagery at a 1:4000 scale and details the surrounding landscape using 10 land cover classes.

4.1 Flowing Creek Catchment Change

As shown in Table 11 and Figure 1, the dominant land cover type in 2014 was crop and pastureland followed by woodland.

From 2008 to 2014, there was an overall change of 145 hectares (from one land cover class to another). Much of the change in the Flowing Creek catchment is a result of the conversion of woodland to meadow-thicket (shown in Figure 32 as “Other change event”), settlement and aggregates.

Table 12 provides a detailed breakdown of all land cover change that has taken place in the Flowing Creek catchment between 2008 and 2014.

4.2 Woodland Cover

In the Environment Canada Guideline (Third Edition) entitled “How Much Habitat Is Enough?” (hereafter referred to as the “Guideline”) the opening narrative under the Forest Habitat Guidelines section states that prior to European settlement, forest was the predominant habitat in the Mixedwood Plains ecozone. The remnants of this once vast forest now exist in a fragmented state in many areas (including the Rideau Valley watershed) with woodland patches of various sizes distributed across the settled landscape along with higher levels of forest cover associated with features such as the Frontenac Axis (within the on-Shield areas of the Rideau Lakes and Tay River subwatersheds). The forest legacy, in terms of the many types of wildlife species found, overall species richness, ecological functions provided and ecosystem complexity is still evident in the patches and regional forest matrices (found in the Jock River subwatershed and elsewhere in the Rideau Valley watershed). These ecological features are in addition to other influences which forests have on water quality and stream hydrology including reducing soil erosion, producing oxygen, storing carbon along with many other ecological services that are essential not only for wildlife but for human well-being.

The Guideline also notes that forests provide a great many habitat niches that are in turn occupied by a great diversity of plant and animal species. They provide food, water and shelter for these species - whether they are breeding and resident locally or using forest cover to help them move across the landscape. This diversity of species includes many that are considered to be species at risk. Furthermore, from a wildlife perspective, there is increasing evidence that the total forest cover in a given area is a major predictor of the persistence and size of bird populations, and it is possible or perhaps likely that this pattern extends to other flora and fauna groups. The overall effect of a decrease in forest cover on birds in fragmented landscapes is that certain species disappear and many of the remaining ones become rare, or fail to reproduce, while species adapted to more open and successional habitats, as well as those that are more tolerant to human-induced disturbances in general, are able to persist and in some cases thrive. Species with specialized-habitat requirements are most likely to be adversely affected. The overall pattern of distribution of forest cover, the shape, area and juxtaposition of remaining forest patches and the quality of forest cover also play major roles in determining how valuable forests will be to wildlife and people alike.

The current science generally supports minimum forest habitat requirements between 30 and 50 percent, with some limited evidence that the upper limit may be even higher, depending on the organism/species phenomenon under investigation or land-use/resource management planning regime being considered/used.

As shown in Figure 33, 25 percent of the Flowing Creek catchment contains 1242 hectares of upland forest and 44 hectares of lowland forest (treed swamps) versus the 26 percent of woodland cover in the Jock River subwatershed. This is less than the 30 percent of forest cover that is identified as the minimum threshold required to sustain forest birds according to the Guideline and which may only support less than one half of potential species richness and marginally healthy aquatic systems. When forest cover drops below 30 percent, forest birds tend to disappear as breeders across the landscape.

4.2.1 Woodland (Patch) Size

According to the Ministry of Natural Resources’ Natural Heritage Reference Manual (Second Edition), larger woodlands are more likely to contain a greater diversity of plant and animal species and communities than smaller woodlands and have a greater relative importance for mobile animal species such as forest birds.

Bigger forests often provide a different type of habitat. Many forest birds breed far more successfully in larger forests than they do in smaller woodlots and some rely heavily on forest interior conditions. Populations are often healthier in regions with more forest cover and where forest fragments are grouped closely together or connected by corridors of natural habitat. Small forests support small numbers of wildlife. Some species are “area-sensitive” and tend not to inhabit small woodlands, regardless of forest interior conditions. Fragmented habitat also isolates local populations, especially small mammals, amphibians and reptiles with limited mobility. This reduces the healthy mixing of genetic traits that helps populations survive over the long run (Conserving the Forest Interior. Ontario Extension Notes, 2000).

The Environment Canada Guideline also notes that for forest plants that do not disperse broadly or quickly, preservation of some relatively undisturbed large forest patches is needed to sustain them because of their restricted dispersal abilities and specialized habitat requirements and to ensure continued seed or propagation sources for restored or regenerating areas nearby.

The Natural Heritage Reference Manual continues by stating that a larger size also allows woodlands to support more resilient nutrient cycles and food webs and to be big enough to permit different and important successional stages to co-exist. Small, isolated woodlands are more susceptible to the effects of blowdown, drought, disease, insect infestations, and invasions by predators and non-indigenous plants. It is also known that the viability of woodland wildlife depends not only on the characteristics of the woodland in which they reside, but also on the characteristics of the surrounding landscape where the woodland is situated. Additionally, the percentage of forest cover in the surrounding landscape, the presence of ecological barriers such as roads, the ability of various species to cross the matrix surrounding the woodland and the proximity of adjacent habitats interact with woodland size in influencing the species assemblage within a woodland.

In the Flowing Creek catchment (in 2014), eighty-two (46 percent) of the 179 woodland patches are very small, being less than one hectare in size. Another 82 (46 percent) of the woodland patches ranging from one to less than 20 hectares in size tend to be dominated by edge-tolerant bird species. The remaining 15 (8 percent of) woodland patches range between 26 and 102 hectares in size. Fourteen of these patches contain woodland between 20 and 100 hectares and may support a few area-sensitive species and some edge intolerant species, but will be dominated by edge tolerant species.

Conversely, one (less than one percent) of the 179 woodland patches in the drainage area exceeds the 100 plus hectare size needed to support most forest dependent, area sensitive birds and are large enough to support approximately 60 percent of edge-intolerant species. No patch tops 200 hectares, which according to the Environment Canada Guideline will support 80 percent of edge-intolerant forest bird species (including most area sensitive species) that prefer interior forest habitat conditions.

Table 13 presents a comparison of woodland patch size in 2008 and 2014 along with any changes that have occurred over that time. A decrease (of 96 ha) has been observed in the overall woodland patch area between the two reporting periods with change spread across all woodland patch size class ranges (except the less than one hectare class).

4.2.2 Woodland (Forest) Interior Habitat

The forest interior is habitat deep within woodlands. It is a sheltered, secluded environment away from the influence of forest edges and open habitats. Some people call it the “core” or the “heart” of a woodland. The presence of forest interior is a good sign of woodland health, and is directly related to the woodland’s size and shape. Large woodlands with round or square outlines have the greatest amount of forest interior. Small, narrow woodlands may have no forest interior conditions at all. Forest interior habitat is a remnant natural environment, reminiscent of the extensive, continuous forests of the past. This increasingly rare forest habitat is now a refuge for certain forest-dependent wildlife; they simply must have it to survive and thrive in a fragmented forest landscape (Conserving the Forest Interior. Ontario Extension Notes, 2000).

The Natural Heritage Reference Manual states that woodland interior habitat is usually defined as habitat more than 100 metres from the edge of the woodland and provides for relative seclusion from outside influences along with a moister, more sheltered and productive forest habitat for certain area sensitive species. Woodlands with interior habitat have centres that are more clearly buffered against the edge effects of agricultural activities or more harmful urban activities than those without.

In the Flowing Creek catchment (in 2014), the 179 woodland patches contain 48 forest interior patches (Figure 33) that occupy two percent (106 ha.) of the catchment land area (which is less than the three percent of interior forest in the Jock River Subwatershed). This is below the ten percent figure referred to in the Environment Canada Guideline that is considered to be the minimum threshold for supporting edge intolerant bird species and other forest dwelling species in the landscape.

Most patches (45) have less than 10 hectares of interior forest, 28 of which have small areas of interior forest habitat less than one hectare in size. The remaining three patches contain interior forest between 16 and 17 hectares in area. Between 2008 and 2014, there has been a change in the number of woodland patches containing smaller areas of interior habitat with an overall loss of 23 hectares in the catchment (Table 14), suggesting an increase in forest fragmentation over the six year period.

4.3 Wetland Cover

Wetlands are habitats forming the interface between aquatic and terrestrial systems. They are among the most productive and biologically diverse habitats on the planet. By the 1980s, according to the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 68 percent of the original wetlands south of the Precambrian Shield in Ontario had been lost through encroachment, land clearance, drainage and filling.

Wetlands perform a number of important ecological and hydrological functions and provide an array of social and economic benefits that society values. Maintaining wetland cover in a watershed provides many ecological, economic, hydrological and social benefits that are listed in the Reference Manual and which may include:

• contributing to the stabilization of shorelines and to the reduction of erosion damage through the mitigation of water flow and soil binding by plant roots
• mitigating surface water flow by storing water during periods of peak flow (such as spring snowmelt and heavy rainfall events) and releasing water during periods of low flow (this mitigation of water flow also contributes to a reduction of flood damage)
• contributing to an improved water quality through the trapping of sediments, the removal and/or retention of excess nutrients, the immobilization and/or degradation of contaminants and the removal of bacteria
• providing renewable harvesting of timber, fuel wood, fish, wildlife and wild rice
• contributing to a stable, long-term water supply in areas of groundwater recharge and discharge
• providing a high diversity of habitats that support a wide variety of plants and animals
• acting as “carbon sinks” making a significant contribution to carbon storage
• providing opportunities for recreation, education, research and tourism

Historically, the overall wetland coverage within the Great Lakes basin exceeded 10 percent, but there was significant variability among watersheds and jurisdictions, as stated in the Environment Canada Guideline. In the Rideau Valley Watershed, it has been estimated that pre-settlement wetland cover averaged 35 percent using information provided by Ducks Unlimited Canada (2010) versus the 21 percent of wetland cover existing in 2014 derived from DRAPE imagery analysis.

Using the same dataset, it is estimated that pre-settlement (historic) wetland cover averaged 51 percent in the Jock River subwatershed versus the 24 percent of cover existing in 2014 (as summarized in Table 15).

This decline in wetland cover is also evident in the Flowing Creek catchment (as seen in Figure 34) where wetland was reported to cover 45 percent of the area prior to settlement, as compared to 10 percent in 2014. This represents a 79 percent loss of historic wetland cover and what remains (in 2014) falls below the 40 percent historic wetland threshold cited in the Environment Canada Guideline for maintaining key ecological and hydrological functions. To maintain critical hydrological, ecological functions along with related recreational and economic benefits provided by these wetland habitats in the catchment, the Guideline recommends a “no net loss” approach for currently existing wetlands combined with efforts to work towards restoring upwards of 40 percent of the historic wetland coverage, where feasible.

4.4 Shoreline Cover

The riparian or shoreline zone is that special area where the land meets the water. Well-vegetated shorelines are critically important in protecting water quality and creating healthy aquatic habitats, lakes and rivers. Natural shorelines intercept sediments and contaminants that could impact water quality conditions and harm fish habitat in streams. Well established buffers protect the banks against erosion, improve habitat for fish by shading and cooling the water and provide protection for birds and other wildlife that feed and rear young near water. A recommended target (from the Environment Canada Guideline) is to maintain a minimum 30 metre wide vegetated buffer along at least 75 percent of the length of both sides of rivers, creeks and streams.

Figure 35 shows the extent of the ‘Natural’ vegetated riparian zone (predominantly wetland/woodland features) and ‘Other’ anthropogenic cover (crop/pastureland, roads/railways, settlements) along a 30-metre-wide area of land, both sides of the shoreline of the Jock River and its tributaries in the Flowing Creek catchment.

This analysis shows that the riparian zone in the Flowing Creek catchment in 2014 was comprised of crop and pastureland (47 percent), woodland (20 percent), wetland (17 percent), transportation (seven percent), settlement (six percent), meadow-thicket (three percent) and aggregate (one percent). Additional statistics for the Flowing Creek catchment are presented in Table 16. Of particular interest is the observed increase in the area of “Aggregate” and decrease in "Woodland" area along the shoreline of Flowing Creek and tributaries over a six year period.

• Print

5.0 Flowing Creek Catchment: Stewardship and Water Resources Protection

The RVCA and its partners are working to protect and enhance environmental conditions in the Jock River Subwatershed. Figure 36 shows the location of all stewardship projects completed in the Flowing Creek catchment along with sites identified for potential shoreline restoration.

5.1 Rural Clean Water Projects

From 2010 to 2015, two well decommissionings, one windbreak buffer and one precision farming project were completed. Between 2004 and 2009, two crop residue projects, two well upgrades, one septic system replacement, one well decommissioning, one livestock fencing and one clean water diversion were completed. Prior to 2004, four livestock fencing projects, one milkhouse wastewater treatment facility, one manure storage/wastewater runoff project and one crop residue project were completed. Six of these projects were completed within the 30 metre riparian zone of Flowing Creek and tributaries. Total value of all 19 projects is $125,040 with $40,796 of that amount funded through grant dollars from the RVCA.

 

5.2 Private Land Forestry Projects

The location of RVCA tree planting projects is shown in Figure 36. From 2010 to 2015, 1,000 trees were planted at one site. Between 2004 and 2009, 11,700 trees were planted at two sites and prior to 2004, 91,040 trees were planted at 18 sites. In total, 103,740 trees were planted, resulting in the reforestation of 54 hectares. Three of these projects were completed within the 30 metre riparian zone of Flowing Creek and tributaries. Total value of all 21 projects is $353,576 with $119,765 of that amount coming from fundraising sources.

Through the RVCA Butternut Recovery Program, an additional 50 butternut trees were planted in the Rideau Creek catchment (Figure 36) between 2004 and 2015, as part of efforts to introduce healthy seedlings from tolerant butternuts into various locations across Eastern Ontario.

5.3 Valley, Stream, Wetland and Hazard Lands

The Flowing Creek catchment covers 50.4 square kilometres with 4.6 square kilometres (or nine percent) of the drainage area being within the regulation limit of Ontario Regulation 174/06 (Figure 37), giving protection to wetland areas and river or stream valleys that are affected by flooding and erosion hazards.

Wetlands occupy 4.7 sq. km. (or nine percent) of the catchment. Of these wetlands, 3.1 sq. km (or 65 percent) are designated as provincially significant and included within the RVCA regulation limit. This leaves the remaining 1.6 sq. km (or 35 percent) of wetlands in the catchment outside the regulated area limit.

Of the 106.5 kilometres of stream in the catchment, regulation limit mapping has been plotted along 13.7 kilometers of streams (representing 13 percent of all streams in the catchment). Some of these regulated watercourses (9.2 km or nine percent of all streams) flow through regulated wetlands; the remaining 4.6 km (or 33 percent) of regulated streams are located outside of those wetlands. Plotting of the regulation limit on the remaining 92.7 km (or 87 percent) of streams requires identification of flood and erosion hazards and valley systems.

Within those areas of the Flowing Creek catchment subject to the regulation (limit), efforts (have been made and) continue through RVCA planning and regulations input and review to manage the impact of development (and other land management practices) in areas where “natural hazards” are associated with rivers, streams, valley lands and wetlands. For areas beyond the regulation limit, protection of the catchment’s watercourses is only provided through the “alteration to waterways” provision of the regulation.

5.4 Vulnerable Drinking Water Areas

The Wellhead Protection Area around the Richmond (King’s Park) municipal drinking water source extends into the Flowing Creek drainage catchment. This area is subject to mandatory policies in the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan developed under the Clean Water Act. These policies specifically regulate land uses and activities that are considered drinking water threats, thereby reducing the risk of contamination of the municipal drinking water source.

The Flowing Creek drainage catchment is also considered to have a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer. This means that the nature of the overburden (thin soils, fractured bedrock) does not provide a high level of protection for the underlying groundwater making the aquifer more vulnerable to contaminants released on the surface. The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan includes policies that focus on the protection of groundwater region-wide due to the fact that most of the region, which encompasses the Mississippi and Rideau watersheds, is considered Highly Vulnerable Aquifer.

A large portion of the central part of this catchment area is also considered a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area. This means that there is a volume of water moving from the surface into the ground and groundwater serves either as a municipal drinking water source or supplies a coldwater ecosystem such as a brook trout stream. The Plan was not required to include policies to specifically address Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas.

For detailed maps and policies that have been developed to protect drinking water sources, please go to the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region website at www.mrsourcewater.ca to view the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan.

• Print

6.0 Flowing Creek Catchment: Challenges/Issues

Water Quality/Quantity

Surface chemistry water quality on Flowing Creek declines from “Fair” to “Poor” between the upstream ((CK67-008) and downstream sites (CK67-001). The lower site has shown persistently elevated nutrient concentrations and E. coli counts as well as high metal concentrations over a 12 year period.

Instream biological water quality conditions for Flowing Creek are unknown.

Drainage problems have led to establishment of altered wetland conditions and land use conflict (amongst development, quarry, agriculture and wetland conservation interests).

Existing hydrological and geochemical datasets and assessments (academic, RVCA, others) are only recently available and/or are not being considered in the characterization of the numerous hydrologic functions of the Jock River subwatershed. Further, there is a dearth of hydrologic information (hydroperiod, groundwater/surface water interactions, geochemistry) about the wetlands that remain in the Jock River subwatershed.

Natural hazard lands have not been identified.

Headwaters/Instream/Shorelines

‘Natural’ vegetation covers 39 percent of the riparian zone of Flowing Creek and its tributaries (Figure 34) and is below the recommended 30 metre wide, naturally vegetated target along 75 percent of the length of the catchment’s watercourses.

No information available about instream aquatic and riparian conditions along Flowing Creek.

Land Cover

Woodlands cover 25 percent of the catchment and is below the 30 percent of forest cover that is identified as the minimum threshold for sustaining forest birds and other woodland dependent species (Figure 32).

Pre-settlement wetlands have declined by 79 percent and now cover nine percent (483 ha.) of the catchment (Figure 33). Thirty-four percent (167 ha.) of these wetlands remain unevaluated/unregulated and are vulnerable to drainage and land clearing activities in the absence of any regulatory and planning controls that would otherwise protect them for the many important hydrological, social, biological and ecological functions/services/values they provide to landowners and the surrounding community.

• Print

7.0 Flowing Creek Catchment: Opportunities/Actions

Water Quality/Quantity

Implement improved storm water and agricultural best management practices to address water quality concerns and retain existing shoreline vegetation. The Rural Clean Water Programs offer grants to landowners interested in implementing projects on their property that will help to protect and improve water quality:

• Homeowners may be interested in projects to repair, replace or upgrade their well or septic system, or addressing erosion through buffer plantings and erosion control
• Farmers can take advantage of a wide range of projects, including livestock fencing, manure storage, tile drainage control structures, cover crops, and many more

Continue to coordinate environmental monitoring and reporting activities with the City of Ottawa

Use wetland restoration as a tool to improve surface water quality and help restore the hydrologic integrity of the Jock River and its tributaries, including Flowing Creek

List, share and when possible, synthesize and use existing hydrological and geochemical datasets and assessment outcomes to facilitate the characterization of subwatershed and catchment hydrological functions. In addition, prepare guidance on best practices for the preparation of water budget assessments to better understand the hydrologic cycle requirements that occur at site specific scales; and share existing catchment and subwatershed scale water budget assessment outcomes

Flewellyn Special Study Area, Cumulative Effects Study has been initiated by the City of Ottawa to better understand the hydrology in the area and associated drainage concerns

Flowing Creek flood risk is being studied as part of ongoing efforts to prepare flood plain mapping for the Jock River subwatershed

Headwaters/Instream/Shorelines

Promote the Rideau Valley Shoreline Naturalization Program to landowners to increase existing 39 percent of natural shoreline cover

Educate landowners about the value of and best management practices used to maintain and enhance natural shorelines and headwater drainage features

Work with the City of Ottawa to consistently implement current land use planning and development policies for water quality and shoreline protection (i.e., adherence to a minimum 30 metre development setback from water) adjacent to the Jock River and other catchment watercourses, including Flowing Creek

Target shoreline restoration at sites identified in this report (shown as “Other riparian land cover” in Figure 35) and explore other restoration and enhancement opportunities along Flowing Creek and its tributaries

Land Cover

Promote the City of Ottawa’s Green Acres Reforestation Program to landowners to increase existing 25 percent of woodland cover

Encourage the City of Ottawa to strengthen natural heritage and water resources policies in official plans and zoning by-laws where shoreline, wetland, woodland cover and watercourse setbacks are determined to be at or below critical ecological thresholds. Information for this purpose is provided in the RVCA’s subwatershed and catchment reports

Explore ways and means to more effectively enforce and implement conditions of land-use planning and development approvals to achieve net environmental gains

Re-consider the RVCA’s approach to wetland regulation where there is an identified hydrologic imperative to do so (i.e., significant loss of historic wetland cover (see Figure 33) and/or seasonal, critically low baseflows in the Jock River and/or areas of seasonal flooding)

• Print

Full Catchment Report

• Print

Jock River Subwatershed Report 2016

Hobbs Drain Catchment

The RVCA produces individual reports for 12 catchments in the Jock River subwatershed. Using data collected and analyzed by the RVCA through its watershed monitoring and land cover classification programs, surface water quality and in-stream conditions are reported for the Jock River along with a summary of environmental conditions for the surrounding countryside every six years.

This information is used to better understand the effects of human activity on our water resources, allows us to better track environmental change over time and helps focus watershed management actions where they are needed the most to help sustain the ecosystem services (cultural, aesthetic and recreational values; provisioning of food, fuel and clean water; regulation of erosion/natural hazard protection and water purification; supporting nutrient/water cycling and habitat provision) provided by the catchment’s lands and forests and waters (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).

The following sections of this report for the Hobbs Drain catchment are a compilation of that work.

For other Jock River catchments and the Jock River Subwatershed Report, please visit the RVCA website at www.rvca.ca

• Print

1.0 Hobbs Drain Catchment: Facts

1.1 General/Physical Geography

Municipalities

• Ottawa: (32 km²; 100% of catchment)

Geology/Physiography

• Hobbs Drain Catchment resides within a transitionary area between the Ottawa Valley Clay Plain to the east and the Smith Falls Limestone Plain to the West. The southern half of the catchment is underlain by beach sands and gravels, sand plains and some areas of glacial till. Bedrock lies at the ground surface throughout the northern part of the catchment and is overlain, in areas by organic soils and localized areas of beach sands and gravels
• In this catchment, bedrock mostly consists of interbedded limestone and dolostone from the Gull River Formation. In addition, a geologic fault may pass through the catchment

Topography

• The ground surface ranges in elevation from approximately 155 masl south of Hwy 7 to approximately 96 masl at the catchment’s outlet

Drainage Area

• 32 square kilometers; occupies six percent of the Jock River subwatershed, one percent of the Rideau Valley watershed

Stream Length

• Hobbs Drain and tributaries: 66 km

1.2 Vulnerable Areas

Aquifer Vulnerability

• The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection initiative has mapped parts of the southern half of this catchment as a significant groundwater recharge area; and all the catchment as Highly Vulnerable Aquifer. Parts of Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA) C and D for the municipal wells in Richmond underlie the northern extent of this catchment. In addition, parts of the WHPAs B and C for the municipal wells in Munster Hamlet, underlie part of this catchment near Bleeks Road

Wetland Hydrology

• A watershed model developed by the RVCA in 2009 was used to study the hydrologic function of wetlands in the Rideau Valley Watershed, including those found in the Hobbs Drain catchment

1.3 Conditions at a Glance

• Surface chemistry water quality rating along the Hobbs Drain is “Fair” from 2009 to 2014. The score at this site is largely influenced by occasional high nutrient concentrations, bacterial pollution and metal (aluminum) exceedances (see Figure 2)
• Instream biological water quality conditions at the Hobbs Drain sample location range from “ Poor” to “Excellent” from 2004 to 2015 (using a grading scheme developed by Ontario Conservation Authorities in Ontario for benthic invertebrates) with an overall benthic invertebrate water quality rating of “Good” determined for this period

Instream and Riparian

• Overall instream and riparian condition for the Hobbs Drain is unknown

Thermal Regime

• Warm/cool water thermal guild supporting the Jock River fishery

Fish Community

• Twenty-three species of recreational and bait fish

Shoreline Cover Type (30 m. riparian area; 2014)

• Wetland (39%)
• Crop and Pasture (29%)
• Woodland (15%)
• Transportation (6%)
• Meadow-Thicket (5%)
• Settlement (4%)
• Aggregate (2%)

Land Cover Type (2014)

• Crop and Pasture (31%)
• Woodland (26%)
• Wetland (24%)
• Settlement (8%)
• Meadow-Thicket (6%)
• Transportation (3%)
• Aggregate (2%)
• Water (<1%)

Land Cover Change (2008 to 2014)

• Woodland (-22 ha)
• Aggregate (-6 ha)
• Wetland (-3 ha)
• Meadow-Thicket (0 ha)
• Transportation (0 ha)
• Water (+7 ha)
• Settlement (+8 ha)
• Crop and Pasture (+16 ha)

Significant Natural Features

• Goulbourn Provincially Significant Wetland
• Richmond Fen Provincially Significant Wetland

Water Wells

• Several hundred (~250) operational private water wells in the Hobbs Drain Catchment. Groundwater uses are mainly domestic, but also include public water supplies, livestock watering and commercial uses

Aggregates

• There are parts of 3 bedrock quarry licenses located and 2 sand and gravel pits within the catchment. Sand and gravel resources are mainly of tertiary importance

Species at Risk (Elemental Occurrence)

• Spotted Turtle (Endangered)
• Blanding’s Turtle, Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark (Threatened)
• Eastern Milksnake, Snapping Turtle, Yellow Rail (Special Concern)

1.4 Catchment Care

Stewardship

• Seventeen stewardship projects undertaken (see Section 5)

Environmental Monitoring

• Chemical surface (in-stream) water quality collection since 2003 (see Section 2)
• Benthic invertebrate (aquatic insect) surface (in-stream) water quality collection since 2003 (see Section 3.1.1)
• Six headwater drainage feature assessments in 2015 at road crossings in the catchment. The protocol measures zero, first and second order headwater drainage features and is a rapid assessment method characterizing the amount of water, sediment transport, and storage capacity within headwater drainage features (see Section 3.2)
• Groundwater level and chemistry data is available from PGMN wells located along Fernbank Road (W175) and in Stapledon (W084)

Environmental Management

• Development along the Hobbs Drain and in and adjacent to the Provincially Significant Wetlands in the catchment (Goulbourn, Richmond Fen) are subject to Ontario Regulation 174-06 (entitled “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses”) that protects the hydrologic function of the wetland and also protects landowners and their property from natural hazards (flooding, fluctuating water table, unstable soils) associated with them
• Two active Permits To Take Water (PTTW) in the Hobbs Drain catchment issued for pit /quarry dewatering
• Five Environmental Compliance Approvals and/or Environmental Activity and Sector Registrations in the Hobbs Drain Catchment. These are for a municipal or private sewage work; industrial sewage works; and a municipal drinking water system

• Print

2.0 Hobbs Drain Catchment: Surface Water Quality Conditions

Surface water quality conditions in the Hobbs Drain Catchment are monitored by the City of Ottawa Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Program. This program provides information on the condition of Ottawa’s surface water resources; data is collected for multiple parameters including nutrients (total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and ammonia), E. coli, metals (like aluminum and copper) and additional chemical/physical parameters (such as alkalinity, chlorides, pH and total suspended solids). The locations of monitoring sites are shown in Figure 2 and Table 1.

2.1 Hobbs Drain Water Quality Rating

The RVCA's water quality rating for Hobbs Drain (site JCK-247) is “Fair” (Table 1) as determined by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Water Quality Index.  A “Fair” rating indicates that water quality is usually protected but is occasionally threatened or impaired; conditions sometimes depart from natural or desirable levels. Each parameter is evaluated against established guidelines to determine water quality conditions. Those parameters that frequently exceed guidelines are presented below. There is limited data available at this site prior to 2010, therefore only information for the 2010-2015 period will be discussed. Table 1 shows the overall rating for the monitored surface water quality site within the Hobbs Drain Catchment and Table 2 outlines the Water Quality Index (WQI) scores and their corresponding ratings.

There is one monitored water quality site on Hobbs Drain within this catchment (JCK-247, Figure 2). The score at this site is largely influenced by occasional high nutrient concentrations, bacterial pollution and metal (aluminum) exccedances. For more information on the CCME WQI, please see the Jock River Subwatershed Report. 

2.2 Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and may contribute to abundant aquatic vegetation growth and depleted dissolved oxygen levels. The Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) is used as the TP Guideline and states that in streams concentrations greater than 0.030 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP.

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and ammonia (NH₃) are used as secondary indicators of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN^[1] and the PWQO of 0.020 mg/l to assess NH₃ concentrations in the Jock River.

Tables 3, 4 and 5 summarize average nutrient concentrations at monitored sites within the Hobbs Drain catchment and show the proportion of results that meet the guidelines.

Monitoring Site JCK-247

TP results rarely exceeded the PWQO at site JCK-247. Eighty-four percent of samples were below the guideline (Figure 3). The average TP concentration was below the objective at 0.020 mg/l as shown in Table 3.

The bulk of TKN results were elevated (Figure 4); only 25 percent of samples were below the guideline in the 2010-2015 period. The average concentrations exceeded the guideline at 0.610 mg/l (Table 4).

The results for NH₃ indicate that exceedances occurred occasionally. Sixty-three percent of results were below the guideline in 2010-2015 reporting period (Figure 5). The average NH₃ was 0.020 mg/l and just meets the PWQO (Table 5).

Summary

Occasional nutrient enrichment is a feature in this reach of Hobbs Drain. The elevated TKN concentrations and moderate NH₃ results provide evidence that elevated nutrients may be a natural feature in this part of the drain.  Occasional exceedances of both NH₃ and TP indicate that some nutrient loading may occur from upstream anthropogenic sources such as fertilizer use, agricultural activities and storm water runoff. Elevated nutrients may result in nutrient loading downstream and to the Jock River. High nutrient concentrations can help stimulate the growth of algae blooms and other aquatic vegetation in a waterbody and deplete oxygen levels as the vegetation dies off. Best management practices (i.e. buffered shorelines, maintianing native shoreline vegetation, restricting livestock access to surface water, etc) should be employed wherever possible to limit nutrient loading to the waterbody.

2.3 Escherichia coli

Escherichia coli (E. coli) is used as an indicator of bacterial pollution from human or animal waste; in elevated concentrations it can pose a risk to human health. The PWQO of 100 colony forming units/100 millilitres (CFU/100 ml) is used. E. coli counts greater than this guideline indicate that bacterial contamination may be a problem within a waterbody.

Table 6 summarizes the geometric mean^[2] for the monitored site on the Hobb’s Drain and shows the proportion of samples that meet the E. coli guideline of 100 CFU/100 ml. The results of the geometric mean with respect to the guideline in the 2010-2015 period is shown in Figure 6.

Monitoring Site JCK-247

Elevated E. coli counts at site JCK-247 were a common occurrence. The proportion of samples below the guideline was 33 percent (Figure 6). The geometric mean was 130 CFU/100ml (Table 6), and exceed the PWQO of 100 CFU/100ml.

Summary

Bacterial pollution appears to be a concern at this site, the count at the geometric mean exceeds the PWQO and the majority of samples exceed the guideline. Best management practices such as enhancing shoreline buffers, minimizing storm water runoff and restricting livestock access to creeks can help to protect this reach of Hobbs Drain into the future.

2.4 Metals

Of the metals routinely monitored in Hobbs Drain Catchment, aluminum (Al) occasionally reported concentrations above the PWQO. In elevated concentrations metals can have toxic effects on sensitive aquatic species.

Table 7 summarizes metal concentrations at sites JCK-247 as well as show the proportion of samples that meet guidelines. Figure 7 shows metal concentrations with respect to the guideline (PWQO) of 0.075 mg/l.

Monitoring Site JCK-247

The average Al concentration of 0.100 mg/l at site JCK-247 exceeded the guideline (Table 7). The majority of samples (56 percent) were below the guideline (Figure 7) from 2010-2015.

Summary

In the Hobbs Drain catchment aluminum concentrations often exceed the PWQO.  The most elevated concentrations are observed during the spring likely due to increased runoff amounts from melt conditions, efforts should continue to be made to identify pollution sources and implement best management practices to reduce any inputs (such as storm water runoff, metal alloys, fungicides and pesticides) to improve overall stream health and lessen downstream impacts.

• Print

3.0 Hobbs Drain Catchment: Riparian Conditions

3.1 Hobbs Drain Instream Aquatic Habitat

3.1.1 Benthic Invertebrates

Freshwater benthic invertebrates are animals without backbones that live on the stream bottom and include crustaceans such as crayfish, molluscs and immature forms of aquatic insects. Benthos represent an extremely diverse group of aquatic animals and exhibit wide ranges of responses to stressors such as organic pollutants, sediments and toxicants, which allows scientists to use them as bioindicators.  As part of the Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network (OBBN), the RVCA has been collecting benthic invertebrates at the Bleeks Road site on Hobbs Drain since 2004. Monitoring data is analyzed for each sample site and the results are presented using the Family Biotic Index, Family Richness and percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera.

Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index

The Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (FBI) is an indicator of organic and nutrient pollution and provides an estimate of water quality conditions for each site using established pollution tolerance values for benthic invertebrates. FBI results for the Hobbs Drain catchment sample location at Bleeks Road are separated by reporting period 2004 to 2009 and 2010 to 2015.  A wide ranging “Excellent” to “Poor” water quality conditions were observed at the Hobbs Drain sample location for the period from 2004 to 2015 (Figure 8) using a grading scheme developed by Conservation Authorities in Ontario for benthic invertebrates. 

Family Richness

Family Richness measures the health of the community through its diversity and increases with increasing habitat diversity suitability and healthy water quality conditions. Family Richness is equivalent to the total number of benthic invertebrate families found within a sample.   The Hobbs Drain site is reported to have “Fair” to “Good” family richness (Figure 9).

EPT

Ephemeroptera (Mayflies), Plecoptera (Stoneflies), and Trichoptera (Caddisflies) are species considered to be very sensitive to poor water quality conditions. High abundance of these organisms is generally an indication of good water quality conditions at a sample location.  During more recent sampling years the community structure has been shifting to species that are more sensitive to poor water quality conditions. As a result, the EPT indicates that the Hobbs Drain sample location is reported to have “Fair” to “Good” water quality (Figure 10) from 2004 to 2015.

Conclusion

Overall the Hobbs Drain sample location aquatic habitat conditions from a benthic invertebrate perspective is considered “Good” from 2004 to 2015 as the samples are dominated by species that are moderately sensitive and sensitive to high organic pollution levels.

3.1.2 Thermal Regime

Many factors can influence fluctuations in stream temperature, including springs, tributaries, precipitation runoff, discharge pipes and stream shading from riparian vegetation. Water temperature is used along with the maximum air temperature (using the Stoneman and Jones method) to classify a watercourse as either warm water, cool water or cold water. Figure 11 shows where the thermal sampling sites were located along Hobbs Drain.  Analysis of the data collected indicates that Hobbs Drain is classified as a cool water system with cool to warm water reaches (Figure 12).  

3.1.3 Fish Community

The Hobbs Drain catchment is classified as a mixed community of warm and cool water recreational and baitfish fishery with 23 species observed. Figure 13 shows the sampling locations in the Hobbs Drain catchment.

The following table contains a list of species observed in the watershed.

3.2 Headwater Drainage Features Assessment

3.2.1 Headwater Sampling Locations

The RVCA Stream Characterization program assessed Headwater Drainage Features for the Jock River subwatershed in 2015. This protocol measures zero, first and second order headwater drainage features (HDF).  It is a rapid assessment method characterizing the amount of water, sediment transport, and storage capacity within headwater drainage features (HDF). RVCA is working with other Conservation Authorities and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to implement the protocol with the goal of providing standard datasets to support science development and monitoring of headwater drainage features.  An HDF is a depression in the land that conveys surface flow. Additionally, this module provides a means of characterizing the connectivity, form and unique features associated with each HDF (OSAP Protocol, 2013). In 2015 the program sampled 6 sites at road crossings in the Hobbs Drain catchment area (Figure 14). 

3.2.2 Headwater Feature Type

The headwater sampling protocol assesses the feature type in order to understand the function of each feature.  The evaluation includes the following classifications: defined natural channel, channelized or constrained, multi-thread, no defined feature, tiled, wetland, swale, roadside ditch and pond outlet.  By assessing the values associated with the headwater drainage features in the catchment area we can understand the ecosystem services that they provide to the watershed in the form of hydrology, sediment transport, and aquatic and terrestrial functions. Five features were classified as having been channelized and one feature was identified as natural. Figure 15 shows the feature type of the primary feature at the sampling locations.

3.2.3 Headwater Feature Flow

The observed flow condition within headwater drainage features can be highly variable depending on timing relative to the spring freshet, recent rainfall, soil moisture, etc.  Flow conditions are assessed in the spring and in the summer to determine if features are perennial and flow year round, if they are intermittent and dry up during the summer months or if they are ephemeral systems that do not flow regularly and generally respond to specific rainstorm events or snowmelt.  Flow conditions in headwater systems can change from year to year depending on local precipitation patterns. Figure 16 shows the observed flow conditions at the sampling locations in the Hobbs Drain catchment in 2015.

3.2.4 Feature Channel Modifications

Channel modifications were assessed at each headwater drainage feature sampling location.  Modifications include dredging, channel hardening and mixed modifications.  The Hobbs Drain catchment area had one site classified as having no channel modifications, two features were classified as being hardened, two had been dredged and one had mixed modifications. Figure 17 shows the channel modifications observed at the sampling locations for Hobbs Drain.

3.2.5 Headwater Feature Vegetation

Headwater feature vegetation evaluates the type of vegetation that is found within the drainage feature.  The type of vegetated within the channel influences the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem values that the feature provides.  For some types of headwater features the vegetation within the feature plays a very important role in flow and sediment movement and provides fish and wildlife habitat.  The following classifications are evaluated no vegetation, lawn, wetland, meadow, scrubland and forest.  The features assessed in the Hobbs Drain catchment were classified being dominated by wetland and meadow vegetation.  Figure 18 depicts the dominant vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Hobbs Drain catchment.

3.2.6 Headwater Feature Riparian Vegetation

Headwater riparian vegetation evaluates the type of vegetation that is found along the adjacent lands of a headwater drainage feature.  The type of vegetation within the riparian corridor influences the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem values that the feature provides to the watershed.  Three sample locations in Hobbs Drain were dominated by natural vegetation in the form of scrubland, meadow and wetland vegetation. Three sample locations were dominated by other forms of vegetation of either crops or ornamental grasses. Figure 19 depicts the type of riparian vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Hobbs Drain catchment.

3.2.7 Headwater Feature Sediment Deposition

Assessing the amount of recent sediment deposited in a channel provides an index of the degree to which the feature could be transporting sediment to downstream reaches (OSAP, 2013).  Evidence of excessive sediment deposition might indicate the requirement to follow up with more detailed targeted assessments upstream of the site location to identify potential best management practices to be implemented.  Conditions ranged from no deposition observed to extensive deposition recorded. Figure 20 depicts the degree of sediment deposition observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Hobbs Drain catchment.

3.2.8 Headwater Feature Upstream Roughness

Feature roughness will provide a measure of the amount of materials within the bankfull channel that could slow down the velocity of water flowing within the headwater feature (OSAP, 2013).  Materials on the channel bottom that provide roughness include vegetation, woody debris and boulders/cobble substrates.  Roughness can provide benefits in mitigating downstream erosion on the headwater drainage feature and the receiving watercourse by reducing velocities.  Roughness also provides important habitat conditions for aquatic organisms. The sample locations in the Hobbs Drain catchment area ranged from minimal to high roughness conditions.  Figure 21 shows the feature roughness conditions at the sampling locations in the Hobbs Drain catchment.

• Print

4.0 Hobbs Drain Catchment: Land Cover

Land cover and any change in coverage that has occurred over a six year period is summarized for the Hobbs Drain catchment using spatially continuous vector data representing the catchment during the spring of 2008 and 2014. This dataset was developed by the RVCA through heads-up digitization of 20cm DRAPE ortho-imagery at a 1:4000 scale and details the surrounding landscape using 10 land cover classes.

4.1 Hobbs Drain Catchment Change

As shown in Table 9, the dominant land cover type in 2014 was crop and pastureland, followed by woodland and wetland.

From 2008 to 2014, there was an overall change of 44 hectares (from one land cover class to another). Most of the change in the Hobbs Drain catchment is a result of the conversion of woodland to crop and pastureland (Figure 22).

Table 10 provides a detailed breakdown of all land cover change that has taken place in the Hobbs Drain catchment between 2008 and 2014.

4.2 Woodland Cover

In the Environment Canada Guideline (Third Edition) entitled “How Much Habitat Is Enough?” (hereafter referred to as the “Guideline”) the opening narrative under the Forest Habitat Guidelines section states that prior to European settlement, forest was the predominant habitat in the Mixedwood Plains ecozone. The remnants of this once vast forest now exist in a fragmented state in many areas (including the Rideau Valley watershed) with woodland patches of various sizes distributed across the settled landscape along with higher levels of forest cover associated with features such as the Frontenac Axis (within the on-Shield areas of the Rideau Lakes and Tay River subwatersheds). The forest legacy, in terms of the many types of wildlife species found, overall species richness, ecological functions provided and ecosystem complexity is still evident in the patches and regional forest matrices (found in the Jock River subwatershed and elsewhere in the Rideau Valley watershed). These ecological features are in addition to other influences which forests have on water quality and stream hydrology including reducing soil erosion, producing oxygen, storing carbon along with many other ecological services that are essential not only for wildlife but for human well-being.

The Guideline also notes that forests provide a great many habitat niches that are in turn occupied by a great diversity of plant and animal species. They provide food, water and shelter for these species - whether they are breeding and resident locally or using forest cover to help them move across the landscape. This diversity of species includes many that are considered to be species at risk. Furthermore, from a wildlife perspective, there is increasing evidence that the total forest cover in a given area is a major predictor of the persistence and size of bird populations, and it is possible or perhaps likely that this pattern extends to other flora and fauna groups. The overall effect of a decrease in forest cover on birds in fragmented landscapes is that certain species disappear and many of the remaining ones become rare, or fail to reproduce, while species adapted to more open and successional habitats, as well as those that are more tolerant to human-induced disturbances in general, are able to persist and in some cases thrive. Species with specialized-habitat requirements are most likely to be adversely affected. The overall pattern of distribution of forest cover, the shape, area and juxtaposition of remaining forest patches and the quality of forest cover also play major roles in determining how valuable forests will be to wildlife and people alike.

The current science generally supports minimum forest habitat requirements between 30 and 50 percent, with some limited evidence that the upper limit may be even higher, depending on the organism/species phenomenon under investigation or land-use/resource management planning regime being considered/used.

As shown in Figure 23, 30 percent of the Hobbs Drain catchment contains 847 hectares of upland forest and 111 hectares of lowland forest (treed swamps) versus the 26 percent of woodland cover in the Jock River subwatershed. This equals the 30 percent of forest cover that is identified as the minimum threshold required to sustain forest birds according to the Guideline and which may only support less than one half of potential species richness and marginally healthy aquatic systems. When forest cover drops below 30 percent, forest birds tend to disappear as breeders across the landscape.

4.2.1 Woodland (Patch) Size

According to the Ministry of Natural Resources’ Natural Heritage Reference Manual (Second Edition), larger woodlands are more likely to contain a greater diversity of plant and animal species and communities than smaller woodlands and have a greater relative importance for mobile animal species such as forest birds.

Bigger forests often provide a different type of habitat. Many forest birds breed far more successfully in larger forests than they do in smaller woodlots and some rely heavily on forest interior conditions. Populations are often healthier in regions with more forest cover and where forest fragments are grouped closely together or connected by corridors of natural habitat. Small forests support small numbers of wildlife. Some species are “area-sensitive” and tend not to inhabit small woodlands, regardless of forest interior conditions. Fragmented habitat also isolates local populations, especially small mammals, amphibians and reptiles with limited mobility. This reduces the healthy mixing of genetic traits that helps populations survive over the long run (Conserving the Forest Interior. Ontario Extension Notes, 2000).

The Environment Canada Guideline also notes that for forest plants that do not disperse broadly or quickly, preservation of some relatively undisturbed large forest patches is needed to sustain them because of their restricted dispersal abilities and specialized habitat requirements and to ensure continued seed or propagation sources for restored or regenerating areas nearby.

The Natural Heritage Reference Manual continues by stating that a larger size also allows woodlands to support more resilient nutrient cycles and food webs and to be big enough to permit different and important successional stages to co-exist. Small, isolated woodlands are more susceptible to the effects of blowdown, drought, disease, insect infestations, and invasions by predators and non-indigenous plants. It is also known that the viability of woodland wildlife depends not only on the characteristics of the woodland in which they reside, but also on the characteristics of the surrounding landscape where the woodland is situated. Additionally, the percentage of forest cover in the surrounding landscape, the presence of ecological barriers such as roads, the ability of various species to cross the matrix surrounding the woodland and the proximity of adjacent habitats interact with woodland size in influencing the species assemblage within a woodland.

In the Hobbs Drain catchment (in 2014), eighty-two (52 percent) of the 156 woodland patches are very small, being less than one hectare in size. Another 63 (40 percent) of the woodland patches ranging from one to less than 20 hectares in size tend to be dominated by edge-tolerant bird species. The remaining 11 (eight percent of) woodland patches range between 22 and 120 hectares in size. Ten of these patches contain woodland between 20 and 100 hectares and may support a few area-sensitive species and some edge intolerant species, but will be dominated by edge tolerant species.

Conversely, one (one percent) of the 156 woodland patches in the drainage area exceeds the 100 plus hectare size needed to support most forest dependent, area sensitive birds and is large enough to support approximately 60 percent of edge-intolerant species. No patch tops 200 hectares, which according to the Environment Canada Guideline will support 80 percent of edge-intolerant forest bird species (including most area sensitive species) that prefer interior forest habitat conditions.

Table 11 presents a comparison of woodland patch size in 2008 and 2014 along with any changes that have occurred over that time. A decrease (of 23 ha) has been observed in the overall woodland patch area between the two reporting periods with most change occurring in the 50 to 100 hectare woodland patch size class range.

4.2.2 Woodland (Forest) Interior Habitat

The forest interior is habitat deep within woodlands. It is a sheltered, secluded environment away from the influence of forest edges and open habitats. Some people call it the “core” or the “heart” of a woodland. The presence of forest interior is a good sign of woodland health, and is directly related to the woodland’s size and shape. Large woodlands with round or square outlines have the greatest amount of forest interior. Small, narrow woodlands may have no forest interior conditions at all. Forest interior habitat is a remnant natural environment, reminiscent of the extensive, continuous forests of the past. This increasingly rare forest habitat is now a refuge for certain forest-dependent wildlife; they simply must have it to survive and thrive in a fragmented forest landscape (Conserving the Forest Interior. Ontario Extension Notes, 2000).

The Natural Heritage Reference Manual states that woodland interior habitat is usually defined as habitat more than 100 metres from the edge of the woodland and provides for relative seclusion from outside influences along with a moister, more sheltered and productive forest habitat for certain area sensitive species. Woodlands with interior habitat have centres that are more clearly buffered against the edge effects of agricultural activities or more harmful urban activities than those without.

In the Hobbs Drain catchment (in 2014), the 156 woodland patches contain 36 forest interior patches (Figure 23) that occupy three percent (89 ha.) of the catchment land area (which is equivalent to the three percent of interior forest in the Jock River Subwatershed). This is below the ten percent figure referred to in the Environment Canada Guideline that is considered to be the minimum threshold for supporting edge intolerant bird species and other forest dwelling species in the landscape.

Most patches (35) have less than 10 hectares of interior forest, 21 of which have small areas of interior forest habitat less than one hectare in size. Between 2008 and 2014, there has been an increase in the number of woodland patches containing smaller areas of interior habitat with an overall gain of three hectares in the catchment (Table 12), suggesting an increase in forest fragmentation over the six year period.

4.3 Wetland Cover

Wetlands are habitats forming the interface between aquatic and terrestrial systems. They are among the most productive and biologically diverse habitats on the planet. By the 1980s, according to the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 68 percent of the original wetlands south of the Precambrian Shield in Ontario had been lost through encroachment, land clearance, drainage and filling.

Wetlands perform a number of important ecological and hydrological functions and provide an array of social and economic benefits that society values. Maintaining wetland cover in a watershed provides many ecological, economic, hydrological and social benefits that are listed in the Reference Manual and which may include:

• contributing to the stabilization of shorelines and to the reduction of erosion damage through the mitigation of water flow and soil binding by plant roots
• mitigating surface water flow by storing water during periods of peak flow (such as spring snowmelt and heavy rainfall events) and releasing water during periods of low flow (this mitigation of water flow also contributes to a reduction of flood damage)
• contributing to an improved water quality through the trapping of sediments, the removal and/or retention of excess nutrients, the immobilization and/or degradation of contaminants and the removal of bacteria
• providing renewable harvesting of timber, fuel wood, fish, wildlife and wild rice
• contributing to a stable, long-term water supply in areas of groundwater recharge and discharge
• providing a high diversity of habitats that support a wide variety of plants and animals
• acting as “carbon sinks” making a significant contribution to carbon storage
• providing opportunities for recreation, education, research and tourism

Historically, the overall wetland coverage within the Great Lakes basin exceeded 10 percent, but there was significant variability among watersheds and jurisdictions, as stated in the Environment Canada Guideline. In the Rideau Valley Watershed, it has been estimated that pre-settlement wetland cover averaged 35 percent using information provided by Ducks Unlimited Canada (2010) versus the 21 percent of wetland cover existing in 2014 derived from DRAPE imagery analysis.

Using the same dataset, it is estimated that pre-settlement (historic) wetland cover averaged 51 percent in the Jock River subwatershed versus the 24 percent of cover existing in 2014 (as summarized in Table 13).

This decline in wetland cover is also evident in the Hobbs Drain catchment (as seen in Figure 24) where wetland was reported to cover 28 percent of the area prior to settlement, as compared to 24 percent in 2014. This represents a 17 percent loss of historic wetland cover. To maintain critical hydrological, ecological functions along with related recreational and economic benefits provided by these wetland habitats in the catchment, a “no net loss” of currently existing wetlands should be employed to ensure the continued provision of tangible benefits accruing from them to landowners and surrounding communities.

4.4 Shoreline Cover

The riparian or shoreline zone is that special area where the land meets the water. Well-vegetated shorelines are critically important in protecting water quality and creating healthy aquatic habitats, lakes and rivers. Natural shorelines intercept sediments and contaminants that could impact water quality conditions and harm fish habitat in streams. Well established buffers protect the banks against erosion, improve habitat for fish by shading and cooling the water and provide protection for birds and other wildlife that feed and rear young near water. A recommended target (from the Environment Canada Guideline) is to maintain a minimum 30 metre wide vegetated buffer along at least 75 percent of the length of both sides of rivers, creeks and streams.

Figure 25 shows the extent of the ‘Natural’ vegetated riparian zone (predominantly wetland/woodland features) and ‘Other’ anthropogenic cover (crop/pastureland, roads/railways, settlements) along a 30-metre-wide area of land, both sides of the shoreline of the Jock River and its tributaries in the Hobbs Drain catchment.

This analysis shows that the riparian zone in the Hobbs Drain catchment in 2014 was comprised of wetland (39 percent), crop and pastureland (29 percent), woodland (15 percent), transportation (six percent), meadow-thicket (five percent), settlement (four percent) and aggregates (two percent). Additional statistics for the Hobbs Drain catchment are presented in Table 14 and show that there has been very little change in shoreline cover from 2008 to 2014.

• Print

5.0 Hobbs Drain Catchment: Stewardship and Water Resources Protection

The RVCA and its partners are working to protect and enhance environmental conditions in the Jock River Subwatershed. Figure 26 shows the location of all stewardship projects completed in the Hobbs Drain catchment along with sites identified for potential shoreline restoration.

5.1 Rural Clean Water Projects

From 2010 to 2015, one well decommissioning was completed and between 2004 and 2009, two well upgrades and one septic system replacement were completed. Total value of the four projects is $24,594 with $3,684 of that amount funded through grant dollars from the RVCA.

5.2 Private Land Forestry Projects

The location of RVCA tree planting projects is shown in Figure 26. From 2010 to 2015, 5,000 trees were planted at one site. Between 2004 and 2009, 2,700 trees were planted at two sites and prior to 2004, 16,350 trees were planted at five sites, In total, 24,050 trees were planted resulting in the reforestation of 12 hectares. One of these projects was completed within the 30 metre riparian zone of the Hobbs Drain. Total project value of all eight projects is $82,426 with $30,779 of that amount coming from fundraising sources.

Through the RVCA Butternut Recovery Program, an additional 10 butternut trees were planted in the Hobbs Drain catchment (Figure 26) between 2010 and 2015, as part of efforts to introduce healthy seedlings from tolerant butternuts into various locations across Eastern Ontario.

5.3 Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Projects

Figure 26 shows the location of all Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program (ODWSP) projects in the Hobbs Drain catchment. From 2010 to 2015, five fuel handling and storage facilities were constructed at a total value of $29,108 with $3,569 of that amount funded by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

5.4 Valley, Stream, Wetland and Hazard Lands

The Hobbs Drain catchment covers 32 square kilometres with 4.5 square kilometres (or 14 percent) of the drainage area being within the regulation limit of Ontario Regulation 174/06 (Figure 27), giving protection to wetland areas and river or stream valleys that are affected by flooding and erosion hazards.

Wetlands occupy 7.6 sq. km. (or 24 percent) of the catchment. Of these wetlands, 4.2 sq. km (or 56 percent) are designated as provincially significant and included within the RVCA regulation limit. This leaves the remaining 3.3 sq. km (or 44 percent) of wetlands in the catchment outside the regulated area limit.

Of the 65.8 kilometres of stream in the catchment, regulation limit mapping has been plotted along 11.8 kilometers of streams (representing 18 percent of all streams in the catchment). Some of these regulated watercourses (9.7 km or 15 percent of all streams) flow through regulated wetlands; the remaining 2.1 km (or 18 percent) of regulated streams are located outside of those wetlands. Plotting of the regulation limit on the remaining 54 km (or 82 percent) of streams requires identification of flood and erosion hazards and valley systems.

Within those areas of the Hobbs Drain catchment subject to the regulation (limit), efforts (have been made and) continue through RVCA planning and regulations input and review to manage the impact of development (and other land management practices) in areas where “natural hazards” are associated with rivers, streams, valley lands and wetlands. For areas beyond the regulation limit, protection of the catchment’s watercourses is only provided through the “alteration to waterways” provision of the regulation.

5.5 Vulnerable Drinking Water Areas

A portion of the Wellhead Protection Area around the Munster municipal drinking water source is located within the Hobbs Drain drainage catchment. This area is subject to mandatory policies in the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan developed under the Clean Water Act. These policies specifically regulate land uses and activities that are considered drinking water threats, thereby reducing the risk of contamination of the municipal drinking water source.

The Hobbs Drain drainage catchment is also considered to have a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer. This means that the nature of the overburden (thin soils, fractured bedrock) does not provide a high level of protection for the underlying groundwater making the aquifer more vulnerable to contaminants released on the surface. The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan includes policies that focus on the protection of groundwater region-wide due to the fact that most of the region, which encompasses the Mississippi and Rideau watersheds, is considered Highly Vulnerable Aquifer.

The lands immediately to the west and north of Munster Hamlet are also considered a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area. This means that there is a volume of water moving from the surface into the ground and groundwater serves either as a municipal drinking water source or supplies a coldwater ecosystem such as a brook trout stream. The Plan was not required to include policies to specifically address Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas. 

For detailed maps and policies that have been developed to protect drinking water sources, please go to the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region website at www.mrsourcewater.ca to view the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan.

• Print

6.0 Hobbs Drain Catchment: Challenges/Issues

Water Quality/Quantity

Surface chemistry water quality rating along the Hobbs Drain is “Fair”. The score at this site is largely influenced by occasional high nutrient concentrations, bacterial pollution and metal (aluminum) exceedances.

Instream biological water quality conditions at the Hobbs Drain sample location range from “ Poor” to “Excellent” from 2004 to 2015 (using a grading scheme developed by Ontario Conservation Authorities in Ontario for benthic invertebrates) with an overall benthic invertebrate water quality rating of “Good” determined for this period.

Natural hazard lands have not been identified.

Drainage problems have led to establishment of altered wetland conditions and land use conflict (amongst development, quarry, agriculture and wetland conservation interests).

Existing hydrological and geochemical datasets and assessments (academic, RVCA, others) are only recently available and/or are not being considered in the characterization of the numerous hydrologic functions of the Jock River subwatershed. Further, there is a dearth of hydrologic information (hydroperiod, groundwater/surface water interactions, geochemistry) about the wetlands that remain in the Jock River subwatershed.

Headwaters/Instream/Shorelines

‘Natural’ vegetation covers 58 percent of the riparian zone of the Hobbs Drain and its tributaries (Figure 25 and is below the recommended 30 metre wide, naturally vegetated target along 75 percent of the length of the catchment’s watercourses

No information available about instream aquatic and riparian conditions along Hobbs Drain

Land Cover

Woodlands cover 30 percent of the catchment and equals the 30 percent of forest cover that is identified as the minimum threshold for sustaining forest birds and other woodland dependent species (Figure 23)

Pre-settlement wetlands have declined by 17 percent and now cover 24 percent (756 ha.) of the catchment (Figure 24). Forty-four percent (334 ha.) of these wetlands remain unevaluated/unregulated and are vulnerable to drainage and land clearing activities in the absence of any regulatory and planning controls that would otherwise protect them for the many important hydrological, social, biological and ecological functions/services/values they provide to landowners and the surrounding community

• Print

7.0 Hobbs Drain Catchment: Opportunities/Actions

Water Quality/Quantity

Offer the suite of water quality improvement projects (including the new tile drainage control outlet management funding) provided by the Rideau Valley Rural Clean Water Program to landowners where opportunities exist to manage rural runoff to the Hobbs Drain and tributaries:

• Homeowners may be interested in projects to repair, replace or upgrade their well or septic system, or addressing erosion through buffer plantings and erosion control
• Farmers can take advantage of a wide range of projects, including livestock fencing, manure storage, tile drainage control structures, cover crops, and many more

Continue to coordinate environmental monitoring and reporting activities with the City of Ottawa 

Use wetland restoration as a tool to improve surface water quality and help restore the hydrologic integrity of the Jock River and its tributaries, including Hobbs Drain

List, share and when possible, synthesize and use existing hydrological and geochemical datasets and assessment outcomes to facilitate the characterization of subwatershed and catchment hydrological functions. In addition, prepare guidance on best practices for the preparation of water budget assessments to better understand the hydrologic cycle requirements that occur at site specific scales; and share existing catchment and subwatershed scale water budget assessment outcomes

Flewellyn Special Study Area, Cumulative Effects Study has been initiated by the City of Ottawa to better understand the hydrology in the area and associated drainage concerns

Hobbs Drain flood risks are to be studied as part of ongoing efforts to prepare flood plain mapping for the Jock River subwatershed

Headwaters/Instream/Shorelines

Promote the Rideau Valley Shoreline Naturalization Program to landowners to increase existing 39 percent of natural shoreline cover

Educate landowners about the value of and best management practices used to maintain and enhance natural shorelines and headwater drainage features

Work with the City of Ottawa to consistently implement current land use planning and development policies for water quality and shoreline protection (i.e., adherence to a minimum 30 metre development setback from water) adjacent to the Jock River and other catchment watercourses, including the Hobbs Drain

Target shoreline restoration at sites identified in this report (shown as “Other riparian land cover” in Figure 25) and explore other restoration and enhancement opportunities along the Hobbs Drain and its tributaries

Land Cover

Promote the City of Ottawa’s Green Acres Reforestation Program to landowners to increase existing 30 percent of woodland cover

Encourage the City of Ottawa to strengthen natural heritage and water resources policies in official plans and zoning by-laws where shoreline, wetland, woodland cover and watercourse setbacks are determined to be at or below critical ecological thresholds. Information for this purpose is provided in the RVCA’s subwatershed and catchment reports

Explore ways and means to more effectively enforce and implement conditions of land-use planning and development approvals to achieve net environmental gains

Re-consider the RVCA’s approach to wetland regulation where there is an identified hydrologic imperative to do so (i.e., significant loss of historic wetland cover (see Figure 24) and/or seasonal, critically low baseflows in the Jock River and/or areas of seasonal flooding)

• Print

Full Catchment Report

• Print

Jock River Subwatershed Report 2016

JENKINSON DRAIN CATCHMENT

The RVCA produces individual reports for 12 catchments in the Jock River subwatershed. Using data collected and analyzed by the RVCA through its watershed monitoring and land cover classification programs, surface water quality and in-stream conditions are reported for the Jock River along with a summary of environmental conditions for the surrounding countryside every six years.

This information is used to better understand the effects of human activity on our water resources, allows us to better track environmental change over time and helps focus watershed management actions where they are needed the most to help sustain the ecosystem services (cultural, aesthetic and recreational values; provisioning of food, fuel and clean water; regulation of erosion/natural hazard protection and water purification; supporting nutrient/water cycling and habitat provision) provided by the catchment’s lands and forests and waters (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).

The following sections of this report for the Jenkinson Drain catchment are a compilation of that work.

For other Jock River catchments and the Jock River Subwatershed Report, please visit the RVCA website at www.rvca.ca

• Print

1.0 Jenkinson Drain Catchment: Facts

1.1 General/Physical Geography

Municipalities

• Ottawa: (23 km²; 100% of catchment)

Geology/Physiography

• The Jenkinson Drain Catchment resides with an extensive physiographic region known as the Smith Falls Limestone Plain. In this catchment, the limestone plain is overlain by glacial till in the southern parts and across the northern parts, significant areas of organic soils and some localized areas of beach sands and gravels
• In this catchment, bedrock mostly consists of interbedded limestone and dolostone from the Gull River Formation, some dolostone from the Oxford Formation in the southern parts, and some limestone from the Bobcaygeon Formation in the northern parts. In addition, geologic faults may pass through the catchment

Topography

• The ground surface ranges in elevation from approximately 162 masl north of Hwy 7 to approximately 114 masl at the catchment’s outlet

Drainage Area

• 23 square kilometers; occupies four percent of the Jock River subwatershed, one-half percent of the Rideau Valley watershed

Stream Length

• Jenkinson Drain and tributaries: 58 km

1.2 Vulnerable Areas

Aquifer Vulnerability

• The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection initiative has mapped scattered parts of this catchment as a significant groundwater recharge areas and all the catchment as Highly Vulnerable Aquifer. Parts of Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA) B, C and D for the municipal wells in Munster Hamlet underlie most of this catchment

Wetland Hydrology

• A watershed model developed by the RVCA in 2009 was used to study the hydrologic function of wetlands in the Rideau Valley Watershed, including those found in the Jenkinson Drain catchment

1.3 Conditions at a Glance

Water Quality

• Surface chemistry water quality rating for the Jenkinson Drain is unknown
• Instream biological water quality conditions in the Jenkinson Drain are unknown

Instream and Riparian

• Overall instream and riparian condition for the Jenkinson Drain is unknown

Thermal Regime

• Warm/cool water thermal guild supporting the Jock River fishery

Fish Community

• Five species of bait fish

Shoreline Cover Type (30 m. riparian area; 2014)

• Crop and Pasture (32%)
• Wetland (20%)
• Woodland (20%)
• Settlement (19%)
• Transportation (7%)
• Aggregate (1)
• Meadow-Thicket (<1%)

Land Cover Type (2014)

• Crop and Pasture (37%)
• Woodland (25%)
• Wetland (14%)
• Settlement (14%)
• Meadow-Thicket (4%)
• Transportation (3%)
• Aggregate (2%)
• Water (<1%)

Land Cover Change (2008 to 2014)

• Crop and Pasture (-23 ha)
• Woodland (-23 ha)
• Meadow-Thicket (-11 ha)
• Wetland (-3 ha)
• Aggregate (-1 ha)
• Water (+3 ha)
• Transportation (+9 ha)
• Settlement (+51 ha)

Significant Natural Features

• Huntley Provincially Significant Wetland

Water Wells

• Few hundred (~250) operational private water wells. Groundwater uses are mainly domestic, but also include livestock watering and crop irrigation, groundwater monitoring and testing and commercial uses

Aggregates

• Part of one bedrock quarry license located within the catchment

Species at Risk (Elemental Occurrence)

• Spotted Turtle (Endangered)
• Eastern Meadowlark (Threatened)

1.4 Catchment Care

Stewardship

• Twelve stewardship projects undertaken (see Section 4)

Environmental Monitoring

• Nine headwater drainage feature assessments in 2015 at road crossings in the catchment. The protocol measures zero, first and second order headwater drainage features and is a rapid assessment method characterizing the amount of water, sediment transport, and storage capacity within headwater drainage features (see Section 2.2)
• Groundwater level and chemistry data is available from PGMN wells located along Fernbank Road (W175). Additional groundwater chemistry information is available from the Ontario Geological Survey for a well located in this catchment

Environmental Management

• Development along the Jenkinson Drain and in and adjacent to the Huntley Provincially Significant Wetland in the catchment is subject to Ontario Regulation 174-06 (entitled “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses”) that protects the hydrologic function of the wetland and also protects landowners and their property from natural hazards (flooding, fluctuating water table, unstable soils) associated with them
• Twelve active Permits To Take Water (PTTW) in the catchment issued for golf course irrigation, water supply and other commercial water supply
• One Environmental Compliance Approval in this catchment for air emissions

• Print

2. Surface Water Quality Conditions

Barbers Creek Water Quality

Water Quality Rating

Nutrients

Summary

E. Coli

Summary

Metals

Summary

^[1] - copy this to the where the link to the footnote is in the text, then delete is line

• Print

2.0 Jenkinson Drain Catchment: Riparian Conditions

2.1 Jenkinson Drain Instream Aquatic Habitat

2.1.1 Groundwater

Groundwater discharge areas can influence stream temperature, contribute nutrients, and provide important stream habitat for fish and other biota. During headwater surveys, indicators of groundwater discharge are noted when observed. Indicators include: springs/seeps, watercress, iron staining, significant temperature change and rainbow mineral film. Figure 2 shows areas where one or more of the above groundwater indicators were observed during headwater assessments. 

2.1.2 Fish Community

The Jenkinson Drain catchment is classified as a mixed community of warm and cool water baitfish fishery with 5 species observed.  Figure 3 shows the sampling locations in the Jenkinson Drain catchment.

The following table contains a list of species observed in the watershed.

2.2 Jenkinson Drain Headwater Drainage Features Assessment

2.2.1 Headwater Sampling Locations

The RVCA Stream Characterization program assessed Headwater Drainage Features for the Jock River subwatershed in 2015. This protocol measures zero, first and second order headwater drainage features (HDF).  It is a rapid assessment method characterizing the amount of water, sediment transport, and storage capacity within headwater drainage features (HDF). RVCA is working with other Conservation Authorities and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to implement the protocol with the goal of providing standard datasets to support science development and monitoring of headwater drainage features.  An HDF is a depression in the land that conveys surface flow. Additionally, this module provides a means of characterizing the connectivity, form and unique features associated with each HDF (OSAP Protocol, 2013). In 2015 the program sampled 9 sites at road crossings in the Jenkinson Drain catchment area (Figure 4).  

2.2.2 Headwater Feature Type

The headwater sampling protocol assesses the feature type in order to understand the function of each feature.  The evaluation includes the following classifications: defined natural channel, channelized or constrained, multi-thread, no defined feature, tiled, wetland, swale, roadside ditch and pond outlet.  By assessing the values associated with the headwater drainage features in the catchment area we can understand the ecosystem services that they provide to the watershed in the form of hydrology, sediment transport, and aquatic and terrestrial functions.  Four features were classified as having been channelized, one was classified as a road side ditch, two were dominated by wetland, one swale and one feature was identified as natural.  Figure 5 shows the feature type of the primary feature at the sampling locations.

2.2.3 Headwater Feature Flow

The observed flow condition within headwater drainage features can be highly variable depending on timing relative to the spring freshet, recent rainfall, soil moisture, etc.  Flow conditions are assessed in the spring and in the summer to determine if features are perennial and flow year round, if they are intermittent and dry up during the summer months or if they are ephemeral systems that do not flow regularly and generally respond to specific rainstorm events or snowmelt.  Flow conditions in headwater systems can change from year to year depending on local precipitation patterns.  Figure 6 shows the observed flow conditions at the sampling locations in the Jenkinson Drain catchment in 2015.

2.3.4 Headwater Feature Channel Modifications

Channel modifications were assessed at each headwater drainage feature sampling location.  Modifications include dredging, channel hardening and mixed modifications.  The Jenkinson Drain catchment area had one site classified as having no channel modifications, one features were classified as being hardened, five features had been dredged and two had mixed modifications. Figure 7 shows the channel modifications observed at the sampling locations for Jenkinson Drain.

2.3.5 Headwater Feature Vegetation

Headwater feature vegetation evaluates the type of vegetation that is found within the drainage feature.  The type of vegetated within the channel influences the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem values that the feature provides.  For some types of headwater features the vegetation within the feature plays a very important role in flow and sediment movement and provides fish and wildlife habitat.  The following classifications are evaluated no vegetation, lawn, wetland, meadow, scrubland and forest.  The features assessed in the Jenkinson Drain catchment were classified being dominated by wetland and meadow vegetation. Figure 8 depicts the dominant vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Jenkinson Drain catchment.

2.3.6 Headwater Feature Riparian Vegetation

Headwater riparian vegetation evaluates the type of vegetation that is found along the adjacent lands of a headwater drainage feature.  The type of vegetation within the riparian corridor influences the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem values that the feature provides to the watershed.  Four sample locations in Jenkinson Drain were dominated by natural vegetation in the form of scrubland, meadow and wetland vegetation. Five sample locations were dominated by other forms of vegetation of either crops or ornamental grasses. Figure 9 depicts the type of riparian vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Jenkinson Drain catchment.

2.3.7 Headwater Feature Sediment Deposition

Assessing the amount of recent sediment deposited in a channel provides an index of the degree to which the feature could be transporting sediment to downstream reaches (OSAP, 2013).  Evidence of excessive sediment deposition might indicate the requirement to follow up with more detailed targeted assessments upstream of the site location to identify potential best management practices to be implemented.  Conditions ranged from no deposition observed to extensive deposition recorded. Figure 10 depicts the degree of sediment deposition observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Jenkinson Drain catchment.

2.3.8 Headwater Feature Upstream Roughness

Feature roughness will provide a measure of the amount of materials within the bankfull channel that could slow down the velocity of water flowing within the headwater feature (OSAP, 2013).  Materials on the channel bottom that provide roughness include vegetation, woody debris and boulders/cobble substrates.  Roughness can provide benefits in mitigating downstream erosion on the headwater drainage feature and the receiving watercourse by reducing velocities.  Roughness also provides important habitat conditions for aquatic organisms. The sample locations in the Jenkinson Drain catchment area ranged from minimal to extreme roughness conditions.  Figure 11 shows the feature roughness conditions at the sampling locations in the Jenkinson Drain catchment.

• Print

3.0 Jenkinson Drain Catchment: Land Cover

Land cover and any change in coverage that has occurred over a six year period is summarized for the Jenkinson Drain catchment using spatially continuous vector data representing the catchment during the spring of 2008 and 2014. This dataset was developed by the RVCA through heads-up digitization of 20cm DRAPE ortho-imagery at a 1:4000 scale and details the surrounding landscape using 10 land cover classes.

3.1 Jenkinson Drain Catchment Change

As shown in Table 2 and Figure 1, the dominant land cover type in 2014 was crop and pastureland, followed by woodland, wetland and settlement.

From 2008 to 2014, there was an overall change of 85 hectares (from one land cover class to another). Most of the change in the Jenkinson Drain catchment is a result of the conversion of crop and pastureland, meadow-thicket and woodland to settlement (Figure 12).

Table 3 provides a detailed breakdown of all land cover change that has taken place in the Jenkinson Drain catchment between 2008 and 2014.

3.2 Woodland Cover

In the Environment Canada Guideline (Third Edition) entitled “How Much Habitat Is Enough?” (hereafter referred to as the “Guideline”) the opening narrative under the Forest Habitat Guidelines section states that prior to European settlement, forest was the predominant habitat in the Mixedwood Plains ecozone. The remnants of this once vast forest now exist in a fragmented state in many areas (including the Rideau Valley watershed) with woodland patches of various sizes distributed across the settled landscape along with higher levels of forest cover associated with features such as the Frontenac Axis (within the on-Shield areas of the Rideau Lakes and Tay River subwatersheds). The forest legacy, in terms of the many types of wildlife species found, overall species richness, ecological functions provided and ecosystem complexity is still evident in the patches and regional forest matrices (found in the Jock River subwatershed and elsewhere in the Rideau Valley watershed). These ecological features are in addition to other influences which forests have on water quality and stream hydrology including reducing soil erosion, producing oxygen, storing carbon along with many other ecological services that are essential not only for wildlife but for human well-being.

The Guideline also notes that forests provide a great many habitat niches that are in turn occupied by a great diversity of plant and animal species. They provide food, water and shelter for these species - whether they are breeding and resident locally or using forest cover to help them move across the landscape. This diversity of species includes many that are considered to be species at risk. Furthermore, from a wildlife perspective, there is increasing evidence that the total forest cover in a given area is a major predictor of the persistence and size of bird populations, and it is possible or perhaps likely that this pattern extends to other flora and fauna groups. The overall effect of a decrease in forest cover on birds in fragmented landscapes is that certain species disappear and many of the remaining ones become rare, or fail to reproduce, while species adapted to more open and successional habitats, as well as those that are more tolerant to human-induced disturbances in general, are able to persist and in some cases thrive. Species with specialized-habitat requirements are most likely to be adversely affected. The overall pattern of distribution of forest cover, the shape, area and juxtaposition of remaining forest patches and the quality of forest cover also play major roles in determining how valuable forests will be to wildlife and people alike.

The current science generally supports minimum forest habitat requirements between 30 and 50 percent, with some limited evidence that the upper limit may be even higher, depending on the organism/species phenomenon under investigation or land-use/resource management planning regime being considered/used.

As shown in Figure 13, 27 percent of the Jenkinson Drain catchment contains 590 hectares of upland forest and 316 hectares of lowland forest (treed swamps) versus the 26 percent of woodland cover in the Jock River subwatershed. This is less than the 30 percent of forest cover that is identified as the minimum threshold required to sustain forest birds according to the Guideline and which may only support less than one half of potential species richness and marginally healthy aquatic systems. When forest cover drops below 30 percent, forest birds tend to disappear as breeders across the landscape.

3.2.1 Woodland (Patch) Size

According to the Ministry of Natural Resources’ Natural Heritage Reference Manual (Second Edition), larger woodlands are more likely to contain a greater diversity of plant and animal species and communities than smaller woodlands and have a greater relative importance for mobile animal species such as forest birds.

Bigger forests often provide a different type of habitat. Many forest birds breed far more successfully in larger forests than they do in smaller woodlots and some rely heavily on forest interior conditions. Populations are often healthier in regions with more forest cover and where forest fragments are grouped closely together or connected by corridors of natural habitat. Small forests support small numbers of wildlife. Some species are “area-sensitive” and tend not to inhabit small woodlands, regardless of forest interior conditions. Fragmented habitat also isolates local populations, especially small mammals, amphibians and reptiles with limited mobility. This reduces the healthy mixing of genetic traits that helps populations survive over the long run (Conserving the Forest Interior. Ontario Extension Notes, 2000).

The Environment Canada Guideline also notes that for forest plants that do not disperse broadly or quickly, preservation of some relatively undisturbed large forest patches is needed to sustain them because of their restricted dispersal abilities and specialized habitat requirements and to ensure continued seed or propagation sources for restored or regenerating areas nearby.

The Natural Heritage Reference Manual continues by stating that a larger size also allows woodlands to support more resilient nutrient cycles and food webs and to be big enough to permit different and important successional stages to co-exist. Small, isolated woodlands are more susceptible to the effects of blowdown, drought, disease, insect infestations, and invasions by predators and non-indigenous plants. It is also known that the viability of woodland wildlife depends not only on the characteristics of the woodland in which they reside, but also on the characteristics of the surrounding landscape where the woodland is situated. Additionally, the percentage of forest cover in the surrounding landscape, the presence of ecological barriers such as roads, the ability of various species to cross the matrix surrounding the woodland and the proximity of adjacent habitats interact with woodland size in influencing the species assemblage within a woodland.

In the Jenkinson Drain catchment (in 2014), fifty-two (45 percent) of the 115 woodland patches are very small, being less than one hectare in size. Another 54 (47 percent) of the woodland patches ranging from one to less than 20 hectares in size tend to be dominated by edge-tolerant bird species. The remaining nine (eight percent of) woodland patches range between 20 and 72 hectares in size and may support a few area-sensitive species and some edge intolerant species, but will be dominated by edge tolerant species.

No patch exceeds the 100 plus hectare size needed to support most forest dependent, area sensitive birds and which are, when present, large enough to support approximately 60 percent of edge-intolerant species. Nor does any patch top 200 hectares, which according to the Environment Canada Guideline will support 80 percent of edge-intolerant forest bird species (including most area sensitive species) that prefer interior forest habitat conditions.

Table 4 presents a comparison of woodland patch size in 2008 and 2014 along with any changes that have occurred over that time. A decrease (of 22 ha) has been observed in the overall woodland patch area between the two reporting periods with most change occurring in the 20 to 50 hectare woodland patch size class range.

3.2.2 Woodland (Forest) Interior Habitat

The forest interior is habitat deep within woodlands. It is a sheltered, secluded environment away from the influence of forest edges and open habitats. Some people call it the “core” or the “heart” of a woodland. The presence of forest interior is a good sign of woodland health, and is directly related to the woodland’s size and shape. Large woodlands with round or square outlines have the greatest amount of forest interior. Small, narrow woodlands may have no forest interior conditions at all. Forest interior habitat is a remnant natural environment, reminiscent of the extensive, continuous forests of the past. This increasingly rare forest habitat is now a refuge for certain forest-dependent wildlife; they simply must have it to survive and thrive in a fragmented forest landscape (Conserving the Forest Interior. Ontario Extension Notes, 2000).

The Natural Heritage Reference Manual states that woodland interior habitat is usually defined as habitat more than 100 metres from the edge of the woodland and provides for relative seclusion from outside influences along with a moister, more sheltered and productive forest habitat for certain area sensitive species. Woodlands with interior habitat have centres that are more clearly buffered against the edge effects of agricultural activities or more harmful urban activities than those without. 

In the Jenkinson Drain catchment (in 2014), the 115 woodland patches contain 17 forest interior patches (Figure 13) that occupy two percent (47 ha.) of the catchment land area (which is less than the three percent of interior forest in the Jock River Subwatershed). This is below the ten percent figure referred to in the Environment Canada Guideline that is considered to be the minimum threshold for supporting edge intolerant bird species and other forest dwelling species in the landscape.

Most patches (16) have less than 10 hectares of interior forest, seven of which have small areas of interior forest habitat less than one hectare in size. Between 2008 and 2014, there has been a change in the number of woodland patches containing interior habitat with an overall loss of two hectares in the catchment (Table 5), suggesting an increase in forest fragmentation over the six year period.

3.3 Wetland Cover

Wetlands are habitats forming the interface between aquatic and terrestrial systems. They are among the most productive and biologically diverse habitats on the planet. By the 1980s, according to the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 68 percent of the original wetlands south of the Precambrian Shield in Ontario had been lost through encroachment, land clearance, drainage and filling.

Wetlands perform a number of important ecological and hydrological functions and provide an array of social and economic benefits that society values. Maintaining wetland cover in a watershed provides many ecological, economic, hydrological and social benefits that are listed in the Reference Manual and which may include:

• contributing to the stabilization of shorelines and to the reduction of erosion damage through the mitigation of water flow and soil binding by plant roots
• mitigating surface water flow by storing water during periods of peak flow (such as spring snowmelt and heavy rainfall events) and releasing water during periods of low flow (this mitigation of water flow also contributes to a reduction of flood damage)
• contributing to an improved water quality through the trapping of sediments, the removal and/or retention of excess nutrients, the immobilization and/or degradation of contaminants and the removal of bacteria
• providing renewable harvesting of timber, fuel wood, fish, wildlife and wild rice
• contributing to a stable, long-term water supply in areas of groundwater recharge and discharge
• providing a high diversity of habitats that support a wide variety of plants and animals
• acting as “carbon sinks” making a significant contribution to carbon storage
• providing opportunities for recreation, education, research and tourism

Historically, the overall wetland coverage within the Great Lakes basin exceeded 10 percent, but there was significant variability among watersheds and jurisdictions, as stated in the Environment Canada Guideline. In the Rideau Valley Watershed, it has been estimated that pre-settlement wetland cover averaged 35 percent using information provided by Ducks Unlimited Canada (2010) versus the 21 percent of wetland cover existing in 2014 derived from DRAPE imagery analysis.

Using the same dataset, it is estimated that pre-settlement (historic) wetland cover averaged 51 percent in the Jock River subwatershed versus the 24 percent of cover existing in 2014 (as summarized in Table 6).

This decline in wetland cover is also evident in the Jenkinson Drain catchment (as seen in Figure 14) where wetland was reported to cover 47 percent of the area prior to settlement, as compared to 14 percent in 2014. This represents a 70 percent loss of historic wetland cover and what remains (in 2014) falls below the historic wetland threshold cited in the Environment Canada Guideline for maintaining key ecological and hydrological functions. To maintain critical hydrological, ecological functions along with related recreational and economic benefits provided by these wetland habitats in the catchment, a “no net loss” of currently existing wetlands should be employed to ensure the continued provision of tangible benefits accruing from them to landowners and surrounding communities along with efforts to create/restore wetlands in suitable areas.

3.4 Shoreline Cover

The riparian or shoreline zone is that special area where the land meets the water. Well-vegetated shorelines are critically important in protecting water quality and creating healthy aquatic habitats, lakes and rivers. Natural shorelines intercept sediments and contaminants that could impact water quality conditions and harm fish habitat in streams. Well established buffers protect the banks against erosion, improve habitat for fish by shading and cooling the water and provide protection for birds and other wildlife that feed and rear young near water. A recommended target (from the Environment Canada Guideline) is to maintain a minimum 30 metre wide vegetated buffer along at least 75 percent of the length of both sides of rivers, creeks and streams.

Figure 15 shows the extent of the ‘Natural’ vegetated riparian zone (predominantly wetland/woodland features) and ‘Other’ anthropogenic cover (crop/pastureland, roads/railways, settlements) along a 30-metre-wide area of land, both sides of the shoreline of the Jock River and its tributaries in the Jenkinson Drain catchment.

This analysis shows that the riparian zone in the Jenkinson Drain catchment in 2014 was comprised of crop and pastureland (32 percent), wetland (20 percent), woodland (20 percent), settlement (19 percent), transportation (seven percent) and aggregates (one percent). Additional statistics for the Jenkinson Drain catchment are presented in Table 7. Of particular interest is the observed increase in the area of “Settlement” and decrease in "Woodland" area along the shoreline of the Jenkinson Drain and tributaries over a six year period.

• Print

4.0 Jenkinson Drain Catchment: Stewardship and Water Resources Protection

The RVCA and its partners are working to protect and enhance environmental conditions in the Jock River Subwatershed. Figure 16 shows the location of all stewardship projects completed in the Jenkinson Drain catchment along with sites identified for potential shoreline restoration.

4.1 Rural Clean Water Projects

From 2004 to 2009, one septic system replacement, one well decommissioning, one well upgrade and one well replacement were completed and prior to 2004, one manure storage/wastewater runoff project was finished. No projects were undertaken between 2010 and 2015. Total value of all five projects is $64,530 with $16,782 of that amount funded through grant dollars from the RVCA.

Figure 16 Stewardship site locations  

4.2 Private Land Forestry Projects

The location of RVCA tree planting projects is shown in Figure 16. From 2004 to 2009, 11,100 trees were planted at one site and prior to 2004, 10,090 trees were planted at 3 sites. In total, 21,190 trees were planted resulting in the reforestation of 12 hectares. No projects were undertaken between 2010 and 2015. Total value of all four projects is $84,653 with $24,319 of that amount coming from fundraising sources.

Through the RVCA Butternut Recovery Program, an additional 110 butternut trees were planted in the Jenkinson Drain catchment (Figure 16) between 2004 and 2015, as part of efforts to introduce healthy seedlings from tolerant butternuts into various locations across Eastern Ontario.

4.3 Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Projects

Figure 16 shows the location of all Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program (ODWSP) projects in the Jenkinson Drain catchment. Between 2010 and 2015, two septic system replacements and one well upgrade were completed. Total project value is $31,543 with $18,709 of that amount funded by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

4.4 Valley, Stream, Wetland and Hazard Lands

The Jenkinson Drain catchment covers 23 square kilometres with 1.9 square kilometres (or 8 percent) of the drainage area being within the regulation limit of Ontario Regulation 174/06 (Figure 17), giving protection to wetland areas and river or stream valleys that are affected by flooding and erosion hazards.

Wetlands occupy 3.3 sq. km. (or 14 percent) of the catchment. Of these wetlands, 1.2 sq. km (or 36 percent) are designated as provincially significant and included within the RVCA regulation limit. This leaves the remaining 2.1 sq. km (or 64 percent) of wetlands in the catchment outside the regulated area limit.

Of the 58.6 kilometres of stream in the catchment, regulation limit mapping has been plotted along 6.7 kilometers of streams (representing 11 percent of all streams in the catchment). Some of these regulated watercourses (3.9 km or 7 percent of all streams) flow through regulated wetlands; the remaining 2.9 km (or 42 percent) of regulated streams are located outside of those wetlands. Plotting of the regulation limit on the remaining 51.8 km (or 89 percent) of streams requires identification of flood and erosion hazards and valley systems.

Within those areas of the Jenkinson Drain catchment subject to the regulation (limit), efforts (have been made and) continue through RVCA planning and regulations input and review to manage the impact of development (and other land management practices) in areas where “natural hazards” are associated with rivers, streams, valley lands and wetlands. For areas beyond the regulation limit, protection of the catchment’s watercourses is only provided through the “alteration to waterways” provision of the regulation.

4.5 Vulnerable Drinking Water Areas

A portion of the Wellhead Protection Area around the Munster municipal drinking water source is located within the Jenkinson Drain drainage catchment. This area is subject to mandatory policies in the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan developed under the Clean Water Act. These policies specifically regulate land uses and activities that are considered drinking water threats, thereby reducing the risk of contamination of the municipal drinking water source.

The Jenkinson Drain drainage catchment is also considered to have a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer. This means that the nature of the overburden (thin soils, fractured bedrock) does not provide a high level of protection for the underlying groundwater making the aquifer more vulnerable to contaminants released on the surface. The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan includes policies that focus on the protection of groundwater region-wide due to the fact that most of the region, which encompasses the Mississippi and Rideau watersheds, is considered Highly Vulnerable Aquifer.

For detailed maps and policies that have been developed to protect drinking water sources, please go to the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region website at www.mrsourcewater.ca to view the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan.

• Print

5.0 Jenkinson Drain Catchment: Challenges/Issues

Water Quality/Quantity

No surface chemistry and benthic invertebrate water quality data is available for the Jenkinson Drain

Natural hazard lands have not been identified; however, it is deemed to be a low priority

Existing hydrological and geochemical datasets and assessments (academic, RVCA, others) are only recently available and/or are not being considered in the characterization of the numerous hydrologic functions of the Jock River subwatershed. Further, there is a dearth of hydrologic information (hydroperiod, groundwater/surface water interactions, geochemistry) about the wetlands that remain in the Jock River subwatershed

Headwaters/Instream/Shorelines

‘Natural’ vegetation covers 40 percent of the riparian zone of the Jenkinson Drain and its tributaries (Figure 15) and is below the recommended 30 metre wide, naturally vegetated target along 75 percent of the length of the catchment’s watercourses

No information available about instream aquatic and riparian conditions along Jenkinson Drain

Land Cover

Woodlands cover 27 percent of the catchment and is below the 30 percent of forest cover that is identified as the minimum threshold for sustaining forest birds and other woodland dependent species (Figure 13)

Pre-settlement wetlands have declined by 70 percent and now cover 14 percent (331 ha.) of the catchment (Figure 14). Sixty-four percent (213 ha.) of these wetlands remain unevaluated/unregulated and are vulnerable to drainage and land clearing activities in the absence of any regulatory and planning controls that would otherwise protect them for the many important hydrological, social, biological and ecological functions/services/values they provide to landowners and the surrounding community.

• Print

6.0 Jenkinson Drain Catchment: Opportunities/Actions

Water Quality/Quantity

Consider establishing a surface water quality sampling site along Jenkinson Drain

Offer the suite of water quality improvement projects (including the new tile drainage control outlet management funding) provided by the Rideau Valley Rural Clean Water Program to landowners where opportunities exist to manage rural runoff to the Jenkinson Drain and tributaries:

• Homeowners may be interested in projects to repair, replace or upgrade their well or septic system, or addressing erosion through buffer plantings and erosion control
• Farmers can take advantage of a wide range of projects, including livestock fencing, manure storage, tile drainage control structures, cover crops, and many more

Continue to coordinate environmental monitoring and reporting activities with the City of Ottawa

Use wetland restoration as a tool to improve surface water quality and help restore the hydrologic integrity of the Jock River and its tributaries, including Jenkinson Drain

List, share and when possible, synthesize and use existing hydrological and geochemical datasets and assessment outcomes to facilitate the characterization of subwatershed and catchment hydrological functions. In addition, prepare guidance on best practices for the preparation of water budget assessments to better understand the hydrologic cycle requirements that occur at site specific scales; and share existing catchment and subwatershed scale water budget assessment outcomes

Headwaters/Instream/Shorelines

Promote the Rideau Valley Shoreline Naturalization Program to landowners to increase existing 40 percent of natural shoreline cover

Educate landowners about the value of and best management practices used to maintain and enhance natural shorelines and headwater drainage features

Work with the City of Ottawa to consistently implement current land use planning and development policies for water quality and shoreline protection (i.e., adherence to a minimum 30 metre development setback from water) adjacent to the Jock River and other catchment watercourses, including the Jenkinson Drain

Target shoreline restoration at sites identified in this report (shown as “Other riparian land cover” in Figure 15) and explore other restoration and enhancement opportunities along the Jenkinson Drain and its tributaries

Land Cover

Promote the City of Ottawa’s Green Acres Reforestation Program to landowners to increase existing 27 percent of woodland cover

Encourage the City of Ottawa to strengthen natural heritage and water resources policies in official plans and zoning by-laws where shoreline, wetland, woodland cover and watercourse setbacks are determined to be at or below critical ecological thresholds. Information for this purpose is provided in the RVCA’s subwatershed and catchment reports

Explore ways and means to more effectively enforce and implement conditions of land-use planning and development approvals to achieve net environmental gains

Re-consider the RVCA’s approach to wetland regulation where there is an identified hydrologic imperative to do so (i.e., significant loss of historic wetland cover (see Fig. xx) and/or seasonal, critically low baseflows in the Jock River and/or areas of seasonal flooding)

• Print

Full Catchment Report

• Print

Jock River Subwatershed Report 2016

Ashton-Dwyer Hill Catchment

The RVCA produces individual reports for 12 catchments in the Jock River subwatershed. Using data collected and analyzed by the RVCA through its watershed monitoring and land cover classification programs, surface water quality and in-stream conditions are reported for the Jock River along with a summary of environmental conditions for the surrounding countryside every six years.

This information is used to better understand the effects of human activity on our water resources, allows us to better track environmental change over time and helps focus watershed management actions where they are needed the most to help sustain the ecosystem services (cultural, aesthetic and recreational values; provisioning of food, fuel and clean water; regulation of erosion/natural hazard protection and water purification; supporting nutrient/water cycling and habitat provision) provided by the catchment’s lands and forests and waters (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).

The following sections of this report for the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment are a compilation of that work.

For other Jock River catchments and the Jock River Subwatershed Report, please visit the RVCA website at www.rvca.ca

• Print

1.0 Jock River-Ashton Dwyer Hill: Catchment Facts

1.1 General/Physical Geography

Municipalities

• Beckwith (27 km²; 34% of catchment)
• Ottawa: (53 km²; 66% of catchment)

Geology/Physiography

• The Ashton Catchment resides with an extensive physiographic region known as the Smith Falls Limestone Plain. In this catchment, the limestone plain is generally but discontinuously overlain by glacial till, organic soils, sand and localized areas of beach sands and gravels
• In this catchment, bedrock includes the interbedded limestone and dolostone, sandstone with shale and limestone, dolostone, and some limestone respectively from the Gull River, Rockcliffe, Oxford and Bobcaygeon Formations. In addition, numerous geologic faults may pass through the catchment

Topography

• The ground surface ranges in elevation from approximately 162 masl near Hwy 7 to approximately 100 masl at the catchment’s outlet

Drainage Area

• 81 square kilometers; occupies 14 percent of the Jock River subwatershed, two percent of the Rideau Valley watershed

Stream Length

• Jock River and tributaries: 153 km

1.2 Vulnerable Areas

Flood/Erosion Hazard

• Jock River is subject to a flooding hazard during the regional storm flood (the 100 year flood). Surveys and studies undertaken in accordance with provincial standards have determined that the 100 year flood elevation in the catchment ranges from 124.9 metres above mean sea level at the upper, mapped extent of the regulation limit in Ashton Village to 101.8 metres above mean sea level at the Jock Trail

Aquifer Vulnerability

• The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection initiative has mapped scattered parts of this catchment as a significant groundwater recharge areas and all the catchment as Highly Vulnerable Aquifer. Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPA) A and parts of WHPAs B, C and D for the municipal wells in Munster Hamlet, underlie a small part of the catchment near Bleeks Road and also Crawford Side Road

Wetland Hydrology

• A watershed model developed by the RVCA in 2009 was used to study the hydrologic function of wetlands in the Rideau Valley Watershed, including those found in the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment

1.3 Conditions at a Glance

Water Quality

• Surface chemistry water quality rating on the Jock River in the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment declines from “Fair” at the upstream (JR-45) site to “Poor” at the downstream site (JR-20). The scores at both sites are largely influenced by frequent high nutrient concentrations and periods of bacterial pollution (see Figure 2)
• Instream biological water quality conditions at the Jock River Ashton-Dwyer Hill sample location aquatic habitat conditions from a benthic invertebrate perspective is considered “Poor” from 2011 to 2015 as the samples are dominated by species that are moderately sensitive and tolerant to high organic pollution levels

Instream and Riparian

• Overall instream and riparian condition for the Jock River-Ashton Dwyer Hill catchment as assessed by the stream characterization and headwater drainage feature assessment programs show that the Jock River and its tributaries are in generally good condition. The majority of the system has low erosion levels and a healthy forested riparian corridor along the Jock River. Instream diversity of aquatic habitat is fairly complex in the lower to middle reaches of the Jock River, while the upper reach is dominated by low habitat complexity and poor dissolved oxygen conditions

Thermal Regime

• Warm/cool water thermal guild supporting the Jock River/Rideau River fishery

Fish Community

• Thirty-five species of recreational and bait fish

Shoreline Cover Type (30 m. riparian area; 2014)

• Wetland (36%)
• Crop and Pasture (28%)
• Woodland (18%)
• Settlement (8%)
• Transportation (7%)
• Meadow-Thicket (3%)
• Aggregate (<1%)

Land Cover Type (2014)

• Crop and Pasture (39%)
• Woodland (22%)
• Wetland (21%)
• Settlement (9%)
• Meadow-Thicket (4%)
• Transportation (3%)
• Aggregate (<1%)
• Water (<1%)

Land Cover Change (2008 to 2014)

• Wetland (-61 ha)
• Woodland (-34 ha)
• Meadow-Thicket (-20 ha)
• Crop and Pasture (-5 ha)
• Water (0 ha)
• Aggregate (+9 ha)
• Settlement (+55 ha)
• Transportation (+56 ha)

Significant Natural Features

• Goodwood Provincially Significant Wetland
• Goodwood Marsh Area of Natural and Scientific Interest
• Manions Corners Provincially Significant Wetland
• Prospect Bog Provincially Significant Wetland

Water Wells

• Several hundred (~ 630) operational private water wells in the catchment. Groundwater uses are mainly domestic but also include livestock watering, commercial uses, groundwater monitoring and testing and municipal and other public water supplies

Aggregates

• One sand and gravel pit within the catchment. Sand and gravel resources are limited and of tertiary importance

Species at Risk (Elemental Occurrence)

• Loggerhead Shrike, Spotted Turtle (Endangered)
• Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark (Threatened)
• Eastern Milksnake, Snapping Turtle (Special Concern)

1.4 Catchment Care

Stewardship

• Eighty-three stewardship projects undertaken (see Section 5)

Environmental Monitoring

• Chemical surface (in-stream) water quality collection since 2003 (see Section 2)
• Benthic invertebrate (aquatic insect) surface (in-stream) water quality collection since 2011 (see Section 3.3.1)
• Fish survey along the Jock River (see Section 3.3.11)
• Stream characterization survey on the Jock River in 2015, working upstream to the headwaters from its mouth  where it empties into the Rideau River, taking measurements and recording observations on instream habitat, bank stability, other attributes and preparing a temperature profile (see Section 3)
• Twenty headwater drainage feature assessments in 2015 at road crossings in the catchment. The protocol measures zero, first and second order headwater drainage features and is a rapid assessment method characterizing the amount of water, sediment transport, and storage capacity within headwater drainage features (see Section 3.4)

Environmental Management

• Development in and adjacent to the Provincially Significant Wetlands in the catchment (Goodwood Marsh, Manions Corners, Prospect Bog) are subject to Ontario Regulation 174-06 (entitled “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses”) that protects the hydrologic function of the wetland and also protects landowners and their property from natural hazards (flooding, fluctuating water table, unstable soils) associated with them
• Ashton Dam water levels are managed by the RVCA on behalf of the Township of Beckwith and the City of Ottawa
• Three active Permit To Take Water (PTTW) in the catchment issued for municipal water supply and golf course irrigation
• Seven Environmental Compliance Approvals in the catchment. These are for municipal or private sewage works; an industrial sewage work; a waste management system and air emissions

• Print

2.0 Jock River-Ashton Dwyer Hill Catchment: Surface Water Quality Conditions

Surface water quality conditions in the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment of the Jock River are monitored by the City of Ottawa’s Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Program. This program provides information on the condition of Ottawa’s surface water resources; data is collected for multiple parameters including nutrients (total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and ammonia), E. coli, metals (like aluminum and copper) and additional chemical/physical parameters (such as alkalinity, chlorides, pH and total suspended solids). The locations of monitoring sites are shown in Figure 2 and Table 1.

2.1 Jock River Water Quality Rating

The RVCA's water quality rating for Jock River site JR-20 is “Poor” while upstream site JR-45 is “Fair” (Table 1) as determined by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Water Quality Index^[1]. A “Fair” rating indicates that water quality is usually protected but is occasionally threatened or impaired; conditions sometimes depart from natural or desirable levels. A rating of “Poor” indicates water quality is frequently threatened or impaired; conditions often depart from natural or desirable levels.  Each parameter is evaluated against established guidelines to determine water quality conditions. Those parameters that frequently exceed guidelines are presented below. Table 1 shows the overall rating for the monitored surface water quality site within the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment and Table 2 outlines the Water Quality Index (WQI) scores and their corresponding ratings.

Analysis of the data has been broken into two periods, 2004-2009 and 2010-2015, to examine if conditions have changed within this timeframe. Water quality scores at site JR-20 declined from a rating of “Fair” in the 2004-2009 period to “Poor” in 2010-2015, this can be attributed to more exceedances across a greater number of parameters.  Data is only available at site JR-45 for the 2010-2015 period.  The scores at both sites are largely influenced by frequent high nutrient concentrations and periods of bacterial pollution. For more information on the CCME WQI, please see the Jock River Subwatershed Report. 

2.2 Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and may contribute to abundant aquatic vegetation growth and depleted dissolved oxygen levels. The Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) is used as the TP Guideline and states that in streams concentrations greater than 0.030 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP.

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and ammonia (NH₃) are used as secondary indicators of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN^[2] and the PWQO of 0.020 mg/l to assess NH₃ concentrations in the Jock River.

Tables 3, 4 and 5 summarize average nutrient concentrations at the monitored site within the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment and show the proportion of results that meet the guidelines.

Monitoring Site JR-20

In the 2004-2009 period the majority of samples at site JR-20 were above the TP guideline; the frequency of exceedances decreased marginally in the 2010-2015 monitoring period. The number of samples below the guideline improved from 47 percent in 2004-2009 to 56 percent in 2010-2015 (Figures 3 and 4). The average TP concentrations decreased slightly from 0.037 mg/l (2004–2009) to 0.031 mg/l (2010–2015) as shown in Table 3.

TKN concentrations show that the bulk of results exceeded the guideline (Figures 5 and 6); there were few samples (eight percent) below the guideline in the 2004-2009 period and this declined to zero samples below the guideline in the 2010-2015 period. The average concentration was generally elevated and increased from 0.867 mg/l to 0.874 mg/l (Table 4).

In the 2004-2009 reporting period 75 percent of NH₃ results were below the guideline with an average concentration of 0.030 mg/l (Figure 7, Table 5). The percentage of results below the guideline declined to 70 percent in the 2010-2015 period. However, during this timeframe the average concentration also decreased marginally to 0.028 mg/l (Figure 8, Table 5).

Monitoring Site JR-45

Elevated TP results were not a common occurrence at site JR-45.  Most samples, 76 percent, were below the PWQO (Figure 4).  The average TP concentration was 0.023 mg/l (Table 3) and was also below the guideline (PWQO).

The bulk of TKN results have exceeded the guideline (Figure 6), with seven percent of samples below the guideline in the 2010-2015. The average concentration was elevated at 0.808 mg/l (Table 4).

The results for NH₃ indicate that exceedances not common though the average concentration was above the guideline at 0.023 mg/l (Table 5).  Seventy-two percent of results were below the guideline in the 2010-2015 reporting period (Figure 8).

Figure 3 Total phosphorus concentration in the Jock River, Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment, 2004-2009

Figure 4 Total phosphorus concentration in the Jock River, Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment, 2010-2015

Figure 5 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations in the Jock River, Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment, 2004-2009

Figure 6 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentration in the Jock River, Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment, 2010-2015

Figure 7 Ammonia concentration in the Jock River, Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment, 2004-2009

Figure 8 Ammonia concentrations in the Jock River, Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment, 2010-2015

Summary

Nutrient enrichment is a feature in this reach of the Jock River. This is likely due to natural inputs from wetland areas and runoff from surrounding agricultural lands. The Jock River was previously identified as having a marginal rating (i.e. exceeded targets occasionally) for phosphorus (City of Ottawa, Water Environment Protection Program, 2006).  Overall, average nutrient concentrations have remained consistent through the monitoring periods at site JR-20.  All parameters (total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and ammonia) have exceeded guidelines. Elevated nutrients may result in nutrient loading downstream. High nutrient concentrations can help stimulate the growth of algae blooms and other aquatic vegetation in a waterbody and deplete oxygen levels as the vegetation dies off. Consideration should also be given to the potential influence of inflow from the Jenkinson Drain into this reach of the Jock River. Best management practices such as enhanced shoreline buffers, erosion mitigation where applicable, preventing the use of fertilizers and restricting livestock access in agricultural areas can help to reduce nutrient enrichment in Jock River. 

2.3 Escherichia coli

Escherichia coli (E. coli) is used as an indicator of bacterial pollution from human or animal waste; in elevated concentrations, it can pose a risk to human health. The PWQO of 100 colony forming units/100 millilitres (CFU/100 ml) is used. E. coli counts greater than this guideline indicate that bacterial contamination may be a problem within a waterbody.

Table 6 summarizes the geometric mean^[3] for the monitored sites on the Jock River within the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment and shows the proportion of samples that meet the E. coli guideline of 100 CFU/100 ml. The results of the geometric mean with respect to the guideline for the two periods, 2004-2009 and 2010-2015, are shown in Figures 9 and 10 respectively.

Monitoring Site JR-20

E. coli counts at site JR-20 provide evidence of an increase in bacterial pollution. The proportion of samples below the guideline declined marginally from 48 percent (Figure 9) to 46 percent (Figure 10). The count at the geometric mean increased from 78 CFU/100ml in 2004-2009 to 99 CFU/100ml from 2010-2015 (Table 6), and is just below the PWQO.

Monitoring Site JR-45

Elevated E. coli counts at site JR-45 were also regular occurrence. Most samples were below the guideline (57 percent) in the 2010-2015 period. The geometric mean was below the PWQO of 100 CFU/100ml at 74 CFU/100ml (Table 6).

Figure 9 Geometric mean of E. coli results in the Jock River, Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment, 2004-2009

Figure 10 Geometric mean of E. coli results in the Jock River, Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment, 2010-2015

Summary

Given the results, bacterial contamination appear to be an increasing concern in this reach of the Jock River.  Exceedances are common and counts at the geometric mean have increased to just below the guideline at site JR-20. As privously noted the potential impact of the Jenkinson Drain on this reach of the Jock River should also be considered. Best management practices such as enhancing shoreline buffers and restricting livestock access can help to protect this reach of the Jock River into the future.

• Print

3.0 Jock River-Ashton Dwyer Hill Catchment: Riparian Conditions

3.1 Jock River Overbank Zone

3.1.1 Riparian Buffer Land Cover Evaluation

Figure 11 demonstrates the buffer conditions of the left and right banks separately.  The Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment had a buffer of greater than 30 meters along 71 percent of the right bank and 70 percent of the left bank.   

3.1.2 Riparian Buffer Alterations

Alterations within the riparian buffer were assessed within three distinct shoreline zones (0-5m, 5-15m, 15-30m), and evaluated based on the dominant vegetative community and/or land cover type (Figure 12). The riparian buffer zone along the Jock River within the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment was found to have highly variable conditions along the riparian corridor. These alterations were generally associated with infrastructure in the form of road crossings, recreational and agricultural land uses.

3.1.3 Adjacent Landuse

The RVCA’s Stream Characterization Program identifies ten different land uses beside the Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment (Figure 13). Surrounding land use is considered from the beginning to end of the survey section (100m) and up to 100m on each side of the river. Land use outside of this area is not considered for the surveys but is nonetheless part of the subwatershed and will influence the creek. Natural areas made up 65 percent of the stream, characterized by forest, scrubland, meadow and wetland. Forest habitat was dominant in the adjacent lands along the Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment at 35 percent.  The remaining land use consisted of active agriculture, pasture, abandoned agriculture, residential, recreational and infrastructure in the form of road crossings.

3.2 Jock River Shoreline Zone

3.2.1 Instream Erosion

Stream erosion is the process by which water erodes and transports sediments, resulting in dynamic flows and diverse habitat conditions.  Excessive erosion can result in drastic environmental changes, as habitat conditions, water quality and aquatic life are all negatively affected.  Bank stability was assessed as the overall extent of each section with “unstable” shoreline conditions.  These conditions are defined by the presence of significant exposed soils/roots, minimal bank vegetation, severe undercutting, slumping or scour and potential failed erosion measures. The majority of the Jock River in the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment had low levels of erosion with the exception of three areas along the system which had moderate to high levels of erosion. Figure 14 shows erosion levels along the Jock River in the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment.

3.2.2 Undercut Stream Banks

Stream bank undercuts can provide excellent cover habitat for aquatic life, however excessive levels can be an indication of unstable shoreline conditions.  Bank undercut was assessed as the overall extent of each surveyed section with overhanging bank cover present. Figure 15 shows that Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment had low levels of undercut banks along the majority of the system with a few specific locations having high levels of undercut banks observed.  

3.2.3 Stream Shading

Grasses, shrubs and trees all contribute towards shading a stream. Shade is important in moderating stream temperature, contributing to food supply and helping with nutrient reduction within a stream.  Stream cover is assessed as the total coverage area in each section that is shaded by overhanging trees/grasses and tree canopy, at greater than 1m above the water surface. Figure 16 shows variable conditions of low to high levels of stream shading along the Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment.

3.2.4 Instream Woody Debris

Figure 17 shows that the majority of Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment had predominantly low levels of instream woody debris in the form of branches and trees along the system. Instream woody debris is important for fish and benthic invertebrate habitat, by providing refuge and feeding areas.

3.2.5 Overhanging Trees and Branches

Trees and branches that are less than one meter from the surface of the water are defined as overhanging.  Overhanging branches and trees provide a food source, nutrients and shade which helps to moderate instream water temperatures.  Figure 18 shows the system is highly variable with low to high levels of overhanging branches and trees along Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment. 

3.2.6 Anthropogenic Alterations

Stream alterations are classified based on specific functional criteria associated with the flow conditions, the riparian buffer and potential human influences.  Figure 19 shows 46 percent of the Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment remains “unaltered” with no anthropogenic alterations. Forty nine percent of Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment was classified as natural with minor anthropogenic changes while four percent was considered altered and two percent was classified as highly altered.  The alterations along the Jock River in this reach were in the form of shoreline modifications, reduced buffers and road crossings. 

3.3 Jock River Instream Aquatic Habitat

3.3.1 Benthic Invertebrates

Freshwater benthic invertebrates are animals without backbones that live on the stream bottom and include crustaceans such as crayfish, molluscs and immature forms of aquatic insects. Benthos represent an extremely diverse group of aquatic animals and exhibit wide ranges of responses to stressors such as organic pollutants, sediments and toxicants, which allows scientists to use them as bioindicators.  As part of the Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network (OBBN), the RVCA has been collecting benthic invertebrates at the Franktown Road site on the Jock River since 2011 (Site Code JO-3). Monitoring data is analyzed for each sample site and the results are presented using the Family Biotic Index, Family Richness and percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera.

Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index

The Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (FBI) is an indicator of organic and nutrient pollution and provides an estimate of water quality conditions for each site using established pollution tolerance values for benthic invertebrates. FBI results for the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment sample location at Franktown Road  are summarized by year from 2011 to 2015.  “Good” to “Poor” water quality conditions was observed at the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill sample location for the period from 2011 to 2015 (Figure 20) using a grading scheme developed by Conservation Authorities in Ontario for benthic invertebrates. 

Family Richness

Family Richness measures the health of the community through its diversity and increases with increasing habitat diversity suitability and healthy water quality conditions. Family Richness is equivalent to the total number of benthic invertebrate families found within a sample.   The Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill site is reported to have “Fair” family richness (Fig.xx).

EPT

Ephemeroptera (Mayflies), Plecoptera (Stoneflies), and Trichoptera (Caddisflies) are species considered to be very sensitive to poor water quality conditions. High abundance of these organisms is generally an indication of good water quality conditions at a sample location.  The community structure typically has species that are more tolerant to poorer water quality conditions.  As a result, the EPT indicates that the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill sample location is reported to have “Fair” to “Poor” water quality (Figure 22) from 2011 to 2015.

Conclusion

Overall the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill sample location aquatic habitat conditions from a benthic invertebrate perspective is considered “Poor” from 2011 to 2015 as the samples are dominated by species that are moderately sensitive and tolerant to high organic pollution levels.

3.3.2 Habitat Complexity

Habitat complexity is a measure of the overall diversity of habitat types and features within a stream. Streams with high habitat complexity support a greater variety of species niches, and therefore contribute to greater diversity. Factors such as substrate, flow conditions (pools, riffles) and cover material (vegetation, wood structure, etc.) all provide crucial habitat to aquatic life.  Habitat complexity is assessed based on the presence of boulder, cobble and gravel substrates, as well as the presence of instream woody material. 

Low to high habitat complexity was identified for the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment (Figure 23). Regions with increased habitat complexity were observed in the lower to middle reaches of the system within the catchment.  

3.3.3 Instream Substrate

Diverse substrate is important for fish and benthic invertebrate habitat because some species have specific substrate requirements and for example will only reproduce on certain types of substrate.  The absence of diverse substrate types may limit the overall diversity of species within a stream. Figure 24 shows that 77 percent of the sections observed in the Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment had the presence of cobble substrate.  Overall substrate conditions were highly diverse along the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill reach with all substrate types being recorded along the reach. Figure 25 shows the dominant substrate type observed for each section surveyed along the Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment.  

3.3.4 Instream Morphology

Pools and riffles are important habitat features for aquatic life.  Riffles are fast flowing areas characterized by agitation and overturn of the water surface. Riffles thereby play a crucial role in contributing to dissolved oxygen conditions and directly support spawning for some fish species.  They are also areas that support high benthic invertebrate populations which are an important food source for many aquatic species.  Pools are characterized by minimal flows, with relatively deep water and winter/summer refuge habitat for aquatic species.  Runs are moderately shallow, with unagitated surfaces of water and areas where the thalweg (deepest part of the channel) is in the center of the channel. Figure 26 shows that the Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment is highly variable; 66 percent consists of runs, 12 percent riffles and 21 percent pools. Figure 27 shows where the riffle habitat areas were observed along the Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment.

3.3.5 Vegetation Type

Instream vegetation provides a variety of functions and is a critical component of the aquatic ecosystem.  Aquatic plants promote stream health by:

• Providing direct riparian/instream habitat
• Stabilizing flows reducing shoreline erosion
• Contributing to dissolved oxygen through photosynthesis
• Maintaining temperature conditions through shading

For example emergent plants along the shoreline can provide shoreline protection from wave action and important rearing habitat for species of waterfowl.  Submerged plants provide habitat for fish to find shelter from predator fish while they feed.  Floating plants such as water lilies shade the water and can keep temperatures cool while reducing algae growth.  Narrow leaved emergents were present at 89% of the sections surveyed, algae was observed in 74% of sections, while free floating plants were observed in 27% of surveyed sections.   Broad leaved emergents were observed in 44% of sections, submerged plants in 81%, floating plants in 27% and robust emergents in 50% of sections surveyed.  Figure 28 depicts the plant community structure for the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment. Figure xx shows the dominant vegetation type observed for each section surveyed along the Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment.

3.3.6 Instream Vegetation Abundance

Instream vegetation is an important factor for a healthy stream ecosystem. Vegetation helps to remove contaminants from the water, contributes oxygen to the stream, and provides habitat for fish and wildlife. Too much vegetation can also be detrimental. Figure 30 demonstrates that the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill reach had no vegetation to low levels of instream vegetation for 53 percent of its length.  Normal to common levels of vegetation were recorded at 26 percent of stream surveys.  Extensive levels of vegetation were observed along 21 percent of the systems length.

3.3.7 Invasive Species

Invasive species can have major implications on streams and species diversity. Invasive species are one of the largest threats to ecosystems throughout Ontario and can out compete native species, having negative effects on local wildlife, fish and plant populations. Ninety three percent of the sections surveyed along the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill reach had invasive species. The invasive species observed in the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill reach were European frogbit, poison/wild parsnip, dog strangling vine, yellow iris, purple loosestrife, rusty crayfish, glossy buckthorn, garlic mustard and Manitoba maple.  Invasive species abundance (i.e. the number of observed invasive species per section) was assessed to determine the potential range/vector of many of these species (Figure 31). 

3.3.8 Water Chemistry

During the stream characterization survey, a YSI probe is used to collect water chemistry information.  Dissolved oxygen (DO), specific conductivity (SPC) and pH are measured at the start and end of each section. 

3.3.8.1 Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen is a measure of the amount of oxygen dissolved in water. The Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) suggest that for the protection of aquatic life the lowest acceptable dissolved oxygen concentration should be 6 mg/L for warmwater biota and 9.5 mg/L for coldwater biota (CCME, 1999).  Figure 32 shows that the dissolved oxygen in the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment was within the threshold for warmwater biota in this reach of the system.  The average dissolved oxygen levels observed within the main stem of the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill was 6.72mg/L which is within the recommended levels for warmwater biota.  The upper sections of the reach fell below the recommended 6.0mg/L for warmwater biota.

3.3.8.2 Conductivity

Conductivity in streams is primarily influenced by the geology of the surrounding environment, but can vary drastically as a function of surface water runoff. Currently there are no CCME guideline standards for stream conductivity; however readings which are outside the normal range observed within the system are often an indication of unmitigated discharge and/or stormwater input. The average conductivity observed within the main stem of Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment was 404.36 µs/cm.  Figure 33 shows the conductivity readings for the Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment.

3.3.8.3 pH

Based on the PWQO for pH, a range of 6.5 to 8.5 should be maintained for the protection of aquatic life. Average pH values for the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment averaged 7.95 thereby meeting the provincial standard (Figure 34).

3.3.8.4 Oxygen Saturation (%)

Oxygen saturation is measured as the ratio of dissolved oxygen relative to the maximum amount of oxygen that will dissolve based on the temperature and atmospheric pressure. Well oxygenated water will stabilize at or above 100% saturation, however the presence of decaying matter/pollutants can drastically reduce these levels. Oxygen input through photosynthesis has the potential to increase saturation above 100% to a maximum of 500%, depending on the productivity level of the environment. In order to represent the relationship between concentration and saturation, the measured values have been summarized into 6 classes:

1. <100% Saturation / <6.0 mg/L Concentration. Oxygen concentration and saturation are not sufficient to support aquatic life and may represent impairment
2. >100% Saturation / <6.0 mg/L Concentration. Oxygen concentration is not sufficient to support aquatic life, however saturation levels indicate that the water has stabilized at its estimated maximum. This is indicative of higher water temperatures and stagnant flows.
3. <100% Saturation / 6.0—9.5 mg/L Concentration. Oxygen concentration is sufficient to support warmwater biota, however depletion factors are likely present and are limiting maximum saturation.
4. >100% Saturation / 6.0—9.5 mg/L Concentration. Oxygen concentration and saturation levels are optimal for warmwater biota.
5. <100% Saturation / >9.5 mg/L Concentration. Oxygen concentration is sufficient to support coldwater biota, however depletion factors are likely present and are limiting maximum saturation.
6. >100% Saturation / >9.5 mg/L Concentration. Oxygen concentration and saturation levels are optimal for coldwater biota.

Dissolved oxygen conditions on the Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment are generally sufficient for both warm and coolwater species (Figure 35).  Dissolved oxygen conditions are higher in the lower reach which is a function of the riffle habitat in those sections of the Jock River.  Oxygen levels in wetland habitats are typically lower than they are in areas where the substrate is dominated by cobble and riffle habitat.

3.3.8.5 Specific Conductivity Assessment

Specific conductivity (SPC) is a standardized measure of electrical conductance, collected at or corrected to a water temperature of 25⁰C. SPC is directly related to the concentration of ions in water, and is commonly influenced by the presence of dissolved salts, alkalis, chlorides, sulfides and carbonate compounds. The higher the concentration of these compounds, the higher the conductivity. Common sources of elevated conductivity include storm water, agricultural inputs and commercial/industrial effluents.

In order to summarize the conditions observed, SPC levels were evaluated as either normal, moderately elevated or highly elevated. These categories correspond directly to the degree of variation (i.e. standard deviation) at each site relative to the average across the system.

Normal levels were maintained along the majority of the Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment, however there were elevated areas immediately downstream of the Riverbend golf course and in two specified locations in the middle and upper reaches within the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment area (Figure 36). 

3.3.9 Thermal Regime

Many factors can influence fluctuations in stream temperature, including springs, tributaries, precipitation runoff, discharge pipes and stream shading from riparian vegetation. Water temperature is used along with the maximum air temperature (using the Stoneman and Jones method) to classify a watercourse as either warm water, cool water or cold water. Figure 37 shows where the thermal sampling sites were located along Jock River Ashton – Dwyer Hill catchment.  Analysis of the data collected indicates that Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment is classified as a warm water system with cool to warm water reaches (Figure 38).  

Each point on the graph represents a temperature that meets the following criteria:

• Sampling dates between July 1st and September 7th
• Sampling date is preceded by two consecutive days above 24.5 °C, with no rain
• Water temperatures are collected at 4pm
• Air temperature is recorded as the max temperature for that day

3.3.10 Groundwater

Groundwater discharge areas can influence stream temperature, contribute nutrients, and provide important stream habitat for fish and other biota. During stream surveys, indicators of groundwater discharge are noted when observed. Indicators include: springs/seeps, watercress, iron staining, significant temperature change and rainbow mineral film.  Figure 39 shows areas where one or more of the above groundwater indicators were observed during stream surveys and headwater assessments. 

3.3.11 Fish Community

The Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment is classified as a mixed community of warm and cool water recreational and baitfish fishery with 35 species observed. Figure 40 shows the sampling locations along the Jock River in the Barrhaven catchment. 

The following table contains a list of species observed in the watershed.

3.3.12 Migratory Obstructions

It is important to know locations of migratory obstructions because these can prevent fish from accessing important spawning and rearing habitat. Migratory obstructions can be natural or manmade, and they can be permanent or seasonal. Figure 41 shows that Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment had two weir barriers at the time of the survey in 2015.  The Ashton Station Dam along with several natural grade barriers were observed, one debris dam and three beaver dams were identified along the Jock River in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment.

3.3.13 Riparian Restoration

Figure 42 depicts the locations of riparian restoration opportunities as a result of observations made during the stream survey.

3.3.14 Instream Restoration

Figure 43 depicts the locations of instream restoration opportunities as a result of observations made during the stream survey. Only one small stream garbage cleanup restoration opportunity was observed in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment.

3.4 Headwater Drainage Features Assessment

3.4.1 Headwater Sampling Locations

The RVCA Stream Characterization program assessed Headwater Drainage Features for the Jock River subwatershed in 2015. This protocol measures zero, first and second order headwater drainage features (HDF).  It is a rapid assessment method characterizing the amount of water, sediment transport, and storage capacity within headwater drainage features (HDF). RVCA is working with other Conservation Authorities and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to implement the protocol with the goal of providing standard datasets to support science development and monitoring of headwater drainage features.  An HDF is a depression in the land that conveys surface flow. Additionally, this module provides a means of characterizing the connectivity, form and unique features associated with each HDF (OSAP Protocol, 2013). In 2015 the program sampled 20 sites at road crossings in the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment area (Figure 44).  

3.4.2 Headwater Feature Type

The headwater sampling protocol assesses the feature type in order to understand the function of each feature.  The evaluation includes the following classifications: defined natural channel, channelized or constrained, multi-thread, no defined feature, tiled, wetland, swale, roadside ditch and pond outlet.  By assessing the values associated with the headwater drainage features in the catchment area we can understand the ecosystem services that they provide to the watershed in the form of hydrology, sediment transport, and aquatic and terrestrial functions.  The headwater drainage features in the Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment are primarily classified as wetland with seven,  five features classified as natural, four features classified as a road side ditch, two multi thread and two features as channelized.  Figure 45 shows the feature type of the primary feature at the sampling locations.

3.4.3 Headwater Feature Flow

The observed flow condition within headwater drainage features can be highly variable depending on timing relative to the spring freshet, recent rainfall, soil moisture, etc.  Flow conditions are assessed in the spring and in the summer to determine if features are perennial and flow year round, if they are intermittent and dry up during the summer months or if they are ephemeral systems that do not flow regularly and generally respond to specific rainstorm events or snowmelt.  Flow conditions in headwater systems can change from year to year depending on local precipitation patterns.  Figure 46 shows the observed flow condition at the sampling locations in the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment in 2015.

3.4.4 Headwater Feature Channel Modifications

Channel modifications were assessed at each headwater drainage feature sampling location.  Modifications include channelization, dredging, hardening and realignments.  The Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment area had five site as having been recently dredged, four locations had mixed modifications, one had channel had been hardened and ten had no channel modifications observed.  Figure 47 shows the channel modifications observed at the sampling locations for Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill.

3.4.5 Headwater Feature Vegetation

Headwater feature vegetation evaluates the type of vegetation that is found within the drainage feature.  The type of vegetated within the channel influences the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem values that the feature provides.  For some types of headwater features the vegetation within the feature plays a very important role in flow and sediment movement and provides wildlife habitat.  The following classifications are evaluated no vegetation, lawn, wetland, meadow, scrubland and forest. Figure 48 depicts the dominant vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment.

3.4.6 Headwater Feature Riparian Vegetation

Headwater riparian vegetation evaluates the type of vegetation that is found along the adjacent lands of a headwater drainage feature.  The type of vegetation within the riparian corridor influences the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem values that the feature provides to the watershed.  Figure 49 depicts the type of riparian vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment.

3.4.7 Headwater Feature Sediment Deposition

Assessing the amount of recent sediment deposited in a channel provides an index of the degree to which the feature could be transporting sediment to downstream reaches (OSAP, 2013).  Evidence of excessive sediment deposition might indicate the requirement to follow up with more detailed targeted assessments upstream of the site location to identify potential best management practices to be implemented.  Sediment deposition ranged from none to extensive for the headwater sites sampled in the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment area. Figure 50 depicts the degree of sediment deposition observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment.

3.4.8 Headwater Feature Upstream Roughness

Feature roughness will provide a measure of the amount of materials within the bankfull channel that could slow down the velocity of water flowing within the headwater feature (OSAP, 2013).  Materials on the channel bottom that provide roughness include vegetation, woody debris and boulders/cobble substrates.  Roughness can provide benefits in mitigating downstream erosion on the headwater drainage feature and the receiving watercourse by reducing velocities.  Roughness also provides important habitat conditions for aquatic organisms. Figure 51shows the feature roughness conditions at the sampling location in the Jock River Ashton - Dwyer Hill catchment.

• Print

4.0 Jock River-Ashton Dwyer Hill Catchment: Land Cover

Land cover and any change in coverage that has occurred over a six year period is summarized for the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment using spatially continuous vector data representing the catchment during the spring of 2008 and 2014. This dataset was developed by the RVCA through heads-up digitization of 20cm DRAPE ortho-imagery at a 1:4000 scale and details the surrounding landscape using 10 land cover classes.

4.1 Ashton-Dwyer Hill Catchment Land Cover Change

As shown in Table 8 and Figure 1, the dominant land cover type in 2014 was crop and pastureland followed by woodland and wetland.

From 2008 to 2014, there was an overall change of 199 hectares (from one land cover class to another). Most of the change in the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment is a result of the conversion of crop and pastureland and wetland to settlement, wetland and settlement to transportation along with the conversion of woodland to crop and pastureland (Figure 52).

Table 9 provides a detailed breakdown of all land cover change that has taken place in the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment between 2008 and 2014.

4.2 Woodland Cover

In the Environment Canada Guideline (Third Edition) entitled “How Much Habitat Is Enough?” (hereafter referred to as the “Guideline”) the opening narrative under the Forest Habitat Guidelines section states that prior to European settlement, forest was the predominant habitat in the Mixedwood Plains ecozone. The remnants of this once vast forest now exist in a fragmented state in many areas (including the Rideau Valley watershed) with woodland patches of various sizes distributed across the settled landscape along with higher levels of forest cover associated with features such as the Frontenac Axis (within the on-Shield areas of the Rideau Lakes and Tay River subwatersheds). The forest legacy, in terms of the many types of wildlife species found, overall species richness, ecological functions provided and ecosystem complexity is still evident in the patches and regional forest matrices (found in the Jock River subwatershed and elsewhere in the Rideau Valley watershed). These ecological features are in addition to other influences which forests have on water quality and stream hydrology including reducing soil erosion, producing oxygen, storing carbon along with many other ecological services that are essential not only for wildlife but for human well-being.

The Guideline also notes that forests provide a great many habitat niches that are in turn occupied by a great diversity of plant and animal species. They provide food, water and shelter for these species - whether they are breeding and resident locally or using forest cover to help them move across the landscape. This diversity of species includes many that are considered to be species at risk. Furthermore, from a wildlife perspective, there is increasing evidence that the total forest cover in a given area is a major predictor of the persistence and size of bird populations, and it is possible or perhaps likely that this pattern extends to other flora and fauna groups. The overall effect of a decrease in forest cover on birds in fragmented landscapes is that certain species disappear and many of the remaining ones become rare, or fail to reproduce, while species adapted to more open and successional habitats, as well as those that are more tolerant to human-induced disturbances in general, are able to persist and in some cases thrive. Species with specialized-habitat requirements are most likely to be adversely affected. The overall pattern of distribution of forest cover, the shape, area and juxtaposition of remaining forest patches and the quality of forest cover also play major roles in determining how valuable forests will be to wildlife and people alike.

The current science generally supports minimum forest habitat requirements between 30 and 50 percent, with some limited evidence that the upper limit may be even higher, depending on the organism/species phenomenon under investigation or land-use/resource management planning regime being considered/used.

As shown in Figure 53, 25 percent of the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment contains 1795 hectares of upland forest and 224 hectares of lowland forest (treed swamps) versus the 26 percent of woodland cover in the Jock River subwatershed. This is less than the 30 percent of forest cover that is identified as the minimum threshold required to sustain forest birds according to the Guideline and which may only support less than one half of potential species richness and marginally healthy aquatic systems. When forest cover drops below 30 percent, forest birds tend to disappear as breeders across the landscape.

4.2.1 Woodland (Patch) Size

According to the Ministry of Natural Resources’ Natural Heritage Reference Manual (Second Edition), larger woodlands are more likely to contain a greater diversity of plant and animal species and communities than smaller woodlands and have a greater relative importance for mobile animal species such as forest birds.

Bigger forests often provide a different type of habitat. Many forest birds breed far more successfully in larger forests than they do in smaller woodlots and some rely heavily on forest interior conditions. Populations are often healthier in regions with more forest cover and where forest fragments are grouped closely together or connected by corridors of natural habitat. Small forests support small numbers of wildlife. Some species are “area-sensitive” and tend not to inhabit small woodlands, regardless of forest interior conditions. Fragmented habitat also isolates local populations, especially small mammals, amphibians and reptiles with limited mobility. This reduces the healthy mixing of genetic traits that helps populations survive over the long run (Conserving the Forest Interior. Ontario Extension Notes, 2000).

The Environment Canada Guideline also notes that for forest plants that do not disperse broadly or quickly, preservation of some relatively undisturbed large forest patches is needed to sustain them because of their restricted dispersal abilities and specialized habitat requirements and to ensure continued seed or propagation sources for restored or regenerating areas nearby.

The Natural Heritage Reference Manual continues by stating that a larger size also allows woodlands to support more resilient nutrient cycles and food webs and to be big enough to permit different and important successional stages to co-exist. Small, isolated woodlands are more susceptible to the effects of blowdown, drought, disease, insect infestations, and invasions by predators and non-indigenous plants. It is also known that the viability of woodland wildlife depends not only on the characteristics of the woodland in which they reside, but also on the characteristics of the surrounding landscape where the woodland is situated. Additionally, the percentage of forest cover in the surrounding landscape, the presence of ecological barriers such as roads, the ability of various species to cross the matrix surrounding the woodland and the proximity of adjacent habitats interact with woodland size in influencing the species assemblage within a woodland.

In the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment (in 2014), 191 (54 percent) of the 356 woodland patches are very small, being less than one hectare in size. Another 137 (38 percent) of the woodland patches ranging from one to less than 20 hectares in size tend to be dominated by edge-tolerant bird species. The remaining 28 (8 percent of) woodland patches range between 21 and 181 hectares in size. Twenty-seven of these patches contain woodland between 20 and 100 hectares and may support a few area-sensitive species and some edge intolerant species, but will be dominated by edge tolerant species. Conversely, one (less than one percent) of the 356 woodland patches in the drainage area exceeds the 100 plus hectare size needed to support most forest dependent, area sensitive birds and are large enough to support approximately 60 percent of edge-intolerant species. No patch tops 200 hectares, which according to the Environment Canada Guideline will support 80 percent of edge-intolerant forest bird species (including most area sensitive species) that prefer interior forest habitat conditions.

Table 10 presents a comparison of woodland patch size in 2008 and 2014 along with any changes that have occurred over that time. A decrease (of 35 ha) has been observed in the overall woodland patch area between the two reporting periods with most change occurring in the 20 to 50 and 50 to 100 hectare woodland patch size class ranges.

4.2.2 Woodland (Forest) Interior Habitat

The forest interior is habitat deep within woodlands. It is a sheltered, secluded environment away from the influence of forest edges and open habitats. Some people call it the “core” or the “heart” of a woodland. The presence of forest interior is a good sign of woodland health, and is directly related to the woodland’s size and shape. Large woodlands with round or square outlines have the greatest amount of forest interior. Small, narrow woodlands may have no forest interior conditions at all. Forest interior habitat is a remnant natural environment, reminiscent of the extensive, continuous forests of the past. This increasingly rare forest habitat is now a refuge for certain forest-dependent wildlife; they simply must have it to survive and thrive in a fragmented forest landscape (Conserving the Forest Interior. Ontario Extension Notes, 2000).

The Natural Heritage Reference Manual states that woodland interior habitat is usually defined as habitat more than 100 metres from the edge of the woodland and provides for relative seclusion from outside influences along with a moister, more sheltered and productive forest habitat for certain area sensitive species. Woodlands with interior habitat have centres that are more clearly buffered against the edge effects of agricultural activities or more harmful urban activities than those without.

In the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment (in 2014), the 356 woodland patches contain 76 forest interior patches (Figure 53) that occupy two percent (135 ha.) of the catchment land area (which is less than the five percent of interior forest in the Jock River Subwatershed). This is below the ten percent figure referred to in the Environment Canada Guideline that is considered to be the minimum threshold for supporting edge intolerant bird species and other forest dwelling species in the landscape.

Most patches (74) have less than 10 hectares of interior forest, 54 of which have small areas of interior forest habitat less than one hectare in size. Between 2008 and 2014, there has been a large change in the number of woodland patches containing interior habitat with an overall loss of six hectares in the catchment (Table 11), suggesting an increase in forest fragmentation over the six year period.

4.3 Wetland Cover

Wetlands are habitats forming the interface between aquatic and terrestrial systems. They are among the most productive and biologically diverse habitats on the planet. By the 1980s, according to the Natural Heritage Reference Manual, 68 percent of the original wetlands south of the Precambrian Shield in Ontario had been lost through encroachment, land clearance, drainage and filling.

Wetlands perform a number of important ecological and hydrological functions and provide an array of social and economic benefits that society values. Maintaining wetland cover in a watershed provides many ecological, economic, hydrological and social benefits that are listed in the Reference Manual and which may include:

• contributing to the stabilization of shorelines and to the reduction of erosion damage through the mitigation of water flow and soil binding by plant roots
• mitigating surface water flow by storing water during periods of peak flow (such as spring snowmelt and heavy rainfall events) and releasing water during periods of low flow (this mitigation of water flow also contributes to a reduction of flood damage)
• contributing to an improved water quality through the trapping of sediments, the removal and/or retention of excess nutrients, the immobilization and/or degradation of contaminants and the removal of bacteria
• providing renewable harvesting of timber, fuel wood, fish, wildlife and wild rice
• contributing to a stable, long-term water supply in areas of groundwater recharge and discharge
• providing a high diversity of habitats that support a wide variety of plants and animals
• acting as “carbon sinks” making a significant contribution to carbon storage
• providing opportunities for recreation, education, research and tourism

Historically, the overall wetland coverage within the Great Lakes basin exceeded 10 percent, but there was significant variability among watersheds and jurisdictions, as stated in the Environment Canada Guideline. In the Rideau Valley Watershed, it has been estimated that pre-settlement wetland cover averaged 35 percent using information provided by Ducks Unlimited Canada (2010) versus the 21 percent of wetland cover existing in 2014 derived from DRAPE imagery analysis.

Using the same dataset, it is estimated that pre-settlement (historic) wetland cover averaged 51 percent in the Jock River subwatershed versus the 24 percent of cover existing in 2014 (as summarized in Table 12).

This decline in wetland cover is also evident in the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment (as seen in Figure 54) where wetland was reported to cover 47 percent of the area prior to settlement, as compared to 21 percent in 2014. This represents a 55 percent loss of historic wetland cover. To maintain critical hydrological, ecological functions along with related recreational and economic benefits provided by these wetland habitats in the catchment, a “no net loss” of currently existing wetlands should be employed to ensure the continued provision of tangible benefits accruing from them to landowners and surrounding communities.

4.4 Shoreline Cover

The riparian or shoreline zone is that special area where the land meets the water. Well-vegetated shorelines are critically important in protecting water quality and creating healthy aquatic habitats, lakes and rivers. Natural shorelines intercept sediments and contaminants that could impact water quality conditions and harm fish habitat in streams. Well established buffers protect the banks against erosion, improve habitat for fish by shading and cooling the water and provide protection for birds and other wildlife that feed and rear young near water. A recommended target (from the Environment Canada Guideline) is to maintain a minimum 30 metre wide vegetated buffer along at least 75 percent of the length of both sides of rivers, creeks and streams.

Figure 55 shows the extent of the ‘Natural’ vegetated riparian zone (predominantly wetland/woodland features) and ‘Other’ anthropogenic cover (crop/pastureland, roads/railways, settlements) along a 30-metre-wide area of land, both sides of the shoreline of the Jock River and its tributaries in the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment.

This analysis shows that the riparian zone in the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment in 2014 was comprised of wetland (36 percent), crop and pastureland (28 percent), woodland (18 percent), settlement (eight percent), transportation (seven percent), meadow-thicket (three percent) and aggregates (less than one percent). Additional statistics for the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment are presented in Table 13. Of particular interest is the observed increase in the area of “Transportation” and "Meadow-Thicket" and decrease in "Woodland", "Wetland" and "Crop and Pastureland" along the shoreline of the Jock River and tributaries over a six year period.

• Print

5.0 Jock River-Ashton Dwyer Hill Catchment: Stewardship and Water Resources Protection

The RVCA and its partners are working to protect and enhance environmental conditions in the Jock River Subwatershed. Figure 56 shows the location of all stewardship projects completed in the Jock River-Ashton Dwyer Hill catchment along with sites identified for potential shoreline restoration.

5.1 Rural Clean Water Projects

From 2010 to 2015, three precision farming and two manure storage/wastewater runoff projects were completed along with one well upgrade, one milkhouse wastewater treatment facility, one windbreak planting and one fragile land retirement. Between 2004 and 2009, two livestock fencing and two crop residue projects were finished along with two septic system replacements, one well decommissioning, one well upgrade and one nutrient management plan. Prior to 2004, four crop residue and three livestock fencing projects, three precision farming, two milkhouse wastewater treatment facilities, one septic system replacement and one manure storage/wastewater runoff project were completed. Total value of all 32 projects is $506,613 with $91,900 of that amount funded through grant dollars from the RVCA.

5.2 Private Land Forestry Projects

The location of RVCA tree planting projects is shown in Figure 56. From 2010 to 2015, 24,450 trees were planted at six sites. Between 2004 and 2009, 23,057 trees were planted at 10 sites and prior to 2004, 200,460 trees were  planted at 31 sites, In total, 245,967 trees were planted resulting in the reforestation of 123 hectares. Three of these projects were completed within the 30 metre riparian zone of the Jock River and its tributaries. Total project value of all 47 projects is $695,523 with $262,014 of that amount coming from fundraising sources.

Through the RVCA Butternut Recovery Program, an additional 70 butternut trees were planted in the Jock River-Ashton Dwyer Hill catchment (Figure 56) between 2004 and 2015, as part of efforts to introduce healthy seedlings from tolerant butternuts into various locations across Eastern Ontario.

5.3 Shoreline Naturalization Projects

With the assistance of the RVCA’s Shoreline Naturalization Program, 190 trees and shrubs were planted at a total project value of $1,582.

5.4 Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Projects

Figure 56 shows the location of all Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program (ODWSP) projects in the Jock River-Ashton Dwyer Hill catchment. Between 2010 and 2015, two fuel handling and storage facilities and one septic system repair/replacement were completed. Total project value is $28,810 with $9,291 of that amount funded by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment.

5.5 Valley, Stream, Wetland and Hazard Lands

The Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment covers 81 square kilometres with 17.3 square kilometres (or 21 percent) of the drainage area being within the regulation limit of Ontario Regulation 174/06 (Figure 57), giving protection to wetland areas and river or stream valleys that are affected by flooding and erosion hazards.

Wetlands occupy 17.1 sq. km. (or 21 percent) of the catchment. Of these wetlands, 8.3 sq. km (or 49 percent) are designated as provincially significant and included within the RVCA regulation limit. This leaves the remaining 8.8 sq. km (or 51 percent) of wetlands in the catchment outside the regulated area limit.

Of the 153.3 kilometres of stream in the catchment, regulation limit mapping has been plotted along 56.9 kilometers of streams (representing 37 percent of all streams in the catchment). Some of these regulated watercourses (30.1 km or 20 percent of all streams) flow through regulated wetlands; the remaining 26.8 km (or 47 percent) of regulated streams are located outside of those wetlands. Plotting of the regulation limit on the remaining 96.4 km (or 63 percent) of streams requires identification of flood and erosion hazards and valley systems.

Within those areas of the Ashton-Dwyer Hill catchment subject to the regulation (limit), efforts (have been made and) continue through RVCA planning and regulations input and review to manage the impact of development (and other land management practices) in areas where “natural hazards” are associated with rivers, streams, valley lands and wetlands. For areas beyond the regulation limit, protection of the catchment’s watercourses is only provided through the “alteration to waterways” provision of the regulation.

5.6 Vulnerable Drinking Water Areas

A portion of the Wellhead Protection Area around the Munster municipal drinking water source is located within the Jock River-Ashton Dwyer Hill drainage catchment. This area is subject to mandatory policies in the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan developed under the Clean Water Act. These policies specifically regulate land uses and activities that are considered drinking water threats, thereby reducing the risk of contamination of the municipal drinking water source.

The Jock River-Ashton Dwyer Hill drainage catchment is also considered to have a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer. This means that the nature of the overburden (thin soils, fractured bedrock) does not provide a high level of protection for the underlying groundwater making the aquifer more vulnerable to contaminants released on the surface. The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan includes policies that focus on the protection of groundwater region-wide due to the fact that most of the region, which encompasses the Mississippi and Rideau watersheds, is considered Highly Vulnerable Aquifer.

For detailed maps and policies that have been developed to protect drinking water sources, please go to the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region website at www.mrsourcewater.ca to view the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan.

• Print

6.0 Jock River-Ashton Dwyer Hill Catchment: Challenges/Issues

Water Quality/Quantity

Surface chemistry water quality on the Jock River in the catchment declines from “Fair” to “Poor” between the upstream (JR-45) and downstream sites (JR-20). The scores at both sites are largely influenced by frequent high nutrient concentrations and periods of bacterial pollution

Instream biological water quality conditions at the Jock River Ashton-Dwyer Hill sample location aquatic habitat conditions from a benthic invertebrate perspective is considered “Poor” from 2011 to 2015 as the samples are dominated by species that are moderately sensitive and tolerant to high organic pollution levels

Existing hydrological and geochemical datasets and assessments (academic, RVCA, others) are only recently available and/or are not being considered in the characterization of the numerous hydrologic functions of the Jock River subwatershed. Further, there is a dearth of hydrologic information (hydroperiod, groundwater/surface water interactions, geochemistry) about the wetlands that remain in the Jock River subwatershed

Headwaters/Instream/Shorelines

‘Natural’ vegetation covers 57 percent of the riparian zone of the Jock River and its tributaries (Figure 55) and is below the recommended 30 metre wide, naturally vegetated target along 75 percent of the length of the catchment’s watercourses

Land Cover

Woodlands cover 25 percent of the catchment and is less than the 30 percent of forest cover that is identified as the minimum threshold for sustaining forest birds and other woodland dependent species (Figure 53)

Pre-settlement wetlands have declined by 55 percent and now cover 21 percent (1713 ha.) of the catchment (Figure 54). Fifty-two percent (896 ha.) of these wetlands remain unevaluated/unregulated and are vulnerable to drainage and land clearing activities in the absence of any regulatory and planning controls that would otherwise protect them for the many important hydrological, social, biological and ecological functions/services/values they provide to landowners and the surrounding community

• Print

7.0 Jock River-Ashton Dwyer Hill Catchment: Opportunities/Actions

Water Quality/Quantity

Investigate the impact of inflow from the Jenkinson drain to water quality conditions on the Jock River at site (JR-20)

Focus water quality improvements at elevated nutrient and E. coli counts via non-point and point source pollution control using best management practices such as shoreline zone enhancement and protection of natural cover

Landowners should consider taking advantage of the Rural Clean Water Programs which offer grants to landowners interested in implementing projects on their property that will help to protect and improve water quality:

• Homeowners may be interested in projects to repair, replace or upgrade their well or septic system, or addressing erosion through buffer plantings and erosion control
• Farmers can take advantage of a wide range of projects, including livestock fencing, manure storage, tile drainage control structures, cover crops, and many more

Continue to coordinate environmental monitoring and reporting activities with the City of Ottawa

Use wetland restoration as a tool to improve surface water quality and help restore the hydrologic integrity of the Jock River and its tributaries

List, share and when possible, synthesize and use existing hydrological and geochemical datasets and assessment outcomes to facilitate the characterization of subwatershed and catchment hydrological functions. In addition, prepare guidance on best practices for the preparation of water budget assessments to better understand the hydrologic cycle requirements that occur at site specific scales; and share existing catchment and subwatershed scale water budget assessment outcomes

Headwaters/Instream/Shorelines

Promote the Rideau Valley Shoreline Naturalization Program to landowners to increase existing 57 percent of natural shoreline cover

Educate landowners about the value of and best management practices used to maintain and enhance natural shorelines and headwater drainage features

Work with the Township of Beckwith and City of Ottawa to consistently implement current land use planning and development policies for water quality and shoreline protection (i.e., adherence to a minimum 30 metre development setback from water) adjacent to the Jock River and other catchment streams

Target shoreline restoration at sites identified in this report (shown as “Other riparian land cover” in Figure 55 and “Potential Riparian/Instream Restoration” in Figures 42/43) and explore other restoration and enhancement opportunities along the Jock River and its tributaries

Land Cover

Promote the City of Ottawa Green Acres Reforestation Program and the Rideau Valley Trees for Tomorrow Program to landowners to increase existing 25 percent of woodland cover

Encourage the Township of Beckwith and City of Ottawa to strengthen natural heritage policies in official plans and zoning by-laws where shoreline, wetland, woodland cover and watercourse setbacks are determined to be at or below critical ecological thresholds. Information for this purpose is provided in the RVCA’s subwatershed and catchment reports

Explore ways and means to more effectively enforce and implement conditions of land-use planning and development approvals to achieve net environmental gains

Re-consider the RVCA’s approach to wetland regulation where there is an identified hydrologic imperative to do so (i.e., significant loss of historic wetland cover (see Figure 54) and/or seasonal, critically low baseflows in the Jock River and/or areas of seasonal flooding)

• Print

Full Catchment Report

• Print

Jock River Subwatershed Report 2016

Jock River-Barrhaven Catchment

The RVCA produces individual reports for 12 catchments in the Jock River subwatershed. Using data collected and analyzed by the RVCA through its watershed monitoring and land cover classification programs, surface water quality and in-stream conditions are reported for the Jock River along with a summary of environmental conditions for the surrounding countryside every six years.

This information is used to better understand the effects of human activity on our water resources, allows us to better track environmental change over time and helps focus watershed management actions where they are needed the most to help sustain the ecosystem services (cultural, aesthetic and recreational values; provisioning of food, fuel and clean water; regulation of erosion/natural hazard protection and water purification; supporting nutrient/water cycling and habitat provision) provided by the catchment’s lands and forests and waters (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).

The following sections of this report for the Jock River-Barrhaven catchment are a compilation of that work.

For other Jock River catchments and the Jock River Subwatershed Report, please visit the RVCA website at www.rvca.ca

• Print

1.0 Jock River-Barrhaven Catchment: Facts

1.1 General/Physical Geography

Municipalities

• Ottawa: (31 km²; 100% of catchment)

Geology/Physiography

• The Barrhaven Catchment resides within an extensive physiographic region known as the Ottawa Valley Clay Plain. The sediment was deposited in the Champlain Sea after the last glaciation. This part of the clay plain is approximately 8 to 10 metres deep. It is truncated to the north by Paleozoic bedrock and to the west by a regional geological sand and gravel feature known as the Kars Esker; while glacial till flanks the eastern extent of the catchment
• In this catchment, the clay plain is underlain by dolostone, interbedded sandstone/dolostone and limestone from the Oxford, March and Bobcaygeon Formations, respectively. In addition, several geologic faults may pass through the catchment

Karst/Topography

• The ground surface ranges in elevation from 120 masl along Moodie Drive north of Fallowfield Road to 80 masl at the confluence of the Jock River with the Rideau River
• Surficial karst may be present near Hwy 416 in this catchment

Drainage Area

• 31 square kilometers; occupies five percent of the Jock River subwatershed, one percent of the Rideau Valley watershed

Stream Length

• Jock River and tributaries: 50 km

1.2 Vulnerable Areas

Flood/Erosion Hazard

• Jock River is subject to a flooding hazard during the regional storm flood (the 100 year flood). Surveys and studies undertaken in accordance with provincial standards have determined that the 100 year flood elevation in the catchment ranges from 92.7 metres above mean sea level at the upper, mapped extent of the regulation limit at Moodie Drive to 80.3 metres above mean sea level at its confluence with the Rideau River downstream of Prince of Wales Drive

Aquifer Vulnerability

• The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection initiative has mapped the southern part of this catchment as a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area and parts of the catchment as Highly Vulnerable Aquifer. There are no Well Head Protection Areas in the catchment

Wetland Hydrology

• A watershed model developed by the RVCA in 2009 was used to study the hydrologic function of wetlands in the Rideau Valley Watershed, including those found in the Barrhaven catchment

1.3 Conditions at a Glance

Water Quality

• Surface chemistry water quality rating in the Barrhaven catchment is “Fair” at both sites over the two reporting periods (2004-2009 and 2010-2015). Frequent high nutrient concentrations and occasional exceedances of copper and aluminium contributed to the rating
• Instream biological water quality conditions at the Jock River Barrhaven sample location range from “ Poor” to “Good” from 2004 to 2015 (using a grading scheme developed by Ontario Conservation Authorities in Ontario for benthic invertebrates) with an overall benthic invertebrate water quality rating of “Good” determined for this period

Instream and Riparian

• Overall instream and riparian condition for the Jock River-Barrhaven catchment as assessed by the stream characterization and headwater drainage feature assessment programs show that the Jock River and its tributaries are in generally good condition. The majority of the system has low erosion levels and a moderately healthy riparian corridor. Instream diversity of aquatic habitat is variable along much of the system

Thermal Regime

• Warm/cool water thermal guild supporting the Jock River/Rideau River fishery

Fish Community

• Thirty-six species of recreational and bait fish

Shoreline Cover Type (30 m. riparian area; 2014)

• Crop and Pasture (36%)
• Settlement (29%)
• Woodland (20%)
• Transportation (11%)
• Aggregate (3%)
• Wetland (1%)

Land Cover Type (2014)

• Settlement (42%)
• Crop and Pasture (20%)
• Transportation (14%)
• Woodland (11%)
• Aggregate (9%)
• Water (2%)
• Meadow-Thicket (1%)
• Wetland (<1%)

Land Cover Change (2008 to 2014)

• Crop and Pasture (-250 ha)
• Woodland (-27 ha)
• Meadow-Thicket (0 ha)
• Aggregate (+2 ha)
• Wetland (+2 ha)
• Water (+4 ha)
• Transportation (+108 ha)
• Settlement (+160 ha)

Significant Natural Features

• Stony Swamp Provincially Significant Wetland

Water Wells

• Several hundred (~350) operational private water wells in the Barrhaven catchment. Groundwater uses are mainly domestic but also include livestock watering, groundwater monitoring and testing and municipal, commercial and other public water supplies

Aggregates

• There are parts of 3 bedrock quarry licenses and 9 sand and gravel pit licenses located within the catchment. Sand and gravel resources are mainly of secondary importance

Species at Risk (Elemental Occurrence)

• Snapping Turtle (Special Concern)

1.4 Catchment Care

Stewardship

•  Twenty-one stewardship projects undertaken (see Section 5)

Environmental Monitoring

• Chemical surface (in-stream) water quality collection since 2003 (see Section 2)
• Benthic invertebrate (aquatic insect) surface (in-stream) water quality collection since 2003 (see Section 3.3.1)
• Fish survey along the Jock River (see Section 3.3.11)
• Stream characterization survey on the Jock River in 2015, working upstream to the headwaters from its mouth  where it empties into the Rideau River, taking measurements and recording observations on instream habitat, bank stability, other attributes and preparing a temperature profile (see Section 3)
• Five headwater drainage feature assessments in 2015 at road crossings in the catchment. The protocol measures zero, first and second order headwater drainage features and is a rapid assessment method characterizing the amount of water, sediment transport, and storage capacity within headwater drainage features (see Section 3.4)
• Groundwater level and chemistry data is available from a PGMN well located in the Hearts Desire community (W085). Additional groundwater chemistry information is available from the Ontario Geological Survey for two wells located in this catchment

Environmental Management

• Development along the Jock River and in and adjacent to the Stony Swamp Provincially Significant Wetlands in the catchment) is subject to Ontario Regulation 174-06 (entitled “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses”) that protects the hydrologic function of the wetland and also protects landowners and their property from natural hazards (flooding, fluctuating water table, unstable soils) associated with them
• Approximately 30 Environmental Compliance Approvals and/or Environmental Activity and Sector Registrations in this catchment. Most of these approvals/registrations are for municipal and private sewage works, while others are for private water works, waste management systems, a standby power system industrial sewage disposal systems and air emissions. An active municipal landfill is in the southern part of this catchment
• Approximately 28 active Permits To Take Water (PTTW), most of which have been issued for construction dewatering or similar activities; several for golf course irrigation; a couple for quarry dewatering; and one for municipal landfill activities

• Print

2.0 Jock River-Barrhaven Catchment: Surface Water Quality Conditions

Surface water quality conditions in the Jock River-Barrhaven catchment are monitored by the City of Ottawa’s Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Program. This program provides information on the condition of Ottawa’s surface water resources; data is collected for multiple parameters including nutrients (total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and ammonia), E. coli, metals (like aluminum and copper) and additional chemical/physical parameters (such as alkalinity, chlorides, pH and total suspended solids). The locations of monitoring sites are shown in Figure 2 and Table 1.

2.1 Jock River Water Quality Rating

There are two monitored water quality sites on the Jock River in the Barrhaven Catchment (JR-01 and JR-02), the RVCA's water quality rating for these are “Fair” (Table 1) as determined by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Water Quality Index^[1]. A “Fair” rating indicates that water quality is usually protected but is occasionally threatened or impaired; conditions sometimes depart from natural or desirable levels. Each parameter is evaluated against established guidelines to determine water quality conditions. Those parameters that frequently exceed guidelines are presented below. Analysis of the data has been broken into two periods; 2004 to 2009 and 2010 to 2015 to examine if conditions have changed between these periods. Table 1 shows the overall rating for the monitored surface water quality sites within the Jock River-Barrhaven catchment and Table 2 outlines the Water Quality Index (WQI) scores and their corresponding ratings.

Both sites had only small changes between the two reporting periods, with minor improvements in the water quality score.  The scores at these sites are largely influenced by frequent high nutrient concentrations and occasional metal exceedances. For more information on the CCME WQI, please see the Jock River Subwatershed Report.  For more information on the CCME WQI, please see the Jock River Subwatershed Report.  

2.2 Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and may contribute to abundant aquatic vegetation growth and depleted dissolved oxygen levels. The Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) is used as the TP Guideline and states that in streams concentrations greater than 0.030 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP.

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and ammonia (NH₃) are used as secondary indicators of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN^[2] and the PWQO of 0.020 mg/l to assess NH₃ concentrations in the Jock River.

Tables 3, 4 and 5 summarize average nutrient concentrations at monitored sites within the Jock River-Barrhaven catchment and show the proportion of results that meet the guidelines.

Monitoring Site JR-01

The majority of samples at site JR-01 were above the TP guideline from 2004-2009; however the proportion of exceedances decreased in the 2010-2015 monitoring period (Figures 3 and 4). The number of samples below the guideline improved from 38 percent in 2004-2009 to 48 percent in 2010-2015, and the average TP concentrations decreased slightly from 0.037 mg/l (2004–2009) to 0.033 mg/l (2010–2015) as shown in Table 3.

TKN concentrations show that the bulk of results exceeded the guideline (Figures 5 and 6); there were few samples (eight percent) below the guideline in the 2004-2009 period and this declined to only two percent in the 2010-2015 period. The average concentration was generally elevated and increased from 0.698 mg/l to 0.714 mg/l (Table 4).

In the 2004-2009 reporting period 56% of NH₃ results were below the guideline with an average concentration of 0.034 mg/l (Figure 7, Table 5). The percentage of results below the guideline declined to 41% in the 2010-2015 period, though the average concentration decreased to 0.028 mg/l (Figure 8, Table 5).  The overall reduction in NH₃ concentrations may be influenced by the lack of samples in March during the 2010-2015 period (Figure 8).  In the 2004-2009 period samples in March had the greatest concentrations (Figure 7), likely influenced by the impact of meltwater conditions which increases runoff and potential loadings to the river.

Monitoring Site JR-02

Elevated TP results were a common occurrence at site JR-02 and remained consistent between the two monitoring periods; 41 percent of samples were below the guideline in the 2004-2009 period (Figure 3); this remained consistent at 42 percent of samples in the 2010-2015 period (Figure 4). The average TP concentration was largely unchanged decreasing only slightly from 0.038 mg/l (2004-2009) to 0.036 mg/l (2010-2015) as shown in Table 3.

The bulk of TKN results have exceeded the guideline (Figure 5 and 6), with six percent of samples below the guideline in the 2004-2009 period, decreasing to no samples below the guideline in 2010-2015. The average concentration was elevated and increased from 0.706 mg/l to 0.714 mg/l (Table 4).

The results for NH₃ indicate that exceedances were common. Fifty-four percent of results were below the guideline in 2004-2009 (Figure 7); this decreased to 35 percent in the 2010-2015 reporting period (Figure 8). The average NH₃ concentration decreased marginally from 0.037 mg/l to 0.034 mg/l (Table 5). 

Figure 3 Total phosphorous concentrations in the Jock River, 2004-2009

Figure 4 Total phosphorous concentrations in the Jock River, 2010-2015

Figure 5 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations in the Jock River, 2004-2009

Figure 6 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations in the Jock River, 2010-2015

Figure 7 Ammonia concentrations in the Jock River, 2004-2009

Figure 8 Ammonia concentrations in the Jock River, 2010-2015

Summary

Nutrient enrichment has previously been identified as a feature in this reach of the Jock River^[3].  Overall, average nutrient concentrations have remained consistent through the monitoring periods, with few changes in some sites or parameters. All parameters (total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and ammonia) exceed their respective guidelines reguarly.  Elevated nutrients may result in nutrient loading downstream and to the Rideau River. High nutrient concentrations can help stimulate the growth of algae blooms and other aquatic vegetation in a waterbody and deplete oxygen levels as the vegetation dies off. Best management practices such as minimizing storm water runoff, enhanced shoreline buffers, minimizing/discontinuing the use of fertilizers and restricting livestock access in upstream agricultural areas can help to reduce nutrient enrichment in Jock River and subsequent impacts on the Rideau River.  

2.3 Escherichia coli

Escherichia coli (E. coli) is used as an indicator of bacterial pollution from human or animal waste; in elevated concentrations it can pose a risk to human health. The PWQO of 100 colony forming units/100 millilitres (CFU/100 ml) is used. E. coli counts greater than this guideline indicate that bacterial contamination may be a problem within a waterbody.

Table 6 summarizes the geometric mean^[4] for the monitored sites on the Jock River within the Barrhaven catchment and shows the proportion of samples that meet the E. coli guideline of 100 CFU/100 ml. The results of the geometric mean with respect to the guideline for the two periods, 2004-2009 and 2010-2015, are shown in Figures 9 and 10 respectively.

Monitoring Site JR-01

E. coli counts at site JR-01 indicate little change with regard to bacterial contamination. The proportion of samples below the guideline rose marginally from 78 percent (Figure 9) to 80 percent (Figure 10). The count at the geometric mean increased from 39 CFU/100ml in 2004-2009 to 46 CFU/100ml from 2010-2015 (Table 6). Although the count at the geometric mean increased, the geometric mean is below the guideline and the majority of samples are below the PWQO for E. coli.  

Monitoring Site JR-02

Elevated E. coli counts at site JR-02 occurred occasionally. The proportion of samples below the guideline decreased from 83 percent (Figure 9) from 2004-2009 to 73 percent (Figure 10) from 2010-2015. The count at the geometric mean also increased slightly between the two monitoring periods from 43 CFU/100ml to 47 CFU/100ml (Table 6).  Although E. coli counts did increase marginally the geometric mean is well below the E. coli PWQO. 

Figure 9 Geometric mean of E. coli results in the Jock River, 2004-2009

Figure 10 Geometric mean of E. coli results in the Jock River, 2010-2015

Summary

Bacterial contamination does not appear to be a significant concern in this reach of the Jock River.  Both sites (JR-01 and JR-02) have occasional exceedances and counts at the geometric mean below the guideline of 100 CFU/100ml. Best management practices such as enhancing shoreline buffers, limiting livestock access and minimizing runoff in both rural and urban areas can help to protect this reach of the Jock River into the future.

2.4 Metals

Of the metals routinely monitored in the Jock River (Barrhaven Catchment) aluminum (Al) and copper (Cu) occasionally reported concentrations above their respective PWQOs. For Al, the PWQO is 0.075 mg/l and for Cu it is 0.005 mg/l.  In elevated concentrations, these metals can have toxic effects on sensitive aquatic species.

Tables 7 and 8 summarize metal concentrations at sites JR-01 and JR-02 as well as show the proportion of samples that meet guidelines. Figures 11 to 14 show metal concentrations with respect to the guidelines for the two periods of interest, 2004–2009 and 2010–2015.