Catchments

• 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.

In the Tay River Subwatershed (locally known as the Tay Watershed), 13 Catchment Reports are produced and presented below in two versions: a Full Catchment Report and a Summary Catchment Report.

Summary Catchment Reports

Full Catchment Reports

• Print

Tay River Subwatershed Report 2017

BLUEBERRY CREEK CATCHMENT

Figure 1 Land cover in the Blueberry Creek catchment

The RVCA produces individual reports for 14 catchments in the Tay 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 Tay River, Tay Watershed lakes and Tay tributaries along with a summary of environmental conditions for the surrounding countryside every six years, which includes analysis of data collected through the programs along with local information provided by stakeholders up to 2017.

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 are a compilation of that work for the Blueberry Creek catchment.

For other Tay River catchments and the Tay River Subwatershed Report, please see Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Subwatershed Reports.

• Print

1.0 Blueberry Creek Catchment: Facts

1.1 General/Physical Geography

Drainage Area

39.1 square kilometres; occupies 4.9 percent of the Tay River subwatershed; 0.9 percent of the Rideau Valley watershed.

Geology/Physiography

The Blueberry Creek catchment resides within a transitionary area between the physiographic regions known as the Algonquin Highlands and the Smith Falls Limestone Plain. The northern half of the catchment lies within the limestone plain, which is a broad flat poorly drained region underlain by thin soils, dolostone and sandstone. The southern part of the catchment lies within the ancient highlands of the Algonquin mass, a geologic region made up of such Precambrian rocks as marble, conglomerates, and dark or colour banded granite-like rocks. A veneer of glacial drift (glacial till, sand etc.) overlies the bedrock. Two geologic faults may cut through this catchment.

Municipal Coverage

Drummond/North Elmsley Township (21.6 km²; 55.5% of catchment)

Tay Valley Township (16.3 km²; 41.9% of catchment)

Town of Perth (1.0 km²; 2.6% of catchment)

Stream Length

All watercourses (including headwater streams): 45.9 km.

1.2 Vulnerable Areas

Aquifer Vulnerability

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 Blueberry Creek catchment.

1.3 Conditions at a Glance

Aggregates

Three aggregate licenses in the Blueberry Creek catchment along with some sand and gravel areas of secondary and tertiary significance.

Fish Community/Thermal Regime

Warm and cool water recreational and baitfish fishery with 14 species observed in Blueberry Creek during 2017.

Headwater Drainage Features

Classified as wetlands and natural features with minimal modifications.  

Instream/Riparian Habitat

Blueberry Creek: Low to high habitat complexity along the surveyed sections of the creek. Areas with increased habitat complexity are observed in the lower and middle reaches of the system within the catchment along with a healthy diversity and abundance of plant types. Dissolved oxygen conditions vary from areas below levels required to support aquatic biota to areas that support warmwater fish species.

Significant Natural Features

Blueberry Marsh Provincially Significant Wetland

Blueberry Creek: Benthic invertebrate samples are dominated with species that are moderately tolerant and tolerant to high organic pollution levels.

Water Wells

Approximately 350 operational private water wells in the Blueberry Creek catchment. Groundwater uses are mainly domestic, but also include commercial, livestock, public and municipal water supplies and monitoring wells.

Wetland Cover

Wetlands are reported to have covered 65 percent of the Blueberry Creek catchment prior to European settlement, as compared to 39 percent (or 15.6 square kilometres) of the area in 2014. This represents a 38 percent (or 9.7 square kilometre) loss of historic wetland cover. Eighty-five percent of the remaining wetlands are regulated leaving 15 percent (or 2.4 square kilometers) unregulated.

1.4 Catchment Care

Environmental Management

Development along Blueberry Creek and in, and adjacent to, the Blueberry Marsh 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 landowners and their property from natural hazards (i.e., flooding, fluctuating water table, unstable soils) along with the hydrologic function of the wetland.

Several Environmental Compliance Approvals and Environmental Activity and Sector Registries were sought and one Permit To Take Water (PTTW) is active in the catchment for aggregate operations.

Environmental Monitoring

Chemical surface (in-stream/lake) water quality collection by the RVCA since 2012 (see Section 2 of this report).

Benthic invertebrate (aquatic insect) surface (in-stream) water quality collection by the RVCA in Blueberry Creek since 2011 (see Section 3.3.1 of this report).

Fish survey and stream characterization survey by the RVCA on Blueberry Creek in 2016 included taking measurements and recording observations on instream habitat, bank stability, other attributes and preparing a temperature profile (see Section 3 of this report).

Eleven drainage feature assessments were conducted by the RVCA in 2017 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 of this report).

Classification of Blueberry Creek catchment land cover types derived by the RVCA from colour aerial photography that was acquired during the spring of 2008 and 2014 (see Section 4.1 of this report).

Groundwater chemistry information is available from the Ontario Geological Survey for one well (#13-AG-021) located in the Blueberry Creek catchment.

Stewardship

Twenty-one stewardship projects were completed by landowners with assistance from the RVCA (see Section 5 of this report).

• Print

2.0 Blueberry Creek Catchment: Surface Water Quality Conditions

Surface water quality conditions in the Blueberry Creek catchment are monitored by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority's Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Program. This program provides information on the condition of  tributaries and the Tay River within the Tay River watershed.  Data is collected for multiple parameters including nutrients (total phosphorus and total Kjeldahl nitrogen ), 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.

Figure 2  Water quality monitoring site on Blueberry Creek in the Blueberry Creek Catchment

2.1 Blueberry Creek: Water Quality Rating

There is one monitored water quality site on Blueberry Creek in the Blueberry Creek Catchment (BLU-01), the RVCA's water quality rating for this site ranges from “Fair” to “Good”, this is based on the range of ratings calculated at three year intervals from 2012-2017 (Table 1) as determined by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Water Quality Index. The WQI and corresponding ratings are presented in Table 2.  A “Fair” rating indicates that water quality is usually protected but is occasionally threatened or impaired; conditions sometimes depart from natural or desirable levels. While “Good” indicates water quality is protected with only a minor degree of threat or impairment; conditions rarely 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.  The data has been examined through the period of record to determine if conditions have changed.

The scores at this site are largely influenced by frequent high nutrient concentrations and occasional metal exceedances. For more information on the WQI please see the Tay River Subwatershed Report.

2.1.2 Blueberry Creek: 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) is used as a secondary indicator of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN^[1].

Tables 3 and 4 summarize average nutrient concentrations at the monitored site within the Blueberry Creek catchment and show the proportion of results that meet the guidelines.

Monitoring Site BLU-01

Elevated TP results occurred occasionally at site BLU-01 throughout the monitoring period; about 61% of samples were below the guideline (Figure 4) though average concentrations generally exceed the guidelines during the summer months (Figure 3).  The average TP concentration was just below the guideline of 0.030 mg/l at 0.029 mg/l (Table 3). 

The majority of TKN results have exceeded the guideline (Figure 5), with only three percent of samples below the guideline. The average concentration was 0.936 mg/l and exceeded the guideline of 0.500 mg/l (Table 4).

There was no significant change^[2] in the sampled concentrations of TP or TKN in Blueberry creek over the 2012-2017 period (Figure 4 and 6).

Figure 3  Average monthly total phosphorus concentrations in Blueberry Creek, 2012-2017.

Figure 4  Distribution of total phosphorus concentrations in Blueberry Creek, 2012-2017.

Figure 5  Average monthly total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations in Blueberry Creek, 2012-2017.

Figure 6  Distribution of total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations in Blueberry Creek, 2012-2017

Summary of Blueberry Creek Nutrients

This portion of Blueberry Creek can be identified as nutrient enriched.  Overall, average nutrient concentrations have remained consistent through the monitoring period. Both parameters (total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and ammonia) have concentrations that exceed their respective guidelines and average concentrations are approaching or exceed guidelines. Elevated nutrients may result in nutrient loading downstream to the Tay 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.  It should be noted that this creek is fed by the extensive Blueberry Marsh; this wetland complex is naturally nutrient rich and is likely the largest contributor to elevated nutrient conditions.  Best management practices such as minimizing storm water runoff, enhanced shoreline buffers, minimizing/discontinuing the use of fertilizers and restricting livestock access in both surrounding agricultural and developed areas can help to reduce additional nutrient enrichment both within this creek, as well as the Tay River.    

2.1.3 Blueberry Creek: E. 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 as a guideline. E. coli counts greater than this guideline indicate that bacterial contamination may be a problem within a waterbody.

Table 5 summarizes the geometric mean^[3] for the monitored site on Blueberry Creek 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 2012-2017 period are shown in Figures 7 and 8.

Monitoring Site BLU-01

E. coli counts at site BLU-01 show that there has been no significant trend in bacterial counts (Figure 8). The count at the geometric mean was 65 (Table 5), and majority of results (68 percent) were below the E. coli guideline.  Figure 7 shows that periods of elevated counts have occurred; this is observed during the summer months and may be attributed to warm weather and low flow conditions.

Figure 7  Geometric mean of monthly E. coli counts in Blueberry Creek, 2012-2017

Figure 8  Distribution of E. coli counts in Blueberry Creek, 2012-2017

 

Summary of Blueberry Creek Bacterial Contamination

Bacterial contamination does not appear to be a significant concern in this reach of the Blueberry Creek.  As indicated by Figure 8 occasional exceedances above the guideline of 100 CFU/100ml have been observed. Best management practices such as enhancing shoreline buffers, limiting livestock access and minimizing runoff in both rural and developed areas can help to protect this reach of the Blueberry Creek into the future.

2.1.4 Blueberry Creek: Metals

Of the metals routinely monitored in Blueberry Creek (Blueberry Creek Catchment) aluminum (Al) occasionally reported concentrations above its respective Provincial Water Quality Objective, which  is 0.075 mg/l.  In elevated concentrations, these metals can have toxic effects on sensitive aquatic species.

Table 6 summarizes Al concentrations at site BLU-01 as well as show the proportion of samples that meet guidelines. Figures 9 and 10 show metal concentrations with respect to the guidelines for the monitoring period, 2012-2017. 

Monitoring Site BLU-01

The average Al concentrations in site BLU-01 was 0.069 mg/l and did not exceed the guideline (PWQO). Fifty percent of samples were below the guideline and there was no significant change in Al concentrations across the monitoring period (Table 6, Figure 10).  Please note that metal concentrations are only monitored at this site twice per year, once during high flows in April and the second during the low flow period in August.  The elevated concentrations in August may be a result of groundwater contributions, leaching from stream sediments, or concentrated conditions during periods of minimal stream flow.

Figure 9  Average monthly aluminum concentrations in Blueberry Creek, 2012-2017.

Figure 10  Distribution of aluminum concentrations in Blueberry Creek, 2012-2017.

 

Summary of Blueberry Creek Metals

In the Blueberry Creek Catchment there is little evidence of increased metal concentration above respectve guidelines. Continued efforts should be made to protect against possible pollution sources and implement best management practices to reduce any inputs such as storm water runoff from hardened surfaces to improve overall stream health and lessen downstream impacts to the Tay River. 

• Print

3.0  Blueberry Creek Catchment: Riparian Conditions

The Stream Characterization Program evaluated 1.5 km of Blueberry Creek in 2016. A total of 15 stream survey assessments were completed in the second week of July. 

During the summer and fall of 2016, the Rideau Valley watershed experienced periods of severe drought. Precipitation levels were measured at less than 40% of the long-term average, as the water supply was unable to meet local demand. The lack of rainfall affected the success and function of farm crops, municipal and private wells, lawns and gardens, navigation and ultimately the health of our lakes, rivers and streams.

Low water conditions were readily observed throughout the watershed, as many of the streams were highly fragmented or completely dry. Aquatic species such as amphibians, fish and macroinvertebrates were affected, as suitable habitat may have been limited. Fragmentation of habitat was observed along Blueberry Creek (see photos below).

Private crossing upstream of Hwy. 7 showing the effect of the 2016 drought on Blueberry Creek

Private crossing immediately upstream of Hwy. 7 showing the effect of the 2016 drought on Blueberry Creek

3.1 Blueberry Creek Overbank Zone

3.1.1 Riparian Buffer Evaluation

The quality of the riparian area increases with the width, complexity and linear extent of its vegetation along a stream or creek. A complex riparian community consists of diverse plant species native to the site, with multiple age-classes providing vertical structural diversity along a watercourse.

Here is a list of watershed benefits from a healthy riparian buffer zone:

• Reduces the amount of pollutants that reach the stream from surface runoff
• Helps reduce and mitigates erosion
• Provides a microclimate that is cooler during the summer months providing cooler water for aquatic organisms
• Provides large wood structure from fallen trees and limbs that form instream cover, create pools, stabilize the streambed, and provide habitat for aquatic organisms
• Provides organic material for stream biota that, among other functions, is the base of the food chain in lower order streams
• Provides habitat for terrestrial insects that drop in the stream and become food for fish and travel corridors for other terrestrial animals
• Dissipates energy during flood events
• Often provides the only refuge areas for fish during out-of-bank flows (behind trees, stumps, and logs

Figure 11 demonstrates the buffer conditions of the left and right banks separately.  Blueberry Creek had a buffer of greater than 30 meters along 91 percent of the right bank and 93 percent of the left bank.

Figure 11 Riparian Buffer Evaluation along Blueberry Creek  

 

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 Blueberry Creek was found to be dominated by natural conditions in the form of forests and wetlands.

Figure 12 Riparian buffer alterations along Blueberry Creek

 

3.1.3 Adjacent Land Use

The RVCA’s Stream Characterization Program identifies seven different land uses along Blueberry Creek (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 creek. 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 were dominant along Blueberry creek and were characterized by forest, scrubland, meadow and wetland. Forested habitat was dominant in the adjacent lands along Blueberry Creek at 73 percent of the surveyed sections.  The remaining land use consisted of recreational, residential and infrastructure in the form of railway and road crossings.

Figure 13 Land Use along Blueberry Creek

 

 

3.2 Blueberry Creek 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 Blueberry Creek had low to moderate levels of erosion with the exception of one location along the system which had high levels of erosion in the upper reaches of the survey (Figure 14).

Figure 14 Erosion levels along Blueberry Creek

 

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 Blueberry Creek had highly variable levels of undercut banks along the system and they typically coincided with areas that were experiencing high levels of erosion. 

Figure 15 Undercut stream banks along Blueberry Creek

 

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 shrubs/grasses and tree canopy, at greater than 1m above the water surface.  Figure 16 shows low levels of stream shading along Blueberry Creek.  

Figure 16 Stream shading along Blueberry Creek

 

3.2.4 Instream Wood Structure

Forested shorelines provide essential complex habitat through the perpetual process of shoreline trees falling into the water.  This continuous recruitment of trees creates a wood-based physical structure in the littoral zone that is common on natural systems.  Insects, fish, amphibians, birds, and other animals have also evolved with this abundance of near shore wood and it is essential to their life cycles. With increased development along many waterways, forested shorelines have been altered and wood-based physical structure in many waterways has been reduced. It is important to maintain and restore this essential habitat to aquatic ecosystems.

Shoreline Protection

• Protects shorelines by providing a barrier from wind and wave erosion
• Reduces sedimentation of the water caused by shoreline slumping due to bank erosion
• Allows detritus to collect and settle on the lake or creek bed providing the substrate structure required for native aquatic vegetation to establish and outcompete invasive species

Food Source

• Wood complexes are an important food source for invertebrates 
• Small fish feed on the abundance of invertebrates that are found around these structures
• Larger fish, waterfowl and shorebirds all benefit from the abundance of invertebrates and small fish feeding around wood structures in the littoral zone 

Cover

• Cover from predators is essential for many fish and animals to successfully complete their life cycle
• The nooks and crannies of wood complexes offer organisms safety from predators while at the same time concentrating prey to make predators more efficient
• Wood provides the structure on which many species must lay or attach their eggs, therefore these complexes provide spawning, nesting and rearing habitat

Diversity

• Wood complexes in the littoral zone provide unique edge habitat along the shoreline
• Edge habitats contain more species diversity and higher concentrations of species than the adjoining habitats

Figure 17 shows that the majority of Blueberry Creek had low levels of instream wood structure in the form of branches and trees along the system.

Figure 17 Instream wood structure along Blueberry Creek

 

3.2.5 Overhanging Wood Structure

Trees and branches that are less than one meter from the surface of the water are defined as overhanging.  Overhanging wood structure provides a food source, nutrients and shade which helps to moderate instream water temperatures.  Figure 18 shows the system ranges from low to moderate levels of overhanging wood structure along Blueberry Creek.

Figure 18 Overhanging trees and branches along Blueberry Creek

 

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 40 percent of the sections surveyed on Blueberry Creek remains “unaltered” with no anthropogenic alterations.   Thirty three percent of Blueberry Creek was classified as natural with minor anthropogenic changes, while 27 percent was considered altered.  The alterations along Blueberry Creek were in the form of road and railway crossings.

Figure 19 Anthropogenic alterations along Blueberry Creek

 

 

3.3 Blueberry Creek 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 Highway 7 site on Blueberry Creek since 2011.  This site was added in 2011 as result of an identified gap in the network during the previous preparation of the 2011 Tay River Subwatershed Report. 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.  There were no values recorded for the Fall of 2016 due to extreme drought conditions therefore no samples could be collected.

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 Blueberry Creek catchment sample location at the Highway 7 sample location are summarized by year from 2011 to 2016.  “Fair” to “Poor” water quality conditions were observed at the Blueberry Creek sample location (Figure 20) using a grading scheme developed by Conservation Authorities in Ontario for benthic invertebrates. 

Figure 20 Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index at the Highway 7 sample location

 

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 Blueberry Creek site is reported to have “Fair” family richness (Figure 21).

Figure 21 Family Richness at the Highway 7 sample location

 

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 is dominated by species that are moderately tolerant and tolerant to poorer water quality conditions.  As a result, the EPT indicates that the Blueberry Creek sample location is reported to have “Fair to Poor” water quality (Figure 22) from 2011 to 2016.

Figure 22 EPT results at the Highway 7 sample location

 

Conclusion

Overall the Blueberry Creek sample location aquatic habitat conditions from a benthic invertebrate perspective is considered “Fair to Poor” from 2011 to 2016 as the samples are dominated by species that are moderately tolerant 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 wood structure.

Low to high habitat complexity was identified for Blueberry Creek (Figure 23). Regions with increased habitat complexity were observed in the lower and middle reaches of the surveyed sections of the system within the catchment.

Figure 23 Habitat complexity along Blueberry Creek

 

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 the overall presence of various substrate types observed along Blueberry Creek.  Substrate conditions were highly diverse along Blueberry Creek with all substrate types being recorded at various locations along the creek.  Figure 25 shows the dominant substrate type observed for each section surveyed along Blueberry Creek.

Figure 24 Instream substrate along Blueberry Creek

 

Figure 25 shows the dominant substrate type along Blueberry Creek

 

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 Blueberry Creek is fairly uniform; 93 percent of sections recorded runs, 80 percent pools and seven percent riffles. Figure 27 shows where the limited riffle habitat area was observed in the lower reach of Blueberry Creek.

Figure 26 Instream morphology along Blueberry Creek

 

Figure 27 Instream riffle habitat along Blueberry Creek

 

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 in 100% of the sections surveyed, algae was observed in 87% of sections, floating plants were observed in 67% of sections surveyed,  broad leaved emergent and submerged plants were observed in 47% of sections while robust emergent were documented in 20% of sections surveyed.  Figure 28 depicts the plant community structure for Blueberry Creek. Figure 29 shows the dominant vegetation type observed for each section surveyed along the Blueberry Creek catchment.

Figure 28 Vegetation type along Blueberry Creek

 

Figure 29 Dominant vegetation type along Blueberry Creek

 

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 Blueberry Creek reach had normal to common levels of vegetation recorded at 47 and 40 percent of stream surveys.  Extensive levels of vegetation were observed along 20 percent of the surveyed sections while seven percent of sections had areas with no vegetation.

Figure 30 Instream vegetation abundance along Blueberry Creek

 

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. One hundred percent of the sections surveyed along Blueberry Creek reach had invasive species. The invasive species observed in the Blueberry Creek reach were European frogbit, bull thistle, common/glossy buckthorn, purple loosestrife and poison parsnip.  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).

Figure 31 Invasive species abundance along Blueberry Creek

 

 

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 Blueberry Creek supports warmwater biota and in certain locations is below the recommended levels to support aquatic life.  The average dissolved oxygen levels observed within Blueberry Creek was 5.9mg/L which is just below the recommended levels for warmwater biota. 

Figure 32 Dissolved oxygen ranges along Blueberry Creek

 

 

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 Blueberry Creek was 540.7 µs/cm.  Figure 33 shows the conductivity readings for Blueberry Creek.

Figure 33 Specific conductivity ranges in Blueberry Creek

 

 

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 Blueberry Creek catchment averaged 7.81 thereby meeting the provincial standard (Figure 34).

Figure 34 pH ranges in Blueberry Creek

 

 

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:

 

Dissolved oxygen conditions along Blueberry Creek varied along the system with areas below levels to support aquatic life as well as areas that support warmwater species (Figure 35).

Figure 35 A bivariate assessment of dissolved oxygen concentration (mg/L) and saturation (%) in Blueberry Creek

 

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 Blueberry Creek, however there were moderately and highly elevated areas in the middle reaches (Figure 36).  The highly elevated area was located at the Highway 7 crossing likely linked to stormwater runoff from the roadway.

Figure 36 Relative specific conductivity levels along Blueberry Creek

 

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 on Blueberry Creek.  Analysis of the data collected indicates that Blueberry Creek catchment is classified as a warm water system with cool water reaches (Figure 38). 

Figure 37 Temperature logger locations along Blueberry Creek

 

Figure 38 Temperature logger data for the sites on Blueberry Creek 

 

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  drainage feature assessments. 

Figure 39 Groundwater indicators observed in the Blueberry Creek catchment

 

3.3.11 Fish Community

The Blueberry Creek catchment is classified as a mixed community of warm and cool water recreational and baitfish fishery with 14 species observed. Table 7 is a list of species observed historically in the catchment and during the 2016 field sampling season. Figure 40 shows the sampling locations of the fish species identified in the catchment.

 

Table 7 Fish species observed in the Blueberry Creek catchment

Fish Species	Scientific Name	Fish code	Historical	2016
blackchin shiner	Notropis heterodon	BcShi	X
blacknose dace	Rhinichthys atratulus	BnDac		X
brook stickleback	Culaea inconstans	BrSti	X	X
brown bullhead	Ameiurus nebulosus	BrBul		X
carps and minnows	Cyprinidae	CA_MI		X
central mudminnow	Umbra limi	CeMud	X	X
common shiner	Luxilus cornutus	CoShi	X	X
creek chub	Semotilus atromaculatus	CrChu	X	X
etheostoma sp.	etheostoma sp.	EthSp		X
golden shiner	Notemigonus crysoleucas	GoShi	X
hornyhead chub	Nocomis biguttatus	HhChu	X	X
northern redbelly dace	Chrosomus eos	NRDac	X	X
pumpkinseed	Lepomis gibbosus	Pumpk	X	X
rock bass	Ambloplites rupestris	RoBas	X	X
white sucker	Catostomus commersonii	WhSuc		X
yellow bullhead	Ameiurus natalis	YeBul		X
TOTAL Species			10	14

 

Figure 40 Historical and 2016 fish sampling locations in the catchment.

 

A fyke net set on Blueberry Creek in 2016

 

3.3.12 Beaver Dams

Overall beaver dams create natural changes in the environment. Some of the benefits include providing habitat for wildlife, flood control, and silt retention. Additional benefits come from bacterial decomposition of woody material used in the dams which removes excess nutrient and toxins. Beaver dams have the potential to flood agricultural areas and can be considered potential barriers to fish migration.

Several beaver dams were identified on the surveyed portions of Blueberry Creek in 2016 (Figure 41).

Figure 41 Beaver Dam type and locations along Blueberry Creek

 

3.3.13 Riparian Restoration

Figure 42 depicts the locations of riparian restoration opportunities as a result of observations made during the stream survey.  The project recommended is one that involves streambank erosion mitigation.   

Figure 42 Riparian restoration opportunities in the Blueberry Creek catchment

 

3.3.14 Instream Restoration

Figure 43 depicts the locations of instream restoration opportunities as a result of observations made during the stream survey.  The project recommended is a stream garbage cleanup opportunity downstream of Highway 7.   

Figure 43 Instream restoration opportunities in the Blueberry Creek catchment

 

3.4 Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment

3.4.1 Headwaters Sampling Locations

The RVCA Stream Characterization Program assessed Headwater Drainage Features for the Bluberry Creek subwatershed in 2017. 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 2017 the program sampled 11 sites at road crossings in the Blueberry Creek catchment area (Figure 44).  

Figure 44 Location of the headwater sampling sites in the Blueberry Creek catchment

 

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 Blueberry Creek catchment are primarily classified as wetland for a total of six; three were classified as a road side ditch and two features as channelized.  Figure 45 shows the feature type of the primary feature at the sampling locations.

Figure 45 Headwater feature types in the Blueberry Creek catchment

 

A spring photo of the headwater sample site in the Blueberry Creek catchment located on Clarchris Road

 

A summer photo of the headwater sample site in the Blueberry Creek catchment located on Clarchris Road

 

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 sample locations in the Blueberry Creek catchment in 2017.

Figure 46 Headwater feature flow conditions in the Blueberry Creek catchment

 

3.4.4 Feature Channel Modifications

Channel modifications were assessed at each headwater drainage feature sampling location.  Modifications include channelization, dredging, hardening and realignments.  The Blueberry Creek catchment area had seven with no channel modifications observed, three sites as having been historically straightened/dredged and one location had mixed modifications.  Figure 47 shows the channel modifications observed at the sampling locations for Blueberry Creek.

Figure 47 Headwater feature channel modifications in the Blueberry Creek catchment

 

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 Blueberry Creek catchment.

Figure 48 Headwater feature vegetation types in the Blueberry Creek 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 Blueberry Creek catchment.

Figure 49 Headwater feature riparian vegetation types in the Blueberry Creek 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 minimal for the headwater sites sampled in the Blueberry Creek catchment area.  Figure 50 depicts the degree of sediment deposition observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Blueberry Creek catchment.

Figure 50 Headwater feature sediment deposition in the Blueberry Creek 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, wood structure 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 51 shows the feature roughness conditions at the sampling location in the Blueberry Creek catchment.

Figure 51 Headwater feature roughness in the Blueberry Creek catchment

 

• Print

4.0 Blueberry Creek Catchment: Land Cover

Land cover and any change in coverage that has occurred over a six year period is summarized for the Blueberry 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  Blueberry Creek Catchment Land Cover/Change

As shown in Table 8 and Figure 1, the dominant land cover types in 2014 is wetland closely followed by crop and pastureland.

From 2008 to 2014, there was an overall change of 14 hectares (from one land cover class to another). Most of the change in the Blueberry Creek catchment is a result of crop and pastureland being converted to settlement and aggregates. The remainder of the change can be attributed to the transformation of woodland to crop and pastureland and settlement (Figure 52).

Figure 52 Land cover change in the Blueberry Creek catchment (2008 to 2014)

Table 9 provides a detailed breakdown of all land cover change that has taken place in the Blueberry 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 Tay 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 Blueberry Creek catchment contains 693 hectares of upland forest and 285 hectares of lowland forest (treed swamps) versus the 47 percent of woodland cover in the Tay 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.

Figure 53 Woodland cover and forest interior in the Blueberry Creek catchment (2014)

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 Blueberry Creek catchment (in 2014), sixty-four (49 percent) of the 130 woodland patches are very small, being less than one hectare in size. Another 54 (42 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 12 (nine percent of) woodland patches range between 21 and 125 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, two (two percent) of the 273 woodland patches in the drainage area exceed 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 5 hectares) has been observed in the overall woodland patch area between the two reporting periods with most change occurring in the one to 10 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 Blueberry Creek catchment (in 2014), the 273 woodland patches contain 18 forest interior patches (Figure 53) that occupy three percent (136 ha.) of the catchment land area (which is less than the five percent of interior forest in the Tay 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 (14) have less than 10 hectares of interior forest, nine of which have small areas of interior forest habitat less than one hectare in size. The remaining four patches contain interior forest between 11 and 57 hectares in area. Between 2008 and 2014, there was no change in the number of woodland patches containing interior habitat in the catchment over the six year period (Table 11).

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.

Figure 54 Wetland cover in the Blueberry Creek catchment (2014)

This decline in wetland cover is also evident in the Blueberry Creek catchment (as seen in Figure 54 and summarized in Table 12), where wetland was reported to cover 65 percent of the area prior to settlement, as compared to 39 percent in 2014. This represents a 38 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 along both sides of the shoreline of the many unnamed watercourses (including headwater streams) found in the Blueberry Creek catchment.

Figure 55 Natural and other riparian land cover in the Blueberry Creek catchment (2014)

This analysis shows that the riparian zone in the Blueberry Creek catchment is composed of wetland (55 percent), woodland (19 percent), crop and pastureland (19 percent), settlement (four percent), transportation (two percent), meadow-thicket and aggregate (less than one percent). Along the many watercourses (including headwater streams) flowing into Blueberry Creek, the riparian buffer is composed of wetland (47 percent), crop and pastureland (25 percent), woodland (24 percent), settlement areas (three percent) and roads (one percent). Along Blueberry Creek itself, the riparian zone is composed of wetland (82 percent), woodland (six percent), settlement (six percent), crop and pastureland (three percent), transportation (two percent) and meadow-thicket (less than one percent).

Additional statistics for the Blueberry Creek catchment are presented in Tables 13, 14 and 15 and show that there has been very little to no change in shoreline cover from 2008 to 2014.

• Print

5.0 Blueberry Creek Catchment: Stewardship and Water Resources Protection

The RVCA and its partners are working to protect and enhance environmental conditions in the Tay River Watershed. Figure 56 shows the location of all stewardship projects completed in the Blueberry Creek catchment.

Figure 56 Stewardship site locations in the Blueberry Creek catchment

5.1 Rural Clean Water

The Rural Clean Water Program provides technical and financial assistance to farmers and other rural landowners, to aid in the implementation of projects that protect water quality. Funding is granted to those projects that support best management practices for application in the protection and improvement of surface and ground water resources.  The program also supports climate change adaptation and low impact development projects as well as educating rural landowners about environmental stewardship of private property. Examples of supported projects include livestock exclusion fencing, controlled tile drainage, cover crops, erosion control, well related projects, and many more. For a list of eligible projects and to apply for funding, see Rural Clean Water.

In the Blueberry Creek catchment from 2011 to 2016, one septic system repair, one well decommissioning, one well replacement, one well upgrade and one education initiative were completed; prior to this, three septic system repairs, three well upgrades, one well decommissioning, one livestock fencing project, one windbreak/buffer project and one education initiative had been completed. When combined, these projects are keeping 2.4 kilograms of Phosphorus out of our lakes, rivers and streams every year. Total value of all 15 projects is $72,414 with $18,661 of that amount funded through grant dollars from the RVCA.

5.2 Private Land Forestry

Forest cover and tree planting continues to be one of the most widely supported strategies to improve our environment. The many benefits of forest cover include carbon sequestration, flood mitigation and water quality improvement as well as providing wildlife habitat.

Through the RVCA's Trees for Tomorrow Program (and its predecessors), 2,000 trees were planted at one site from 2011 to 2016; prior to this, 1,800 trees were planted at four sites. In total, 3,800 trees have been planted resulting in the reforestation of two hectares. Total value of all five projects in the Blueberry Creek catchment is $9,532 with $7,354 of that amount coming from fundraising sources. For more information about the Program and landowner eligibility, please see the following: Tree Planting in the Rideau Valley Watershed and Trees for Tomorrow.

5.3 Shoreline Naturalization

Though the RVCA’s Shoreline Naturalization Program , landowners (private and public property owners) have naturalized more than 2.3 km of shoreline in the Tay Watershed by planting over 10,563 native trees and shrubs at 96 sites since 2008. In the Blueberry Creek Catchment, 73 native trees and shrubs have been planted along shoreline with a total project value of $1,168. In 2013, new trees, shrubs and wildflowers were added to the naturalization demonstration garden at the Tay Valley Township municipal office on Harper Road.

5.4 Valley, Stream, Wetland and Hazard Lands

The Blueberry Creek catchment covers 39.1 square kilometres with 17.4 square kilometres (or 44.4 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 15.6 square kilometres (or 39.8 percent) of the catchment. Of these wetlands, 13.2 square kilometres (or 84.6 percent) are designated as provincially significant and included within the RVCA regulation limit. This leaves the remaining 2.4 square kilometres (or 15.4 percent) of wetlands in the catchment outside the regulated area limit.

Of the 45.9 kilometres of stream in the catchment, regulation limit mapping has been plotted along 19.6 kilometers of streams (representing 42.7 percent of all streams in the catchment). Some of these regulated streams (14.6 km) flow through regulated wetlands; the remaining five kilometres of regulated streams are located outside of those wetlands. Plotting of the regulation limit on the remaining 26.3 kilometres (or 57.3 percent) of streams requires identification of flood and erosion hazards and valley systems.

Within those areas of the Blueberry 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.

Figure 57 Regulated natural features/hazards and Intake Protection Zones in the Blueberry Creek catchment

5.5 Vulnerable Drinking Water Areas

The Town of Perth’s municipal drinking water Intake Protection Zone (IPZ), specifically IPZ-2 with a vulnerability score of 8 and 9 is found within the Blueberry Creek catchment (Figure 57). As per the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan, policies may affect future development within these areas. Under Section 59 of the Clean Water Act, 2006, future applications under the Building Code and the Planning Act may be screened by the Mississippi-Rideau Risk Management Office. Depending on the proposed activity, additional requirements or restrictions may apply. For more information, please contact the Mississippi-Rideau Risk Management Office at (613) 692-3571.

In addition, the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan has mapped the central part of the Blueberry Creek catchment as within a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area and identified all of the catchment as 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. Highly Vulnerable Aquifers characterise 89% of the Region and are considered moderate to low drinking water threats with certain policies that apply; mainly policies regarding waste disposal. All property owners are encouraged to use best management practices to protect sources of municipal drinking water. For more information on source protection best management practices, please visit Protecting Your Drinking Water.

• Print

6.0 Blueberry Creek Catchment: Accomplishments/Activities

Achievements noted by the Friends of the Tay Watershed Association (FoTW) are indicated by an asterisk.

Development

The Town of Perth Official Plan Amendment (2009) has generally changed the land use designation in the northwest quadrant of the Town of Perth (area of the Town that is north of Highway 7, east of Highway 511 and south of the Blueberry Marsh) from Commercial Highway to Residential. This has required the annexation of approximately 30 hectares of land from Drummond/North Elmsley Township and the need to undertake an infrastructure master plan (initiated in 2010) to provide direction for the servicing of these lands for water, wastewater, stormwater and transportation. The Environmental Assessment for the area was competed in 2016 with input from the RVCA being incorporated into the overall master design.

In-stream/Fish Habitat

1.5 kilometres of Blueberry Creek have been surveyed and 11 headwaters are sampled once every six years by the RVCA using the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol.

Shoreline Naturalization

Seventy-three native trees and shrubs have been planted along shoreline in the Blueberry Creek catchment with services provided by the RVCA Shoreline Naturalization Program.

Tree Planting

3,800 trees have been planted at five sites in the Blueberry Creek catchment by the RVCA Private Land Forestry Program, resulting in the reforestation of two hectares.

Water Quality

Since 2012, one monitoring site on Blueberry Creek is sampled yearly by the RVCA for 22 parameters, six times a year, to assess surface chemistry water quality conditions.

Since 2011, one Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network site on Blueberry Creek is sampled by the RVCA in the spring and fall of each year with three replicates, to assess instream biological water quality conditions. 

Fifteen Rural Clean Water Program projects were completed by the RVCA Rural Clean Water Program.

Waterway Planning and Management

The Tay Watershed Management Plan (2002) brought together a diverse group of watershed stakeholders to exchange information and opinions on the challenges facing the watershed. This forum focused the community on the need for managing the Tay Watershed, requiring positive cooperation amongst a range of stakeholders and helped develop a foundation of data and information on the watershed and resources against which later developments and trends are being measured and decisions are being made. 

The Plan also led to the formation of the Friends of the Tay Watershed Association, who have been instrumental in implementing 20 of 24 management plan recommendations. In the opinion of the Association, one of the most significant measures of success for the water protection activities carried out in the Tay watershed is that there has never been a serious environmental pollution incident that threatened the area’s drinking water or its recreational waterbodies. To this day, the Friends of the Tay Watershed remain committed to preserving and enhancing the health of the Tay River watershed through their work.*

• Print

7.0 Blueberry Creek Catchment: Challenges/Issues

Issues noted by the Friends of the Tay Watershed Association (FoTW) are indicated by an asterisk.

Headwaters/In-stream Habitat/Shorelines

Blueberry Creek catchment watercourses (including Blueberry Creek) have 74 percent of the total length of their shoreline composed of natural vegetation). This is below the recommended 30 metre wide, naturally vegetated shoreline buffer target to be aimed for along 75 percent of the length of the catchment’s watercourses (see Section 4.4 of this report).

Blueberry Creek catchment headwater and tributary streams (excluding Blueberry Creek) have 71 percent of the total length of their shoreline composed of natural vegetation. This is below the recommended 30 metre wide, naturally vegetated shoreline buffer target to be aimed for along 75 percent of the length of the catchment’s watercourses (see Section 4.4 of this report). 

Five of eleven sampled headwater stream sites have been modified (two are channelized; three are ditched)(see Section 3.4.2 of this report).

Land Cover

Land cover has changed across the catchment (2008 to 2014) largely as a result of an increase in the area of settlement (9 ha.) and aggregate extraction (3 ha.) and loss of woodland (6 ha.) and crop and pastureland (6 ha.)(see Section 4.1 of this report).

Wetlands have declined by 38 percent since European pre-settlement and now cover 39 percent (1561 ha.) of the catchment (in 2014). Fifteen percent (246 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 (see Section 4.3 of this report).

Woodlands cover 25 percent of the catchment, which 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 (see Section 4.2 of this report).

Water Levels

Stream flows (high, low and base) and water levels are unrecorded along Blueberry Creek.

Water Quality

Blueberry Creek surface chemistry water quality rating is Fair to Good at the Christie Lake Road crossing. The score at this site is largely influenced by continuous, high nutrient concentrations for TKN and occassional, elevated TP concentrations along with occassional metal (Aluminium) exceedances (see Section 2.1 of this report).

Blueberry Creek instream biological water quality conditions range from Poor to Fair at the Christie Lake Road crossing. Samples are dominated with benthic invertebrate species that are moderately tolerant and tolerant to high organic pollution levels (see Section 3.3.1 of this report).

• Print

8.0 Blueberry Creek Catchment: Actions/Opportunities

Aquatic Habitat/Fisheries

Educate waterfront property owners about fish habitat requirements, spawning timing and near-shore and in-water activities that can disturb or destroy fish habitat and spawning sites.

Work with various partners, including Drummond/North Elmsley Township, landowners, the Friends of the Tay Watershed Association, Tay Valley Township and the Town of Perth on fish habitat enhancement projects in the Tay River watershed, building off of new knowledge and the recommendations as described in the report "Fish Habitat of the Tay River Watershed: Existing Conditions and Opportunities for Enhancement" (2002) prepared by MNR, RVCA, Parks Canada, and DFO.

Development

Ensure that the final recommendations of the Perth Infrastructure Master Plan are implemented such that the natural hazard and natural heritage issues within the planning area are addressed through site specific planning approvals and infrastructure servicing.

Work with approval authorities (Drummond/North Elmsley Township, Lanark County, Leeds Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit, Mississippi Rideau Septic System Office, RVCA, Tay Valley Township and Town of Perth) and landowners to consistently implement current land use planning and development policies for water quality and shoreline protection adjacent to Blueberry Creek and headwater streams in the catchment (i.e., a minimum 30 metre development setback from water).

Explore ways and means to more effectively implement and enforce conditions of land-use planning and development approval to achieve net environmental gains (particularly with respect to rehabilitating or protecting naturally vegetated shorelines and water quality).

Encourage Committees of Adjustment to take advantage of technical and environmental information and recommendations forthcoming from planning and environmental professionals.

Ongoing education and dialogue regarding the regulatory floodplain, its implementation and the effect it has on development continues to represent an opportunity to assist the public in understanding the importance of planning, which respects this natural hazard.

Municipalities in the Tay Watershed are encouraged to strengthen natural heritage and water resources official plan policies and zoning provisions (pertaining to water setbacks, frontage and naturalized shorelines and wetland protection) where deemed appropriate.

Work with Drummond/North Elmsley Township, Lanark County, Tay Valley Township, Town of Perth and agencies to ensure that development approvals around lakes and along watercourses take into consideration the protection of fish habitat (including the near-shore nursery and spawning habitat).

Utilize RVCA subwatershed and catchment reports to help develop, revise and implement official plan policies to protect surface water resources and the natural environment (including woodlands, wetlands and shoreline cover).

Land Cover

Consider reforestation of the Blueberry Creek catchment to raise the current level of forest cover (at 25 percent) above the recommended 30 percent minimum threshold that is needed to sustain woodland dependent species and woodland biodiversity on the landscape. Reaching this target will also help to improve the capacity of the forests in the catchment to reduce flooding and water-borne soil erosion, store more carbon and dampen the effects of the changing climate. Take advantage of the RVCA Trees for Tomorrow Program to achieve this on idle and/or marginal land.

Establish RVCA regulation limits around the 15 percent (246 ha.) of wetlands in the catchment that are unevaluated. Doing this will help protect landowners from natural hazards including  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 reduces flood damage), as well as contributing to the stabilization of shorelines and to the reduction of soil erosion damage through water flow mitigation and plant soil binding/retention.

Shorelines

Take advantage of the RVCA Shoreline Naturalization Program to re-naturalize altered creek and stream shoreline identified in this report as “Unnatural Riparian Land Cover". Target shoreline restoration at sites shown in orange on the Riparian Land Cover map (see Figure 55 in Section 4.4 of this report). Concentrate stewardship efforts along the headwater and tributary streams of Blueberry Creek in the catchment, which have 71 percent of the total length of their shoreline composed of natural vegetation (this is below the recommended 30 metre wide, naturally vegetated shoreline buffer target to be aimed for along 75 percent of the length of the catchment’s watercourses). Other stewardship opportunities in the catchment may be determined based on septic system inspections and surface water quality monitoring results.

Promote the use of bioengineering methods (using native shrub/tree planting, fascines, live stakes) as a shoreline erosion mitigation measure as well as a cost effective alternative to shoreline hardening (with rip rap, armour stone, gabion baskets, walls).

Educate landowners about the value and importance of natural shorelines and property best management practices with respect to shoreline use and development, septic system installation and maintenance and shoreline vegetation retention and enhancement (Drummond/North Elmsley Township, Leeds Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit, Mississippi Rideau Septic System Office, RVCA, Tay Valley Township and Town of Perth).

Water Quality

Consider further investigation of the Fair to Good surface chemistry water quality rating and Poor to Fair instream biological water quality rating on Blueberry Creek as part of a review of RVCA's Baseline and Benthic Invertebrate surface water quality monitoring.

Offer funding provided by the RVCA Rural Clean Water Program to landowners with potential projects that could improve water quality on Blueberry Creek and its tributaries (e.g., livestock fencing, septic system repair/replacement and streambank erosion control/stabilisation).

Educate waterfront property owners about septic system care by providing information about sewage system maintenance (i.e., when to pump out septic systems and holding talks) through initiatives such as the Septic Savvy Workshop and services provided by the Mississippi Rideau Septic System Office.

Reduce pollutant loading to Blueberry Creek through education about the application of shoreline, stormwater and agricultural best management practices; also consider using low impact development (LID) methods to improve the quality and reduce the amount of stormwater runoff directly reaching the river ecosystem. This will be particularly beneficial in areas with extensive impervious surfaces (i.e., asphalt, concrete, buildings, and severely compacted soils) or on sensitive shoreline properties (with steep slopes/banks, shallow/impermeable soils).

• Print

• Print

Tay River Subwatershed Report 2017

BOBS AND CROW LAKE CATCHMENTS

Figure 1a Land cover in the Bobs Lake catchment

Figure 1b Land cover in the Crow Lake catchment

The RVCA produces individual reports for 14 catchments in the Tay 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 Tay River, Tay Watershed lakes and Tay tributaries along with a summary of environmental conditions for the surrounding countryside every six years, which includes analysis of data collected through the programs along with local information provided by stakeholders up to 2017.

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 are a compilation of that work for the Bobs and Crow Lake catchments.

For other Tay River catchments and the Tay River Subwatershed Report, please see Rideau Valley Conservation Authority Subwatershed Reports.

• Print

1.0 Bobs and Crow Lake Catchments: Facts

1.1 General/Physical Geography

Geology/Physiography

The Bobs and Crow Lake catchments reside within part of the physiographic region known as the Algonquin Highlands. In the Tay River subwatershed, this ancient and hilly geologic region is made up of such Precambrian rocks as marble, conglomerates, and dark or colour banded granite-like rocks. A veneer of glacial drift (glacial till, sand etc.) overlies the bedrock.

Drainage Area

Bobs Lake Catchment: 132 square kilometers; occupies 16 percent of the Tay River subwatershed; three percent of the Rideau Valley watershed.

Crow Lake Catchment: 51 square kilometers; occupies six percent of the Tay River subwatershed; one percent of the Rideau Valley watershed.

Stream Length

Bobs Lake Catchment: All tributaries (including headwater streams) 324 km.

Crow Lake Catchment: All tributaries (including headwater streams) 132 km.

1.2 Vulnerable Areas

Aquifer Vulnerability

Bobs Lake Catchment: Mississippi-Rideau Source Water Protection program has mapped several small parts of this catchment as Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas and all of the catchment as a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer (HVA). There are no Well-Head Protection Areas in the catchment.

Crow Lake Catchment: Mississippi-Rideau Source Water Protection program did not identify any Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas and mapped all of the catchment as a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer (HVA). 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 Bobs and Crow Lake catchments.

1.3 Conditions at a Glance

Aggregates

Bobs Lake Catchment: Three aggregate licenses within the catchment along with some sand and gravel areas of secondary and tertiary significance.

Crow Lake Catchment: One aggregate license within the catchment.

Fish Community/Thermal Regime

Bobs Lake Catchment: Warm, cool and cold water recreational and baitfish fishery with five species observed in Davern Creek during 2016. The fish community has not been sampled extensively along streams and headwater drainage features in the Bobs Lake catchment.

Crow Lake Catchment: Warm, cool and cold water recreational and baitfish fishery. The fish community has not been sampled along streams and headwater drainage features in the Crow Lake catchment.

Headwater Drainage Features

Bobs Lake Catchment: Predominantly natural and wetland features with two features having mixed modifications and six features have been straightened, historically.

Crow Lake Catchment: Predominantly natural and wetland features with only one feature with anthropogenic modifications. 

Water Wells

Bobs Lake Catchment: Approximately 610 operational private water wells in the Bobs Lake catchment. Groundwater uses are mainly domestic but also include livestock, public and commercial uses.

Crow Lake Catchment: Approximately 140 operational private water wells in the Crow Lake catchment. Groundwater uses are mainly domestic but also include livestock and commercial uses.

1.4 Catchment Care

Environmental Management

The Greater Bobs and Crow Lake Association prepared the Stewardship Plan for Bobs and Crow Lakes (2007) to provide a summary of what is known about the Bobs and Crow Lake catchments along with the community’s vision for the lakes and a list of its main concerns and actions to address them.

Development in, and adjacent to, the Doran Lake and Michael's Creek Marsh Provincially Significant Wetlands along with the Green Bay Non-Provincially Significant Wetland in the Bobs Lake 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.

Bobs Lake catchment: One Environmental Compliance Approval was sought for a private sewage works.

Crow Lake catchment: One Environmental Compliance Approval was sought for a campground sewage works.

Environmental Monitoring

Chemical surface (in-stream/lake) water quality collection by the RVCA since 2003 (see Section 2 of this report).

Bobs Lake catchment: Thirty-nine drainage feature assessments were conducted by the RVCA in 2016 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 of this report).

Crow Lake catchment: Twenty-two drainage feature assessments were conducted by the RVCA in 2016 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 3.3 of this report).

Classification of Bobs and Crow Lake catchment land cover types derived by the RVCA from colour aerial photography that was acquired during the spring of 2008 and 2014 (see Section 4.1 of this report).

The Mississippi Rideau Septic System Office has conducted 149 mandatory septic system inspections and 2 voluntary septic system re-inspections on 119 properties around Bobs Lake from 2004 to 2017 (see Section 5.5 of this report).

Groundwater chemistry information is available from the Ontario Geological Survey for one well (#13-AG-048) in the Bobs Lake catchment.

Stewardship

Bobs Lake catchment: Thirty-one stewardship projects were completed by landowners with assistance from the RVCA (see Section 5 of this report).

Crow Lake catchment: Sixteen stewardship projects were completed by landowners with assistance from the RVCA (see Section 5 of this report).

• Print

2.0 Bobs and Crow Lake Catchments: Water Quality Conditions

Surface water quality conditions are monitored by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority’s (RVCA) Watershed Watch Program, which monitors watershed lakes to assess nutrient concentrations, water clarity, dissolved oxygen availability and pH. Figure 2 shows the locations of monitoring sites in the Bobs Lake catchment and Figure 3 shows the locations of monitoring sites in the Crow Lake catchment.

Water Quality Rating in the Bobs Lake Catchment

"Poor" indicates that water quality is frequently threatened or impaired with conditions that often depart from natural or desirable levels. 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 "Good" indicates that only a minor degree of threat or impairment is observed and conditions rarely depart from natural or desirable levels. ” Very Good” describes water quality as protected with virtual absence of threat or impairment; conditions are very close to natural or pristine levels. Each parameter is evaluated against established guidelines to determine water quality conditions. Those parameters that frequently exceed guidelines are presented below. Data has been analyzed over the 2006-2017 period for general trends and conditions. Table 1 shows the overall rating for the monitored surface water quality sites within the catchment and Table 2 outlines the Water Quality Index (WQI) scores and their corresponding ratings.

2.1 Bobs Lake Water Quality

Surface water quality conditions in Bobs Lake have been monitored by RVCA’s Watershed Watch Program since 2006. Data from the deep point sites (DP1 & DP3) has been used to calculate the WQI ratings for Bobs Lake.  In most basins (of which there are nine in Bobs Lake that are monitored), conditions were influenced by moderate nutrient concentrations, good oxygen availability and clear water. The following discussion explains how each of the monitored water quality parameters contributes to the water quality in each basin.

This report also considers data from additional shoreline sites that are monitored around the lake. These sites have not been included in the calculation of the CCME WQI rating, as they are not monitored with the same frequency as the deep point site. However, they do provide important information on water quality conditions in the near shore areas. For locations of shoreline sites please see Figure 2.

2.1.1 Bobs Lake: Buck Bay Water Quality

2.1.1.1 Buck Bay Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and contributes 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 lakes, concentrations greater than 0.020 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP within the water column. Concentrations below 0.010 mg/l are generally considered to be minimal and unlikely to have problems associated with nutrient loading. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is used as a secondary indicator of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN within surface waters¹.

Nutrients at the Buck Bay Deep Point

TP and TKN sampling results collected by the RVCA are presented in Figures 3 to 6. Variability has occurred in the sampled TP concentrations at this site (Figure 3 and 4), however no significant trend² was observed in the 2006-2017 dataset. Eighty-nine percent of samples analyzed for TP were less than the TP guideline and the average concentration was 0.013 mg/l (Table 3). TKN concentration also showed variability and an overall decline in concentrations was observed (Figures 5 and 6). Ninety-three percent of reported results were below the TKN guideline and the average TKN concentration was 0.362 mg/l (Table 3).

Figure 3 Total phosphorous sampling results at deep point site (DP1) on Buck Bay, 2006-2017

Figure 4 Average total phosphorus results at the deep point site (DP1) on Buck Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Figure 5 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen sampling results at deep point site (DP1) on Buck Bay, 2006-2017

Figure 6 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen sampling results at the deep point site (DP1) on Buck Bay, 2006-2017.

Overall, the data presented indicates that nutrient concentrations may be considered moderate with few instances of exceedance in the mid-lake, deep water site on Buck Bay.

Nutrients around Buck Bay

The average nutrient concentrations at monitored shoreline sites around the lake vary from year to year (Figures 7 and 8). Please note that in the 2006-2017 monitoring period only site A was sampled yearly; sites B, C and D were sampled in 2008 and 2013.

Average total phosphorous concentrations are below the TP guideline at all sites for all years monitored. The opposite is true for average TKN concentrations that exceed the guideline at all monitored sites. Site A is in a busy area near the entrance to Buck Bay from West Basin where increased boat traffic and sediment disturbance may contribute to the elevated results.

Figure 7 Average total phosphorous concentrations at shoreline monitoring sites on Buck Bay, 2006-2017.

Figure 8 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations at shoreline monitoring sites on Buck Bay, 2006-2017

 

Summary of Buck Bay Nutrients

Buck Bay nutrient concentrations are generally below the guidelines, with few exceedances. It is possible that occasional problems with nutrient enrichment (i.e. algal blooms or excessive plant growth) may be observed in shallow, sheltered bays.

Efforts such as the diversion of runoff and enhanced shoreline buffers are important to continue to protect and enhance water quality and reduce future nutrient increases. This is particularly important for roadways and dwellings that boarder the lake. Nutrient exceedances may be partially attributed to the natural aging of a lake and basin characteristics. All residents can help minimize their impact on the lake by reducing nutrient inputs through practices such as proper maintenance of septic systems, keeping shorelines natural and using phosphate free soaps and detergents. Promotion of sound stewardship and protection around lake are important to maintain and protect water quality conditions into the future.

2.1.1.2 Buck Bay Water Clarity

Water clarity is measured using a Secchi disk during each deep point sample. Table 4 summarizes the recorded depths with an average depth of 4.7 m and shows that all readings have exceeded the minimum PWQO of 2 m indicating that algae in the water column is not at excessive levels (good water clarity). Less than 2 m will indicate overproduction in a lake or significant inputs to the water column that are limiting light availability. Figure 9 shows that no individual reading has been below the guideline and measured depths range from 2.1 m to 7.25 m. No trend was observed within the 2006-2017 data set, indicating that Secchi depths have not changed significantly over this period.

Figure 9 Recorded Secchi depths at the deep point site (DP1) on Buck Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of Buck Bay Water Clarity

Waters in Buck Bay are very clear and sufficient sunlight is able to penetrate the water column to support aquatic life and provide sufficient visibility for safe recreational use (boating, swimming).

2.1.1.3 Buck Bay Fish Habitat

Two other factors, dissolved oxygen/temperature and pH were also assessed to provide an overall sense of the health of Buck Bay from a fish habitat perspective. 

2.1.1.3.1 Buck Bay Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

The red bars in Figure 10 show the depths where suitable conditions exist for warm water fish species (temperature less than 25°C and dissolved oxygen greater than 4 mg/l) at the deep point site. The vertical axis represents the total lake depth at each site where the profile is taken. Suitable conditions typically decline throughout the summer to about 11 m of the water column. Overall, no significant change was noted in conditions through the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 10. Depths suitable for warm water fish species at the deep point site (DP1) on Buck Lake, 2006-2017.

 

 

2.1.1.3.2 Buck Bay pH

pH is a basic water quality parameter used to assess the acidity of water, an important factor for aquatic life. Figure 11 shows monitored pH values over the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 11. pH concentrations at the deep point site (DP1) on Buck Bay, 2006-2017.

The majority of samples for both time periods were within guidelines established by the Canadian Council of Minister's of the Environment which state that pH should be between 6.5 and 9 to protect aquatic life (Table 5). Surface water’s that are found to be more alkaline (higher pH) are common in many regions of the Tay River subwatershed and can generally be attributed to the geology rather than anthropogenic activities.  Biological activities such as increased photosynthesis from algal blooms and plant growth may also influence pH.

Summary of Water Quality for Fish Habitat in Buck Bay

Overall the water chemistry data at the deep point describes suitable habitat conditions for fish species such as bass, walleye and pike. There is some evidence that the warming of the water column in the late summer/fall and limited oxygen availability at deeper depths may minimize the amount of habitat for some more sensitive species. pH conditions are within the end of the range recommended for the protection of aquatic life. Overall, the data indicates a healthy environment for aquatic species.

2.1.1.4 Buck Bay E. Coli

E. coli is sampled at monitored shoreline sites twice each sampling season. E. coli data was not used in the calculations of the WQI rating for the lake due to differences in sampling frequency and site locations, the results are summarized in Table 6. Throughout the 2006-2017 period 97 percent of samples were below the E. coli guideline of 100 colony forming units (CFU) per 100 ml set by the PWQO; across the lake the count at the geometric mean³ was 6 CFU/100ml (Table 6).

Figure 12 show the distribution of counts across all shoreline sites. Site A is the only site monitored each year and typically has minimal counts and indicates that bacterial pollution should not be a concern. All sites fell well below the guideline of 100 CFU/100ml.

Figure 12 Geometric mean of shoreline sites monitored on Buck Bay, 2006-2017

 

Summary of Buck Bay Bacterial Contamination

The results presented above provide evidence that bacterial contamination is not a significant concern in Buck Bay and the water should be safe for recreational use such as swimming and boating.

2.1.2 Bobs Lake: Green Bay Water Quality

2.1.2.1 Green Bay Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and contributes 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 lakes, concentrations greater than 0.020 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP within the water column. Concentrations below 0.010 mg/l are generally considered to be minimal and unlikely to have problems associated with nutrient loading. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is used as a secondary indicator of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN within surface waters.

Nutrients at the Green Bay Deep Point

TP and TKN sampling results collected by the RVCA are presented in Figures 13 to 16. Variability has occurred in the sampled TP concentrations at this site (Figure 13 and 14), however no significant trend was observed in the 2006-2017 dataset. TP results for Green Bay are consistently low, all samples analyzed for TP were less than the TP guideline and the average concentration was 0.009 mg/l (Table 7). TKN concentration also showed variability; however, similar to TP results no trend was observed (Figures 15 and 16). Ninety-five percent of reported results were below the TKN guideline and the average TKN concentration was 0.314 mg/l (Table 7).

Figure 13  Total phosphorus samples results at the deep point site (DP1) on Green Bay, 2006-2017

Figure 14 Average total phosphorus results at the deep point site (DP1) on Green Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Figure 15 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen sampling results at deep point site (DP1) on Green Bay, 2006-2017

Figure 16 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen results at the deep point site (DP1) on Green Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Overall, the data presented indicates that nutrient concentrations may be considered very low with few instances of exceedance in the mid-lake, deep water site on Green Bay.

Nutrients around Green Bay

The average nutrient concentrations at monitored shoreline sites around the lake vary from year to year (Figures 17 and 18). Please note that in the 2006-2017 monitoring period only sites D, F, and H were sampled yearly; sites A, B, C, E, G and I were sampled in 2008 and 2013.

Average total phosphorous concentrations are below the TP guideline at all sites; site D tends to have elevated results relative to other sites though results can still be considered low to moderate  (Figure 17). Average TKN concentrations were also below the guideline at all monitored sites; as with TP concentrations, TKN is also slightly elevated at site D relative to other monitored sites (Figure 18). Site D is in a shallow portion of the bay in close proximity to a roadway, it is possible that runoff from this road is contributing to elevated nutrient concentrations at this site.

Figure 17 Average total phosphorous concentrations at shoreline monitoring sites on Green Bay, 2006-2017.

Figure 18 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations at shoreline monitoring sites on Green Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of Green Bay Nutrients

Green Bay nutrient concentrations are generally below the guidelines, with very instances of elevated results. It is possible that occasional problems with nutrient enrichment (i.e. algal blooms or excessive plant growth) may be observed in shallow, sheltered bays or following periods of heavy runoff.

Green Bay nutrient concentrations are generally below the guidelines, with very instances of elevated results. It is possible that occasional problems with nutrient enrichment (i.e. algal blooms or excessive plant growth) may be observed in shallow, sheltered bays or following periods of heavy runoff.

Efforts such as the diversion of runoff and enhanced shoreline buffers are important to continue to protect and enhance water quality and reduce future nutrient increases. This is particularly important for roadways and dwellings that boarder the lake. Nutrient exceedances may be partially attributed to the natural aging of a lake and basin characteristics. All residents can help minimize their impact on the lake by reducing nutrient inputs through practices such as proper maintenance of septic systems, keeping shorelines natural and using phosphate free soaps and detergents. Promotion of sound stewardship and protection around lake are important to maintain and protect water quality conditions into the future.

2.1.2.2 Green Bay Water Clarity

Water clarity is measured using a Secchi disk during each deep point sample. Table 8 summarizes the recorded depths with an average depth of 5.1 m and shows that all readings have exceeded the minimum PWQO of 2m indicating that algae in the water column is not at excessive levels (good water clarity). Less than 2 m will indicate overproduction in a lake or significant inputs to the water column that are limiting light availability. Figure 19 shows that no individual reading has been below the guideline and measured depths range from 2.9 m to 7.9 m. No trend was observed within the 2006-2017 data set, indicating that Secchi depths have not change significantly over this period.

Figure 19 Recorded Secchi depths at the deep point site (DP1) on Green Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of Green Bay Water Clarity

Waters in Green Bay are very clear and sufficient sunlight is able to penetrate the water column to support aquatic life and provide sufficient visibility for safe recreational use (boating, swimming).

2.1.2.3 Green Bay Fish Habitat

Two other factors, dissolved oxygen/temperature and pH were also assessed to provide an overall sense of the health of Green Bay from a fish habitat perspective.

2.1.2.3.1 Green Bay Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

The red bars in Figure 20 show the depths where suitable conditions exist for warm water fish species (temperature less than 25°C and dissolved oxygen greater than 4 mg/l) at the deep point site. The vertical axis represents the total lake depth at each site where the profile is taken. Suitable conditions typically decline throughout the summer to about 21 m of the water column. Overall, no significant change was noted in conditions through the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 20 Depths suitable for warm water fish species at the deep point site (DP1) on Green Bay, 2006-2017.

2.1.2.3.2 Green Bay pH

pH is a basic water quality parameter used to assess the acidity of water, an important factor for aquatic life. Figure 21 shows monitored pH values over the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 21 pH concentrations at the deep point sites (DP1) on Green Bay, 2006-2017.

The majority of samples (95%, table 9) for both time periods were within guidelines established by the Canadian Council of Minister's of the Environment which state that pH should be between 6.5 and 9 to protect aquatic life. Surface water’s that are found to be more alkaline (higher pH) are common in many regions of the Tay River subwatershed and can generally be attributed to the geology rather than anthropogenic activities.  Biological activities such as increased photosynthesis from algal blooms and plant growth may also influence pH.

Summary of Water Quality for Fish Habitat in Green Bay

Overall the water chemistry data at the deep point describes suitable habitat conditions for fish species such as bass, walleye and pike. There is some evidence that the warming of the water column in the late summer/fall and limited oxygen availability at deeper depths may minimize the amount of habitat for some more sensitive species. pH conditions are within the end of the range recommended for the protection of aquatic life. Overall, the data indicates a healthy environment for aquatic species.

2.1.2.4 Green Bay E. Coli

E. coli is sampled at monitored shoreline sites twice each sampling season. E. coli data was not used in the calculations of the WQI rating for the lake due to differences in sampling frequency and site locations, the results are summarized in Table 10. Throughout the 2006-2017 period 99 percent of samples were below the E. coli guideline of 100 colony forming units (CFU) per 100 ml set by the PWQO; across the lake the count at the geometric mean was only 3 CFU/100ml (Table 10).

Figure 22 Geometric mean of shoreline sites monitored on Green Bay, 2006-2017

 

Figure 22 shows the distribution of counts across all shoreline sites.  All sites fall well below the guideline of 100 CFU/100ml; site F does have elevated results relative to other monitored locations.  However, counts have been variable from year to year and as previously noted the geometric mean in any year does not exceed the guideline, therefore these results do not indicate reason for concern. Given the proximity of agricultural lands to this site it is possible that runoff from livestock or manure application may be contributing to the occasional periods of elevated results.  Improving natural shoreline cover,  buffers and fencing along this shore may help reduce runoff from surrounding land uses.

Summary of Green Bay Bacterial Contamination

The results presented above provide evidence that bacterial contamination is not a significant concern in Green Bay and the water should be safe for recreational use such as swimming and boating.

2.1.3 Bobs Lake: West Basin Water Quality

2.1.3.1 West Basin Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and contributes 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 lakes, concentrations greater than 0.020 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP within the water column. Concentrations below 0.010 mg/l are generally considered to be minimal and unlikely to have problems associated with nutrient loading. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is used as a secondary indicator of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN within surface waters.

Nutrients at the West Basin Deep Point

TP and TKN sampling results collected by the RVCA are presented in Figures 23 to 26. Variability has occurred in the sampled TP concentrations at this site (Figure 23 and 24), however no significant trend was observed in the 2006-2017 dataset. TP results for West Basin may be considered minimal, 96 percent of samples analyzed for TP were less than the TP guideline and the average concentration was 0.010 mg/l (Table 11). TKN concentration also showed variability; however similar to TP results no trend was observed (Figures 25 and 26). Ninety-three percent of reported results were below the TKN guideline and the average TKN concentration was 0.360 mg/l (Table 11).

Figure 23 Total phosphorus sampling results at deep point site (DP1) in the West Basin, 2006-2017

Figure 24 Average total phosphorus results at the deep point site (DP1) in the West Basin, 2006-2017.

 

Figure 25 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen sampling results at deep point site (DP1) in the West Basin, 2006-2017

Figure 26 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen results at the deep point site (DP1) in the West Basin, 2006-2017.

 

Overall, the data presented indicates that nutrient concentrations may be considered very low with few instances of elevated samples in the mid-lake, deep water site in the West Basin.

Nutrients around West Basin

The average nutrient concentrations at monitored shoreline sites around the lake vary from year to year (Figures 27 and 28). Please note that in the 2006-2017 monitoring period only sites A and B were sampled yearly; sites C, D, E, F, G, and H were sampled in 2008 and 2013, site K was sampled in 2008, 2013, 2015 and 2017.

Average total phosphorous concentrations are below the TP guideline at the majority of sites with instances of elevated concentrations at sites B and K (Figure 27). Average TKN concentrations were also below the guideline at all monitored sites; as with TP results elevated concentrations are also observed at sites B and K (Figure 28). Both of these sites are located at inflow locations and it is possible that runoff from surrounding areas is contributing to elevated concentrations.

Figure 27 Average total phosphorous concentrations at shoreline monitoring sites on West Basin, 2006-2017.

Figure 28 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations at shoreline monitoring sites on West Basin, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of West Basin Nutrients

West Basin nutrient concentrations are generally below the guidelines, with few samples having elevated results. It is possible that occasional problems with nutrient enrichment (i.e. algal blooms or excessive plant growth) may be observed in shallow, sheltered bays or following periods of heavy runoff.

Efforts such as the diversion of runoff and enhanced shoreline buffers are important to continue to protect and enhance water quality and reduce future nutrient increases. This is particularly important for roadways and dwellings that boarder the lake. Nutrient exceedances may be partially attributed to the natural aging of a lake and basin characteristics. All residents can help minimize their impact on the lake by reducing nutrient inputs through practices such as proper maintenance of septic systems, keeping shorelines natural and using phosphate free soaps and detergents. Promotion of sound stewardship and protection around lake and throughout the catchment are important to maintain and protect water quality conditions into the future.

2.1.3.2 West Basin Water Clarity

Water clarity is measured using a Secchi disk during each deep point sample. Table 12 summarizes the recorded depths with an average depth of 4.2 m and shows that all readings have exceeded the minimum PWQO of 2m indicating that algae in the water column is not at excessive levels (good water clarity). Less than 2 m will indicate overproduction in a lake or significant inputs to the water column that are limiting light availability. Figure 29 shows that no individual reading has been below the guideline and measured depths range from 2.8 m to 6 m. No trend was observed within the 2006-2017 data set, indicating that Secchi depths have not change significantly over this period.

Figure 29 Recorded Secchi depths at the deep point site (DP1) on West Basin, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of West Basin Water Clarity

Waters in West Basin are very clear and sufficient sunlight is able to penetrate the water column to support aquatic life and provide sufficient visibility for safe recreational use (boating, swimming).

2.1.3.3 West Basin Fish Habitat

Two other factors, dissolved oxygen/temperature and pH were also assessed to provide an overall sense of the health of West Basin from a fish habitat perspective. 

2.1.3.3.1 West Basin Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

The red bars in Figure 30 show the depths where suitable conditions exist for warm water fish species (temperature less than 25°C and dissolved oxygen greater than 4 mg/l) at the deep point site. The vertical axis represents the total lake depth at each site where the profile is taken. Suitable conditions typically decline throughout the late summer/fall to about 17 m of the water column. Overall, no significant change was noted in conditions through the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 30 Depths suitable for warm water fish species at the deep point site (DP1) on West Basin, 2006-2017.

 

 

2.3.3.3.2 West Basin pH

pH is a basic water quality parameter used to assess the acidity of water, an important factor for aquatic life. Figure 31 shows monitored pH values over the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 31 pH concentrations at the deep point sites (DP1) on West Basin, 2006-2017.

All samples (100%, table 13) were within guidelines established by the Canadian Council of Minister's of the Environment which state that pH should be between 6.5 and 9 to protect aquatic life. A slight decline was noted in pH values. Anthropogenic and biological activities such as increased photosynthesis from algal blooms and plant growth may act to influence pH.

Summary of Water Quality for Fish Habitat in West Basin

Overall the water chemistry data at the deep point describes suitable habitat conditions for fish species such as bass, walleye and pike. There is some evidence that the warming of the water column in the late summer/fall and limited oxygen availability at deeper depths may minimize the amount of habitat for some more sensitive species. pH conditions are within the range recommended for the protection of aquatic life. Overall, the data indicates a healthy environment for aquatic species.

2.1.3.4 West Basin E. Coli

E. coli is sampled at monitored shoreline sites twice each sampling season. E. coli data was not used in the calculations of the WQI rating for the lake due to differences in sampling frequency and site locations, the results are summarized in Table 14. Throughout the 2006-2017 period 97 percent of samples were below the E. coli guideline of 100 colony forming units (CFU) per 100 ml set by the PWQO; across the lake the count at the geometric mean was 7 CFU/100ml (Table 14).

Figure 32 Geometric mean of shoreline sites monitored on West Basin, 2006-2017

 

Figure 32 shows the distribution of counts across all shoreline sites.  All sites fell well below the guideline of 100 CFU/100ml, site B does have elevated results relative to other monitored locations.  However, counts have been variable from year to year and as previously noted the geometric mean in any year does not exceed the guideline. This same site also had elevated nutrient concentrations and is the inflow from Eagle Creek, it may be beneficial to examine if possible sources of nutrient/bacterial contamination could be minimized at this site to protect existing conditions and prevent against future deterioration.

Summary of West Basin E. Coli

The results presented above provide evidence that bacterial contamination is not a significant concern in West Basin and the water should be safe for recreational use such as swimming and boating.

2.1.4 Bobs Lake: Norris Bay Water Quality

2.1.4.1 Norris Bay Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and contributes 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 lakes, concentrations greater than 0.020 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP within the water column. Concentrations below 0.010 mg/l are generally considered to be minimal and unlikely to have problems associated with nutrient loading. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is used as a secondary indicator of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN within surface waters.

Nutrients at the Norris Bay Deep Point

TP and TKN sampling results collected by the RVCA are presented in Figures 33 to 36. Variability has occurred in the sampled TP concentrations at this site (Figure 33 and 34), however no significant trend was observed in the 2006-2017 dataset. TP results for Norris Bay are very low, 95 percent of samples analyzed for TP were less than the TP guideline and the average concentration was 0.011mg/l (Table 15). TKN concentration also showed variability; however similar to TP results no trend was observed (Figures 35 and 36). Ninety-eight percent of reported results were below the TKN guideline and the average TKN concentration was 0.344 mg/l (Table 15).

Figure 33 Total phosphorus sampling results at deep point site (DP1) on Norris Bay, 2006-2017

Figure 34 Average total phosphorus results at the deep point site (DP1) on Norris Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Figure 35 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen sampling results at deep point site (DP1) on Norris Bay, 2006-2017

Figure 36 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen results at the deep point site (DP1) on Norris Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Overall, the data presented indicates that nutrient concentrations may be considered very low with few instances of elevated samples in the deep water site in Norris Bay.

Nutrients around Norris Bay

The average nutrient concentrations at monitored shoreline sites around the lake vary from year to year (Figures 37 and 38). Please note that in the 2006-2017 shoreline sites A, B, C and D were only sampled in 2008 and 2013.

Average total phosphorous concentrations are below the TP guideline at all sites withe the exception of site A in both monitoring years (Figure 37), this site is out the outlet of the lake and elevated concentrations may result from increased loading periods. Average TKN concentrations were below the guideline at all monitored sites in 2008; in 2013 average results exceeded the guideline at all sites except C.

Figure 37 Average total phosphorous concentrations at shoreline monitoring sites on Norris Bay, 2006-2017.

Figure 38 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations at shoreline monitoring sites on Norris Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of Norris Bay Nutrients

Nutrient concentrations in Norris Bay are inconsistent, and results have had variability between the two monitoring years. It is possible that occasional problems with nutrient enrichment (i.e. algal blooms or excessive plant growth) may be observed in shallow, sheltered bays or following periods of heavy runoff.

Norris Bay includes the outlet to the lake it has increased potential for nutrient loading.  Efforts such as the diversion of runoff and enhanced shoreline buffers are important to continue to protect and enhance water quality and reduce future nutrient increases.   It is particularly important for roadways and dwellings that boarder the lake. Nutrient exceedances may be partially attributed to the natural aging of a lake and basin characteristics. All residents can help minimize their impact on the lake by reducing nutrient inputs through practices such as proper maintenance of septic systems, keeping shorelines natural and using phosphate free soaps and detergents. Promotion of sound stewardship and protection around lake and throughout the catchment are important to maintain and protect water quality conditions into the future.

2.1.4.2 Norris Bay Water Clarity

Water clarity is measured using a Secchi disk during each deep point sample. Table 16 summarizes the recorded depths with an average depth of 4.5 m and shows that all readings have exceeded the minimum PWQO of 2m indicating that algae in the water column is not at excessive levels (good water clarity). Less than 2 m will indicate overproduction in a lake or significant inputs to the water column that are limiting light availability. Figure 39 shows that no individual reading has been below the guideline and measured depths range from 2.5 m to 7.5 m. No trend was observed within the 2006-2017 data set, indicating that Secchi depths have not change significantly over this period.

Figure 39 Recorded Secchi depths at the deep point site (DP1) on Norris Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of Norris Bay Water Clarity

Waters in Norris Bay are very clear and sufficient sunlight is able to penetrate the water column to support aquatic life and provide sufficient visibility for safe recreational use (boating, swimming).

2.1.4.3 Norris Bay Fish Habitat

Two other factors, dissolved oxygen/temperature and pH were also assessed to provide an overall sense of the health of Norris Bay from a fish habitat perspective. 

2.1.4.3.1 Norris Bay Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

The red bars in Figure 40 show the depths where suitable conditions exist for warm water fish species (temperature less than 25°C and dissolved oxygen greater than 4 mg/l) at the deep point site. The vertical axis represents the total lake depth at each site where the profile is taken. Suitable conditions typically decline throughout the late summer to about 7.5 m of the water column, habitat conditions were very limited in 2007, 2010 and 2015. Overall, no significant change was noted in conditions through the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 40 Depths suitable for warm water fish species at the deep point site (DP1) on Norris Bay, 2006-2017.

 

2.1.4.3.2 Norris Bay pH

pH is a basic water quality parameter used to assess the acidity of water, an important factor for aquatic life. Figure 41 shows monitored pH values over the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 41 pH concentrations at the deep point sites (DP1) on Norris Bay, 2006-2017.

All samples (100%, table 17) were within guidelines established by the Canadian Council of Minister's of the Environment which state that pH should be between 6.5 and 9 to protect aquatic life. A slight decline was noted in pH values. Anthropogenic and biological activities such as increased photosynthesis from algal blooms and plant growth may act to influence pH.

Summary of Water Quality for Fish Habitat in Norris Bay

Overall the water chemistry data at the deep point describes suitable habitat conditions for fish species such as bass, walleye and pike. There is some evidence that the warming of the water column in the late summer and limited oxygen availability at deeper depths may minimize the amount of habitat for some more sensitive species. pH conditions are within the range recommended for the protection of aquatic life. Overall, the data indicates a healthy environment for aquatic species.

2.1.4.4 Norris Bay E. Coli

E. coli is sampled at monitored shoreline sites twice each sampling season. E. coli data was not used in the calculations of the WQI rating for the lake due to differences in sampling frequency and site locations, the results are summarized in Table 18. Throughout the 2006-2017 period 82 percent of samples were below the E. coli guideline of 100 colony forming units (CFU) per 100 ml set by the PWQO; across the lake the count at the geometric mean was 9 CFU/100ml (Table 18).

Figure 42 Geometric mean of shoreline sites monitored on Norris Bay, 2006-2017

 

Figure 42 shows the distribution of counts across all shoreline sites.  Site A and B have shown to have higher counts, which just  meet or exceed the E. coli guideline, site B does have elevated results relative to other monitored locations.  However, monitoring at the sites on Norris Bay has been infrequent, and given the limited number of samples it is difficult to make a  conclusion on bacterial counts. Consideration should be given to increasing the frequency of monitoring at these sites, particularly A and B.

Summary of Norris Bay Bacterial Contamination

The results presented above provide evidence that bacterial contamination is not a significant concern at site C on Norris Bay and the water should be safe for recreational use such as swimming and boating. More data is required to assess bacterial concentrations at sites A, B and D.

2.1.5. Bobs Lake: East Basin/Long Bay

2.1.5.1 East Basin/Long Bay Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and contributes 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 lakes, concentrations greater than 0.020 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP within the water column. Concentrations below 0.010 mg/l are generally considered to be minimal and unlikely to have problems associated with nutrient loading. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is used as a secondary indicator of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN within surface waters.

Nutrients at the East Basin/Long Bay Deep Points

TP and TKN sampling results collected by the RVCA are presented in Figures 43 to 46. Variability has occurred in the sampled TP concentrations at this site (Figure 43 and 44), a slight decline in TP concentrations was observed in the 2006-2017 dataset. TP results for East Basin/Long Bay are very low, 94 percent of samples analyzed for TP were less than the TP guideline and the average concentration was 0.010 mg/l (Table 19). TKN concentration also showed variability; no trend was observed in TKN concentratons (Figures 45 and 46). Ninety-five percent of reported results were below the TKN guideline and the average TKN concentration was 0.345 mg/l (Table 19).

Figure 43 Total phosphorus sampling results at the deep point sites (DP1 and DP3) in East Basin and Long Bay, 2006-2017

Figure 44 Average total phosphorus results at the deep point sites (DP1 and DP3) on East Basin and Long Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Figure 45 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen sampling results at the deep point sites (DP1 and DP3) in East Bain and Long Bay, 2006-2017.

Figure 46 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen results at the deep point sites (DP1 and DP3) on East Basin and Long Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Overall, the data presented indicates that nutrient concentrations may be considered very low with few instances of elevated samples in the deep water site in Norris Bay.

Nutrients around East Basin/Long Bay

The average nutrient concentrations at monitored shoreline sites around the lake vary from year to year (Figures 47 and 48). Please note that in the 2006-2017 shoreline sites A, C, E and F were only sampled in 2008 and 2013, sites B and D were sampled each year.

Average total phosphorous concentrations are below the TP guideline at all sites withe the exception of site B in 2009 (Figure 47), this site is at the mouth of a small creek that flows into the lake, temporary elevated concentrations may have resulted from a period of high runoff. Average TKN concentrations were below the guideline at all monitored sites with the exception of site B also in 2009 and site D in 2014 (Figure 48).  Site D is in a small bay with wetland influences, nitrogen rich soils are associated with wetlands and are likely contributing to elevated concentrations at this site. 

Figure 47 Average total phosphorous concentrations at shoreline monitoring sites on East Basin/Long Bay, 2006-2017.

Figure 48 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations at shoreline monitoring sites on East Basin/Long Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of East Basin/Long Bay Nutrients

Nutrient concentrations in East Basin/Long Bay are generally below guidelines with few exceedances. There is evidence of periods of elevated nutrients and sites B and D, but as elevated concentrations are not observed every year it is likely that this are isolated events. It is possible that occasional problems with nutrient enrichment (i.e. algal blooms or excessive plant growth) may be observed in both these shallow, sheltered bays or following periods of heavy runoff.

 Efforts such as the diversion of runoff and enhanced shoreline buffers are important to continue to protect and enhance water quality and reduce future nutrient increases.  For instance the close proximity of a road way near site B increases the potential for runoff. Nutrient exceedances may be partially attributed to the natural aging of a lake and basin characteristics. All residents can help minimize their impact on the lake by reducing nutrient inputs through practices such as proper maintenance of septic systems, keeping shorelines natural and using phosphate free soaps and detergents. Promotion of sound stewardship and protection around lake and throughout the catchment are important to maintain and protect water quality conditions into the future.

2.1.5.2 East Basin/Long Bay Water Clarity

Water clarity is measured using a Secchi disk during each deep point sample. Table 20 summarizes the recorded depths with an average depth of 4.7 m and shows that all readings have exceeded the minimum PWQO of 2m indicating that algae in the water column is not at excessive levels (good water clarity). Less than 2 m will indicate overproduction in a lake or significant inputs to the water column that are limiting light availability. Figure 49 shows that no individual reading has been below the guideline and measured depths range from 2.3 m to 7.5 m. No trend was observed within the 2006-2017 data set, indicating that Secchi depths have not change significantly over this period.

Figure 49 Recorded Secchi depths at the deep point sites (DP1 and DP3) on East Basin/Long Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of East Basin/Long Bay Water Clarity

Waters in East Basin/Long Bay are very clear and sufficient sunlight is able to penetrate the water column to support aquatic life and provide sufficient visibility for safe recreational use (boating, swimming).

2.1.5.3 East Basin/Long Bay Fish Habitat

Two other factors, dissolved oxygen/temperature and pH were also assessed to provide an overall sense of the health of East Basin/Long Bay from a fish habitat perspective. 

2.1.5.3.1 East Basin/Long Bay Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

The red bars in Figure 50 show the depths where suitable conditions exist for warm water fish species (temperature less than 25°C and dissolved oxygen greater than 4 mg/l) at the deep point site. The vertical axis represents the total lake depth at each site where the profile is taken. Suitable conditions typically decline throughout the late summer to about 8 m of the water column, habitat conditions were very limited in 2009 and 2010. Through the 2006-2017 period and increasing trend was observed in dissolved oxygen concentrations.

Figure 50 Depths suitable for warm water fish species at the deep point sites (DP1 and DP3) on East Basin/Long Bay, 2006-2017.

2.1.5.3.2 East Basin/Long Bay pH

pH is a basic water quality parameter used to assess the acidity of water, an important factor for aquatic life. Figure 51 shows monitored pH values over the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 51 pH concentrations at the two deep point sites (DP1 and DP3) on East Basin/Long Bay, 2006-2017.

The majority of samples (97%, table 21) were within guidelines established by the Canadian Council of Minister's of the Environment which state that pH should be between 6.5 and 9 to protect aquatic life. A slight decline was noted in pH values. Anthropogenic and biological activities such as increased photosynthesis from algal blooms and plant growth may act to influence pH.

Summary of Water Quality for Fish Habitat in East Basin/Long Bay

Overall the water chemistry data at the deep point describes suitable habitat conditions for fish species such as bass, walleye and pike. There is some evidence that the warming of the water column in the late summer and limited oxygen availability at deeper depths may minimize the amount of habitat for some more sensitive species. pH conditions are within the range recommended for the protection of aquatic life. Overall, the data indicates a healthy environment for aquatic species.

2.1.5.4 East Basin/Long Bay E. Coli

E. coli is sampled at monitored shoreline sites twice each sampling season. E. coli data was not used in the calculations of the WQI rating for the lake due to differences in sampling frequency and site locations, the results are summarized in Table 22. Throughout the 2006-2017 period 100 percent of samples were below the E. coli guideline of 100 colony forming units (CFU) per 100 ml set by the PWQO; across the lake the count at the geometric mean was 6 CFU/100ml (Table 22).

Figure 52 Geometric mean of shoreline sites monitored on East Basin/Long Bay, 2006-2017

 

Figure 52 shows the distribution of counts across all shoreline sites.  Sites B and D are monitored each year, while sites A, C, E and F were only monitored in 2008 and 2013, results at all sites were well below the guideline. 

Summary of East Basin/Long Bay Bacterial Contamination

The results presented above provide evidence that bacterial contamination is not a significant concern in East Basin/Long Bay and the water should be safe for recreational use such as swimming and boating.

2.1.6 Bobs Lake: Central Narrows Water Quality

2.1.6.1 Central Narrows Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and contributes 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 lakes, concentrations greater than 0.020 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP within the water column. Concentrations below 0.010 mg/l are generally considered to be minimal and unlikely to have problems associated with nutrient loading. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is used as a secondary indicator of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN within surface waters.

Nutrients at the Central Narrows Deep Point

TP and TKN sampling results collected by the RVCA are presented in Figures 53 to 56. Variability has occurred in the sampled TP concentrations at this site (Figure 53 and 54), however there has been no significant increase or decrease in sampled concentrations. TP results for Central Narrows are low, 89 percent of samples analyzed for TP were less than the TP guideline and the average concentration was 0.011 mg/l (Table 23). TKN concentration also showed variability; as with TP concentration no trend was observed for this parameter (Figures 55 and 56). Ninety-three percent of reported results were below the TKN guideline and the average TKN concentration was 0.352 mg/l (Table 23).

Figure 53 Total phosphorus sampling results at the deep point site (DP1) in Central Narrows, 2006-2017

Figure 54 Average total phosphorus results at the deep point site (DP1) in Central Narrows

 

Figure 55 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen sampling results at the deep point site (DP1) in Central Narrows, 2006-2017.

Figure 56 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen results at the deep point site (DP1) on Central Narrows, 2006-2017.

 

Overall, the data presented indicates that nutrient concentrations may be considered very low with few instances of elevated samples in the deep water site in Central Narrows.

Nutrients around Central Narrows

The average nutrient concentrations at the monitored shoreline sites around the lake vary from year to year (Figures 57 and 58). Please note that there is only one site, A, monitored in this basin.  Sampling is completed every fifth year, therefore data is only available from 2008 and 2013 within the 2006-2017 period.

Average total phosphorous concentrations were below the TP guideline in both monitoring years (Figure 57). The TP concentrations was higher in 2013 compared to 2008, however given the limited data it is not possible to say if if this is indicative of a significant change.  Average TKN concentrations were below the guideline in both sampling years and concentrations were fairly comparable (Figure 58). Given that deep point nutrient concentrations have not shown any significant changes and samples at site A have been below guidelines, nutrient enrichment does not appear to be a concern in the nearshore area of Central Narrows.  

Figure 57 Average total phosphorous concentrations at the shoreline monitoring site in Central Narrows, 2006-2017.

Figure 58 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations at the shoreline monitoring sites in Central Narrows, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of Central Narrows Nutrients

Nutrient concentrations in Central Narrows are generally below guidelines with few exceedances. There have been some instances of elevated nutrients at the deep point, but are inconsistent and do not point to a trend of increasing nutrient concentrations. It is possible that occasional problems with nutrient enrichment (i.e. algal blooms or excessive plant growth) may be observed in shallow, sheltered bays or following periods of heavy runoff.

Efforts such as the diversion of runoff and enhanced shoreline buffers are important to continue to protect and enhance water quality and reduce future nutrient increases. Nutrient exceedances may be partially attributed to the natural aging of a lake and basin characteristics. All residents can help minimize their impact on the lake by reducing nutrient inputs through practices such as proper maintenance of septic systems, keeping shorelines natural and using phosphate free soaps and detergents. Promotion of sound stewardship and protection around lake and throughout the catchment are important to maintain and protect water quality conditions into the future.

2.1.6.2 Central Narrows Water Clarity

Water clarity is measured using a Secchi disk during each deep point sample. Table 24 summarizes the recorded depths with an average depth of 4.3 m and shows that all readings have exceeded the minimum PWQO of 2m indicating that algae in the water column is not at excessive levels (good water clarity). Less than 2 m will indicate overproduction in a lake or significant inputs to the water column that are limiting light availability. Figure 59 shows that no individual reading has been below the guideline and measured depths range from 2.8 m to 6 m. No trend was observed within the 2006-2017 data set, indicating that Secchi depths have not change significantly over this period.

Figure 59 Recorded Secchi depths at the deep point site (DP1) on Central Narrows, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of Central Narrows Water Clarity

Waters in Central Narrows are very clear and sufficient sunlight is able to penetrate the water column to support aquatic life and provide sufficient visibility for safe recreational use (boating, swimming).

2.1.6.3 Central Narrows Fish Habitat

Two other factors, dissolved oxygen/temperature and pH were also assessed to provide an overall sense of the health of Central Narrows from a fish habitat perspective. 

2.1.6.3.1 Central Narrows Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

The red bars in Figure 60 show the depths where suitable conditions exist for warm water fish species (temperature less than 25°C and dissolved oxygen greater than 4 mg/l) at the deep point site. The vertical axis represents the total lake depth at each site where the profile is taken. Suitable conditions typically decline throughout the late summer/fall to approximately 10m of the water column, habitat conditions were very limited in 2009. Through the 2006-2017 period  there was no significant change in habitat conditions (dissolved oxygen/temperature).

Figure 60 Depths suitable for warm water fish species at the deep point site (DP1) on Central Narrows, 2006-2017.

 

2.1.6.3.2 Central Narrows pH

pH is a basic water quality parameter used to assess the acidity of water, an important factor for aquatic life. Figure 61 shows monitored pH values over the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 61 pH concentrations at the two deep point site (DP1) in Central Narrows, 2006-2017.

The majority of samples (97%, Table 25) were within guidelines established by the Canadian Council of Minister's of the Environment which state that pH should be between 6.5 and 9 to protect aquatic life. A slight decline was noted in pH values. Anthropogenic and biological activities such as increased photosynthesis from algal blooms and plant growth may act to influence pH.

Summary of Water Quality in Central Narrows for Fish habitat

Overall the water chemistry data at the deep point describes suitable habitat conditions for fish species such as bass, walleye and pike. There is some evidence that the warming of the water column in the late summer and limited oxygen availability at deeper depths may minimize the amount of habitat for some more sensitive species. pH conditions are within the range recommended for the protection of aquatic life. Overall, the data indicates a healthy environment for aquatic species.

2.1.6.4 Central Narrows E. Coli

E. coli is sampled at monitored shoreline sites twice each sampling season. E. coli data was not used in the calculations of the WQI rating for the lake due to differences in sampling frequency and site locations, the results are summarized in Table 26. As previously noted the site A is the only shoreline site monitored in this basin and is limited to results from 2008 and 2013. The results indicate that  100 percent of samples were below the E. coli guideline of 100 colony forming units (CFU) per 100 ml set by the PWQO; across the lake the count at the geometric mean was 2.5 CFU/100ml (Table 26).

Figure 62 Geometric mean of shoreline sites monitored in Central Narrows, 2006-2017

 

Figure 62 shows the distribution of counts across all shoreline sites.  Please note that results are based on a minimal number of samples (Table 26), all results were well below the guideline. 

Summary of Central Narrows Bacterial Contamination

The results presented above provide evidence that bacterial contamination is not a significant concern in Central Narrows and the water should be safe for recreational use such as swimming and boating.

2.1.7 Bobs Lake: Mill Bay Water Quality

2.1.7.1 Mill Bay Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and contributes 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 lakes, concentrations greater than 0.020 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP within the water column. Concentrations below 0.010 mg/l are generally considered to be minimal and unlikely to have problems associated with nutrient loading. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is used as a secondary indicator of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN within surface waters.

Nutrients at the Mill Bay Deep Points

TP and TKN sampling results collected by the RVCA are presented in Figures 63 to 66. Variability has occurred in the sampled TP concentrations at this site with particularly high average concentrations were observed in 2006 and 2016, it appears that in both these years elevated results were due to a single sample that is uncharacteristically high (Figure 63 and 64). Overall, there has been no significant increase or decrease in sampled concentrations. TP results for Mill Bay are typically low, 85 percent of samples analyzed for TP were less than the TP guideline and the average concentration was 0.016 mg/l (Table 27). TKN concentration also showed variability; as with TP concentration no trend was observed for this parameter (Figures 65 and 66). Seventy-four percent of reported results were below the TKN guideline and the average TKN concentration was 0.439 mg/l (Table 27).

Figure 63 Total phosphorus sampling results at the deep point site (DP1) in Mill Bay, 2006-2017.

Figure 64 Average total phosphorus results at the deep point site (DP1) in Mill Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Figure 65 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen sampling results at the deep point site (DP1) in Mill Bay, 2006-2017.

Figure 66 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen results at the deep point site (DP1) in Mill Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Overall, the data presented indicates that nutrient concentrations may be considered low with occasional reports of elevated samples at the deep water site on  Mill Bay.

Nutrients around Mill Bay

The average nutrient concentrations at the monitored shoreline sites around the lake vary from year to year (Figures 67 and 68). Please note that there are only two sites monitored in this basin, A and B.  Yearly sampling is completed at site B and every fifth year at site A; therefore data is only available from 2008 and 2013 for site A within the 2006-2017 period.

Average total phosphorous concentrations are inconsistent at site B, and exceeded the guideline in 2012 and 2013, concentrations have been lower in subsequent years (Figure 67). All results at site A have been below the guideline.   Average TKN concentrations typically exceed the guideline (Figure 68).  This may be the result of inflow from wetlands, re-suspension of nutrients in the shallow bay and runoff from developed shorelines.   

Figure 67 Average total phosphorous concentrations at the shoreline monitoring site in Mill Bay, 2006-2017.

Figure 68 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations at the shoreline monitoring sites in Mill Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of Mill Bay Nutrients

Nutrient concentrations in Mill Bay are generally below guidelines with elevated concentrations being more common at monitored shoreline sites.  It is possible that occasional problems with nutrient enrichment (i.e. algal blooms or excessive plant growth) may be observed in shallow, sheltered bays or following periods of heavy runoff.

Efforts such as the diversion of runoff and enhanced shoreline buffers are important to continue to protect and enhance water quality and reduce future nutrient increases. Nutrient exceedances may be partially attributed to the natural aging of a lake and basin characteristics. All residents can help minimize their impact on the lake by reducing nutrient inputs through practices such as proper maintenance of septic systems, keeping shorelines natural and using phosphate free soaps and detergents. Promotion of sound stewardship and protection around lake and throughout the catchment are important to maintain and protect water quality conditions into the future.

2.1.7.2 Mill Bay Water Clarity

Water clarity is measured using a Secchi disk during each deep point sample. Table 28 summarizes the recorded depths with an average depth of 3.3 m and shows that all readings have exceeded the minimum PWQO of 2m indicating that algae in the water column is not at excessive levels (good water clarity). Less than 2 m will indicate overproduction in a lake or significant inputs to the water column that are limiting light availability. Figure 69 shows that no individual reading has been below the guideline and measured depths range from 2.3 m to 5 m. No trend was observed within the 2006-2017 data set, indicating that Secchi depths have not change significantly over this period.

Figure 69 Recorded Secchi depths at the deep point site (DP1) on Mill Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of Mill Bay Water Clarity

Waters in Mill Bay are very clear and sufficient sunlight is able to penetrate the water column to support aquatic life and provide sufficient visibility for safe recreational use (boating, swimming).

2.1.7.3 Mill Bay Fish Habitat

Two other factors, dissolved oxygen/temperature and pH were also assessed to provide an overall sense of the health of Mill Bay from a fish habitat perspective. 

2.1.7.3.1 Mill Bay Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

The red bars in Figure 70 show the depths where suitable conditions exist for warm water fish species (temperature less than 25°C and dissolved oxygen greater than 4 mg/l) at the deep point site. The vertical axis represents the total lake depth at each site where the profile is taken. Suitable conditions typically exist to about 3m within the water column. Through the 2006-2017 period  there was no significant change in habitat conditions (dissolved oxygen/temperature).

Figure 70 Depths suitable for warm water fish species at the deep point site (DP1) on Mill Bay, 2006-2017.

 

 

2.1.7.3.2 Mill Bay pH

pH is a basic water quality parameter used to assess the acidity of water, an important factor for aquatic life. Figure 71 shows monitored pH values over the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 71 pH concentrations at the deep point site (DP1) in Mill Bay, 2006-2017.

The majority of samples (97%, table 29) were within guidelines established by the Canadian Council of Minister's of the Environment which state that pH should be between 6.5 and 9 to protect aquatic life. No significant change was observed in pH results over the 2006-2017 period.

Summary of Water Quality for Fish Habitat in Mill Bay

Overall the water chemistry data at the deep point describes suitable habitat conditions for fish species such as bass, walleye and pike. There is some evidence that the warming of the water column in the late summer and limited oxygen availability at deeper depths may minimize the amount of habitat for some more sensitive species. pH conditions are within the range recommended for the protection of aquatic life. Overall, the data indicates a healthy environment for aquatic species.

2.1.7.4 Mill Bay E. Coli

E. coli is sampled at monitored shoreline sites twice each sampling season. E. coli data was not used in the calculations of the WQI rating for the lake due to differences in sampling frequency and site locations, the results are summarized in Table 30. The results indicate that  100 percent of samples were below the E. coli guideline of 100 colony forming units (CFU) per 100 ml set by the PWQO; across the lake the count at the geometric mean was 3.6 CFU/100ml (Table 30)

Figure 72 Geometric mean of shoreline sites monitored in Mill Bay, 2006-2017

 

Figure 72 shows the distribution of counts across all shoreline sites.  Please note that results are based on a minimal number of samples (Table 30), all results were well below the guideline. 

Summary of Mill Bay Bacterial Contamination

The results presented above provide evidence that bacterial contamination is not a significant concern in Mill Bay and the water should be safe for recreational use such as swimming and boating.

2.1.8 Bobs Lake: Mud Bay Water Quality

2.1.8.1 Mud Bay Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and contributes 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 lakes, concentrations greater than 0.020 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP within the water column. Concentrations below 0.010 mg/l are generally considered to be minimal and unlikely to have problems associated with nutrient loading. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is used as a secondary indicator of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN within surface waters.

Nutrients at the Mud Bay Deep Point

TP and TKN sampling results collected by the RVCA are presented in Figures 73 to 76. Variability has occurred in the sampled TP concentrations at this site with particularly high samples observed in 2010, 2011 and 2013.  Though these results provide an example of occasional exceedances, yearly average concentrations are below guidelines and there has been no significant trend detected (Figure 73 and 74). Overall, TP results for Mud Bay are typically low, 88 percent of samples analyzed for TP were less than the TP guideline and the average concentration was 0.013 mg/l (Table 31). TKN concentration also showed variability; as with TP concentration no trend was observed for this parameter (Figures 75 and 76). Ninety-five percent of reported results were below the TKN guideline and the average TKN concentration was 0.355 mg/l (Table 31).

Figure 73 Total phosphorus sampling results at the deep point site (DP1) in Mud Bay, 2006-2017.

Figure 74 Average total phosphorus results at the deep point site (DP1) in Mud Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Figure 75 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen sampling results at the deep point site (DP1) in Mud Bay, 2006-2017.

Figure 76 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen results at the deep point site (DP1) in Mud Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Overall, the data presented indicates that nutrient concentrations may be considered low with occasional reports of elevated samples at the deep water site on  Mud Bay.

Nutrients around Mud Bay

The average nutrient concentrations at most monitored shoreline sites around the lake vary from year to year (Figures 77 and 78). Please note that site B is the only shoreline site monitored yearly in Mud Bay. Sites A, C and D are monitored every fifth year; therefore data is only available from 2008 and 2013 for site within the 2006-2017 period. The exception to this is site A which was monitored in 2006.

Average total phosphorous concentrations are inconsistent at site B and are typically greater than TP concentrations at other sites, though have not exceeded the guideline (Figure 77). Average TKN concentrations reflect a similar pattern to TP concentrations and all average concentrations are below the guideline (Figure 78).

Figure 77 Average total phosphorous concentrations at the shoreline monitoring site in Mud Bay, 2006-2017.

Figure 78 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations at the shoreline monitoring sites in Mud Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of Mud Bay Nutrients

Nutrient concentrations in Mud Bay are generally below guidelines with elevated concentrations being more common at monitored shoreline sites.  It is possible that occasional problems with nutrient enrichment (i.e. algal blooms or excessive plant growth) may be observed in shallow, sheltered bays or following periods of heavy runoff.

Efforts such as the diversion of runoff and enhanced shoreline buffers are important to continue to protect and enhance water quality and reduce future nutrient increases. Nutrient exceedances may be partially attributed to the natural aging of a lake and basin characteristics. All residents can help minimize their impact on the lake by reducing nutrient inputs through practices such as proper maintenance of septic systems, keeping shorelines natural and using phosphate free soaps and detergents. Promotion of sound stewardship and protection around lake and throughout the catchment are important to maintain and protect water quality conditions into the future.

2.1.8.2 Mud Bay Water Clarity

Water clarity is measured using a Secchi disk during each deep point sample. Table 32 summarizes the recorded depths with an average depth of 4.7 m and shows that all readings have exceeded the minimum PWQO of 2m indicating that algae in the water column is not at excessive levels (good water clarity). Less than 2 m will indicate overproduction in a lake or significant inputs to the water column that are limiting light availability. Figure 79 shows that no individual reading has been below the guideline and measured depths have been variable ranging from 2.6 m to 8 m. Overall, no trend was observed within the 2006-2017 data set, indicating that Secchi depths have not change significantly over this period.

Figure 79 Recorded Secchi depths at the deep point site (DP1) on Mud Bay, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of Mud Bay Nutrients

Waters in Mud Bay are very clear and sufficient sunlight is able to penetrate the water column to support aquatic life and provide sufficient visibility for safe recreational use (boating, swimming).

2.1.8.3 Mud Bay Fish Habitat

Two other factors, dissolved oxygen/temperature and pH were also assessed to provide an overall sense of the health of Mud Bay from a fish habitat perspective. 

2.1.8.3.1 Mud Bay Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

The red bars in Figure 80 show the depths where suitable conditions exist for warm water fish species (temperature less than 25°C and dissolved oxygen greater than 4 mg/l) at the deep point site. The vertical axis represents the total lake depth at each site where the profile is taken. Suitable conditions typically exist to about 6m within the water column. In 2007, 2010 and 2011 measurements in the late summer showed very limited conditions. Overall,  through the 2006-2017 period  there was no significant change in habitat conditions (dissolved oxygen/temperature).

Figure 80 Depths suitable for warm water fish species at the deep point site (DP1) on Mud Bay, 2006-2017.

 

 

2.1.8.3.2 Mud Bay pH

pH is a basic water quality parameter used to assess the acidity of water, an important factor for aquatic life. Figure 81 shows monitored pH values over the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 81. pH concentrations at the deep point site (DP1) in Mud Bay, 2006-2017.

All samples (Table 33) were within guidelines established by the Canadian Council of Minister's of the Environment which state that pH should be between 6.5 and 9 to protect aquatic life. No significant change was observed in pH results over the 2006-2017 period.

Summary of Water Quality in Mud Bay for Fish Habitat

Overall the water chemistry data at the deep point describes suitable habitat conditions for warm water fish. There is some evidence that the warming of the water column in the late summer that may minimize the amount of habitat for some more sensitive species. pH conditions are within the range recommended for the protection of aquatic life. Overall, the data indicates a healthy environment for aquatic species.

2.1.8.4 Mud Bay E. Coli

E. coli is sampled at monitored shoreline sites twice each sampling season. E. coli data was not used in the calculations of the WQI rating for the lake due to differences in sampling frequency and site locations, the results are summarized in Table 34. The results indicate that  100 percent of samples were below the E. coli guideline of 100 colony forming units (CFU) per 100 ml set by the PWQO; across the lake the count at the geometric mean was 3.0 CFU/100ml (Table 34)

Figure 82 Geometric mean of shoreline sites monitored in Mud Bay, 2006-2017

 

Figure 82 shows the distribution of counts across all shoreline sites.  Please note that results are based on a minimal number of samples (Table 34), all results were well below the guideline. 

Summary of Mud Bay Bacterial Contamination

The results presented above provide evidence that bacterial contamination is not a significant concern in Mud Bay and the water should be safe for recreational use such as swimming and boating.

2.2 Rock Lake Water Quality

2.2.1 Rock Lake Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and contributes 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 lakes, concentrations greater than 0.020 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP within the water column. Concentrations below 0.010 mg/l are generally considered to be minimal and unlikely to have problems associated with nutrient loading. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is used as a secondary indicator of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN within surface waters.

Nutrients at the Rock Lake Deep Points

TP and TKN sampling results collected by the RVCA are presented in Figures 83 to 86. Concentrations have shown some variability from year to year, but overall the sample mean has been well below the guideline, there has been no significant trend in TP based on sampling results (Figure 83 and 84). Overall, TP results for Mud Bay are very low, 95 percent of samples analyzed for TP were less than the TP guideline and the average concentration was 0.009 mg/l (Table 35). TKN results  showed a declining trend in concentrations (Figures 85 and 86). Ninety-eight percent of reported results were below the TKN guideline and the average TKN concentration was 0.343 mg/l (Table 35).

Figure 83 Total phosphorus sampling results at the deep point site (DP1) in Rock Lake, 2006-2017.

Figure 84 Average total phosphorus results at the deep point site (DP1) in Rock Lake 2006-2017.

 

Figure 85 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen sampling results at the deep point site (DP1) in Rock Lake, 2006-2017.

Figure 86 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen results at the deep point site (DP1) in Rock Lake 2006-2017.

 

Overall, the data presented indicates that nutrient concentrations may be considered minimal with very few instances of elevated samples at the deep water site on Rock Lake.

Summary of Rock Lake Nutrients

Nutrient concentrations in Rock Lake are below guidelines with elevated concentrations being very rare. It is possible that occasional problems with nutrient enrichment (i.e. algal blooms or excessive plant growth) may be observed in shallow, sheltered bays or following periods of heavy runoff.

Efforts such as the diversion of runoff and enhanced shoreline buffers are important to continue to protect and enhance water quality and reduce future nutrient increases. Nutrient exceedances may be partially attributed to the natural aging of a lake and basin characteristics. All residents can help minimize their impact on the lake by reducing nutrient inputs through practices such as proper maintenance of septic systems, keeping shorelines natural and using phosphate free soaps and detergents. Promotion of sound stewardship and protection around lake and throughout the catchment are important to maintain and protect water quality conditions into the future.

2.2.2 Rock Lake Water Clarity

Water clarity is measured using a Secchi disk during each deep point sample. Table 36 summarizes the recorded depths with an average depth of 4.1 m and shows that all readings have exceeded the minimum PWQO of 2m indicating that algae in the water column is not at excessive levels (good water clarity). Less than 2 m will indicate overproduction in a lake or significant inputs to the water column that are limiting light availability. Figure 87 shows that no individual reading has been below the guideline and measured depths have been variable ranging from 2.5 m to 6.5 m. Overall, no trend was observed within the 2006-2017 data set, indicating that Secchi depths have not change significantly over this period.

Figure 87 Recorded Secchi depths at the deep point site (DP1) on Rock Lake, 2006-2017.

 

Summary of Rock Lake Water Clarity

Waters in Rock Lake are very clear and sufficient sunlight is able to penetrate the water column to support aquatic life and provide sufficient visibility for safe recreational use (boating, swimming).

2.2.3 Rock Lake Fish Habitat

Two other factors, dissolved oxygen/temperature and pH were also assessed to provide an overall sense of the health of Rock Lake from a fish habitat perspective. 

2.2.3.1 Rock Lake Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

The red bars in Figure 88 show the depths where suitable conditions exist for warm water fish species (temperature less than 25°C and dissolved oxygen greater than 4 mg/l) at the deep point site. The vertical axis represents the total lake depth at each site where the profile is taken. Suitable conditions typically exist to about 24m within the water column. Through the 2006-2017 period there was no significant change in habitat conditions (dissolved oxygen/temperature).

Figure 88 Depths suitable for warm water fish species at the deep point site (DP1) on Rock Lake, 2006-2017.

 

 

2.2.3.2 Rock Lake pH

pH is a basic water quality parameter used to assess the acidity of water, an important factor for aquatic life. Figure 89 shows monitored pH values over the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 89. pH concentrations at the deep point site (DP1) in Rock Lake, 2006-2017.

The majority of samples (95%, table 37) were within guidelines established by the Canadian Council of Minister's of the Environment which state that pH should be between 6.5 and 9 to protect aquatic life. No significant change was observed in pH results over the 2006-2017 period.

Summary of Water Quality for Fish Habitat in Rock Lake

Overall the water chemistry data at the deep point describes suitable habitat conditions for fish species such as bass, walleye and pike. There is some evidence that the warming of the water column in the late summer that may minimize the amount of habitat for some more sensitive species. pH conditions are within the range recommended for the protection of aquatic life. Overall, the data indicates a healthy environment for aquatic species.

2.3 Crow Lake Water Quality

Surface water quality conditions in Crow Lake have been monitored by RVCA’s Watershed Watch Program since 2003. Data from the deep point sites (DP1) have been used to calculate the WQI rating for Crow Lake, which averaged “Good-Very Good” over the 2006-2017 period (Table 38). Low nutrient concentrations, good oxygen availability and clear water all influenced this rating. The following discussion explains how each of the monitored water quality parameters contributes to the lake’s water quality.

This report also considers data from 10 additional shoreline sites that are monitored around the lake. These sites have not been included in the calculation of the CCME WQI rating, as they are not monitored with the same frequency as the deep point site. However, they do provide important information on water quality conditions in the near shore areas. For locations of the deep point and shoreline sites (A-J) please see Figure 3.  

2.3.1 Crow Lake Nutrients

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient loading and contributes 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 lakes, concentrations greater than 0.020 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP within the water column. Concentrations below 0.010 mg/l are generally considered to be minimal and unlikely to have problems associated with nutrient loading.

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) is used as a secondary indicator of nutrient loading. RVCA uses a guideline of 0.500 mg/l to assess TKN^[1] within surface waters.

Nutrients at the Crow Lake Deep Point

TP and TKN sampling results collected by the RVCA are presented in Figures 90 to 93. Some variability has occurred in the sampled TP concentrations at this site (Figure 90 and 91), no significant trend^[2] was observed in the 2006-2017 dataset. Ninety-three percent of samples analyzed for TP were less than the TP guideline and the average concentration was 0.010 mg/l (Table 39).  TKN concentration also showed variability as with TP concentrations no significant change was observed (Figures 92 and 93). Ninety-five percent of reported results were below the TKN guideline and the average TKN concentration was very low at 0.298 mg/l (Table 39).

Figure 90 Total phosphorous sampling results at deep point site on Crow Lake, 2006-2017.

Figure 91 Average total phosphorous results at deep point site on Crow Lake, 2006-2017.

 

Figure 92 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen sampling results at deep point site on Crow Lake, 2006-2017

Figure 93 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen sampling results at the deep point site on Crow Lake, 2006-2017

 

Overall, the data presented indicates that nutrient concentrations may be considered low with very few exceedances in the mid-lake, deep water site on Crow Lake.

Nutrients around Crow Lake

The average nutrient concentrations at monitored shoreline sites around the lake vary from year to year (Figures 94 and 95). Please note that in the 2006-2017 monitoring period sites A, E and J were monitored yearly; while sites B, C, D, F, G, H and I were only sampled in 2008 and 2013.

Average total phosphorous concentrations are below the TP guideline at all of the sites, with the exception of site E in 2007 (Figure 94); all subsequent results are below the guideline.  Average TKN concentrations were also below the guideline at all sites (Figure 95).

Figure 94 Average total phosphorous concentrations at shoreline monitoring sites in Crow Lake, 2006-2017

Figure 95 Average total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations at shoreline monitoring sites in Crow Lake, 2006-2017

 

Summary of Crow Lake Nutrtients

Crow Lake nutrient concentrations are consistently below the guidelines, with very few exceedances. It is possible that occasional problems with nutrient enrichment (i.e. algal blooms or excessive plant growth) may be observed in some shallow, sheltered bays.

Efforts such as the diversion of runoff and enhanced shoreline buffers are important to continue to protect and enhance water quality, and reduce future nutrient increases-particularly in developed areas. Nutrient exceedances may be partially attributed to the natural aging of a lake and basin characteristics. All residents can help minimize their impact on the lake by reducing nutrient inputs through practices such as proper maintenance of septic systems, keeping shorelines natural and using phosphate free soaps and detergents. Promotion of sound stewardship and protection around lake is important to maintain and protect water quality conditions into the future.

2.3.2 Crow Lake Water Clarity

Water clarity is measured using a Secchi disk during each deep point sample. Table 40 summarizes the recorded depths with an average depth of 5.1 m and shows that all readings have exceeded the minimum PWQO of 2 m; indicating that algae in the water column is not at excessive levels (good water clarity). Less than 2 m will indicate overproduction in a lake or significant inputs to the water column that are limiting light availability. Figure 96 shows that no individual reading has been below the guideline and measured depths range from 3.0 m to 7.2 m. No trend was observed in Secchi depths over the 2006-2017 data set.

Figure 96 Recorded Secchi depths at the deep point sites on Crow Lake, 2006-2017

 

Summary of Crow Lake Water Clarity

Waters in Crow Lake are generally clear and sufficient sunlight is able to penetrate the water column to support aquatic life and provide sufficient visibility for safe recreational use (boating, swimming).

2.3.3 Crow Lake Fish Habitat

Two other factors, dissolved oxygen/temperature and pH were also assessed to provide an overall sense of the health of Crow Lake from a fish habitat perspective. 

2.3.3.1 Crow Lake Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature

The red bars in Figure 97 show the depths where suitable conditions exist for warm water fish species (temperature less than 25°C and dissolved oxygen greater than 4 mg/l) at the deep point site. The vertical axis represents the total lake depth at each site where the profile is taken. Suitable conditions typically were observed over the monitoring periods to about 20m of the water column. Overall, no significant change was noted in conditions through the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 97 Depths suitable for warm water fish species on Crow Lake, 2006-2017.

 

2.3.3.2 Crow Lake pH

All samples were within guidelines established by the Canadian Council of Minister's of the Environment which state that pH should be between 6.5 and 9 to protect aquatic life (Table 41, Figure 98).  Surface water’s that are found to be more alkaline (higher pH) are common in many regions of the Tay River subwatershed and can generally be attributed to the geology rather than anthropogenic activities. Biological activities such as increased photosynthesis from algal blooms and plant growth may also influence pH. A slight declining trend was observed throughout the 2006-2017 period.

Figure 98 pH concentrations at the deep point site on Crow Lake, 2006-2017

 

Summary of Water Quality for Fish Habitat in Crow Lake

Overall the water chemistry data at the deep point describes suitable habitat conditions for fish species such as bass, walleye and pike. pH conditions are within the range recommended for the protection of aquatic life. Overall, the data indicates a healthy environment for aquatic species.

2.3.4 Crow Lake E. Coli

E. coli is sampled at monitored shoreline sites twice each sampling season. E. coli data was not used in the calculations of the WQI rating for the lake due to differences in sampling frequency and site locations. E. coli data has been summarized in Table 42.

Throughout the 2006-2017 period 100 percent of samples collected by RVCA were below the E. coli guideline of 100 colony forming units (CFU) per 100 ml set by the PWQO; across the lake the count at the geometric mean was 3 CFU/100ml (Table 42). This provides support that there is little indication of bacterial contamination around the lake. Figure 99 show the distribution of counts across all shoreline sites, all of which fall well below the guideline of 100 CFU/100ml.

Figure 99 Geometric mean of shoreline sites monitored on Crow Lake, 2006-2017

 

Summary of Crow Lake Bacterial Contamination

The results presented above indicate that bacterial contamination is not a significant concern in Crow Lake and the water should be safe for recreational use such as swimming and boating.

• Print

3.0  Bobs and Crow Lake Catchments: Riparian Conditions

3.1  Bobs Lake: Aquatic Habitat

3.1.1 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 100 shows areas where one or more of the above groundwater indicators were observed during headwater assessments. 

Figure 100 Groundwater indicators observed in the Bobs Lake catchment

 

3.1.2 Fish Community

The Bobs Lake catchment is classified as a mixed community of warm and cool water recreational and baitfish fishery (Figure 101). The fish community has not been sampled extensively in the Bobs Lake catchment.

Figure 101 Fish sampling locations in the Bobs Lake catchment

 

Table 43 contains a list of species observed in the watershed.

Table 43 Fish species observed in the Bobs Lake catchment

Fish Species	Scientific Name	Fish code	Historical	2016
bluntnose minnow	Pimephales notatus	BnMin	X
brassy minnow	Hybognathus hankinsoni	BrMin		X
brook stickleback	Culaea inconstans	BrSti	X	X
brown bullhead	Ameiurus nebulosus	BrBul	X
carps and minnows	Cyprinidae	CA_MI		X
common shiner	Luxilus cornutus	CoShi	X
creek chub	Semotilus atromaculatus	CrChu	X
fallfish	Semotilus corporalis	Fallf	X
fathead minnow	Pimephales promelas	FhMin	X
finescale dace	Phoxinus neogaeus	FsDac	X
iowa darter	Etheostoma exile	IoDar	X
lake trout	Salvelinus namaycush	LaTro	X
largemouth bass	Micropterus salmoides	LmBas	X
logperch	Percina caprodes	Logpe	X
micropterus sp.	Micropterus sp.	MicSp	X
northern pike	Esox lucius	NoPik	X
northern redbelly dace	Chrosomus eos	NRDac		X
pumpkinseed	Lepomis gibbosus	Pumpk	X	X
rock bass	Ambloplites rupestris	RoBas	X
smallmouth bass	Micropterus dolomieu	SmBas	X
walleye	Sander vitreus	Walle	X
white sucker	Catostomus commersonii	WhSuc	X
yellow bullhead	Ameiurus natalis	YeBul	X
yellow perch	Perca flavescens	YePer	X
TOTAL Species			21	5

 

3.1.3 Migratory Obstructions

Migratory obstructions represent limitations to fish dispersal within a system and may restrict access to important spawning and rearing habitat. Migratory obstructions can be natural or manmade, and they can be permanent or seasonal. Figure 102 shows that the Bobs Lake catchment area had eight perched culverts and one dam at the time of the survey in 2016.  

Figure 102 Migratory obstructions in the Bobs Lake catchment

 

3.1.4 Riparian Restoration

Figure 103 depicts the locations of various riparian restoration opportunities as a result of observations made during the headwater drainage feature surveys.   

Figure 103 Riparian restoration opportunities in the Bobs Lake catchment

 

3.2 Bobs Lake Catchment: Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment

3.2.1 Headwaters Sampling Locations

The RVCA Stream Characterization program assessed Headwater Drainage Features for the Bobs Lake catchment in 2016. 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 2016 the program sampled 39 sites at road crossings in the Bobs Lake catchment area (Figure 104).  

Figure 104 Location of the headwater sampling sites in the Bobs Lake catchment

 

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.  The headwater drainage features in the Bobs Lake catchment are predominantly natural and wetland features.  Figure 105 shows the feature type of the primary feature at the sampling locations.

Figure 105 Headwater feature types in the Bobs Lake catchment

 

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 106 shows the observed flow condition at the sampling locations in the Bobs Lake catchment in 2016.

Figure 106 Headwater feature flow conditions in the Bobs Lake catchment

 

A spring photo of the headwater sample site in the Bobs Lake catchment located on Green Bay Road

 

A summer photo of the headwater sample site in the Bobs Lake catchment located on Green Bay Road

 

3.2.4 Feature Channel Modifications

Channel modifications were assessed at each headwater drainage feature sampling location.  Modifications include channelization, dredging, hardening and realignments.  The Bobs Lake catchment area had a majority of features with no channel modifications observed, two locations had mixed modifications and six had been historically dredged or channelized.  Figure 107 shows the channel modifications observed at the sampling locations for the Bobs Lake catchment.

 

Figure 107 Headwater feature channel modifications in the Bobs Lake catchment

 

3.2.5 Headwater Feature Vegetation

Headwater feature vegetation evaluates the type of vegetation that is found within the drainage feature.  The type of vegetation 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 108 depicts the dominant vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Bobs Lake catchment.

Figure 108 Headwater feature vegetation types in the Bobs Lake 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.  Figure 109 depicts the type of riparian vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Bobs Lake catchment.  The majority of the headwater drainage features are classified as having natural riparian vegetation with eleven features having altered vegetation.

Figure 109 Headwater feature riparian vegetation types in the Bobs Lake 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.  Sediment deposition ranged from none to substantial for the headwater sites sampled in the Bobs Lake catchment area.  Figure 110 depicts the degree of sediment deposition observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Bobs Lake catchment.  Sediment deposition conditions ranged from no sediment deposition to substantial levels of deposition.

Figure 110 Headwater feature sediment deposition in the Bobs Lake 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 Structure 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 111 shows that the feature roughness conditions at the sampling locations in the Bobs Lake catchment were highly variable ranging from minimal to extreme roughness conditions.

Figure 111 Headwater feature roughness in the Bobs Lake catchment

 

3.3 Crow Lake Catchment: Headwater Drainage Features Assessment

3.3.1 Headwater Sampling Locations

The RVCA Stream Characterization program assessed Headwater Drainage Features for the Crow Lake catchment in 2016. 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 2016 the program sampled 22 sites at road crossings in the Crow Lake catchment area (Figure 112).  

Figure 112 Location of the headwater sampling site in the Crow Lake catchment

 

3.3.2 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 Crow Lake catchment are predominantly natural and wetland features.  Figure 113 shows the feature type of the primary feature at the sampling locations.

Figure 113 Headwater feature types in the Crow Lake catchment

 

3.3.3 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 114 shows the observed flow condition at the sampling locations in the Crow Lake catchment in 2016.

Figure 114 Headwater feature flow conditions in the Crow Lake catchment

 

A spring photo of the headwater sample site in the Crow Lake catchment located on Oak Bluffs Road

 

A summer photo of the headwater sample site in the Crow Lake catchment located on Oak Bluffs Road

 

3.3.4 Headwater Feature Channel Modifications

Channel modifications were assessed at each headwater drainage feature sampling location.  Modifications include channelization, dredging, hardening and realignments.  The Crow Lake catchment area had a majority of features with no channel modifications observed, only one location had mixed modifications.  Figure 115 shows the channel modifications observed at the sampling locations for the Crow Lake catchment.

 

Figure 115 Headwater feature channel modifications in the Crow Lake catchment

 

3.3.5 Headwater Feature Vegetation

Headwater feature vegetation evaluates the type of vegetation that is found within the drainage feature.  The type of vegetation 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 116 depicts the dominant vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Crow Lake catchment.

Figure 116 Headwater feature vegetation types in the Crow Lake catchment

 

3.3.6 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.  Figure 117 depicts the type of riparian vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Crow Lake catchment.  The majority of the headwater drainage features are classified as having natural riparian vegetation with only four features having altered vegetation typically in the form of ornamental grass or agricultural crops in the riparian zone.

Figure 117 Headwater feature riparian vegetation types in the Crow Lake catchment

 

3.3.7 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.  Sediment deposition ranged from none to substantial for the headwater sites sampled in the Crow Lake catchment area.  Figure 118 depicts the degree of sediment deposition observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Crow Lake catchment.  Sediment deposition conditions ranged from no sediment deposition to moderate.

Figure 118 Headwater feature sediment deposition in the Crow Lake catchment

 

3.3.8 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 Structure 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 119 shows that the feature roughness conditions at the sampling locations in the Crow Lake catchment were highly variable ranging from minimal to extreme.

Figure 119 Headwater feature roughness in the Crow Lake catchment

• Print

4.0 Bobs and Crow Lake Catchments: Land Cover

Land cover and any change in coverage that has occurred over a six year period is summarized for the Bobs and Crow Lake catchments 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.

4.1.1 Bobs Lake Catchment Land Cover/Change

As shown in Table 44 and Figure 1a, the dominant land cover type in 2014 is woodland.

Table 44 Land cover in the Bobs Lake catchment (2008 vs.2014)

Land Cover	2008		2014		Change - 2008 to 2014
	Area		Area		Area
	Ha	Percent	Ha	Percent	Ha	Percent
Woodland*	6562	50	6542	50	-20
Water	3234	25	3238	25	4
Wetland**	1774	13	1789	13	15
>Evaluated	(324)	(2)	(324)	(2)	(0)	(0)
>Unevaluated	(1450)	(11)	(1465)	(11)	(15)	(0)
Crop and Pasture	569	4	568	4	-1
Meadow-Thicket	399	3	394	3	-5
Settlement	315	2	320	2	5
Transportation	327	2	329	2	2
Aggregate	20	<1	20	<1

* Does not include treed swamps ** Includes treed swamps

 

From 2008 to 2014, there was an overall change of 33 hectares (from one land cover class to another). Most of the change in the Bobs Lake catchment is a result of woodland reverting to wetland and being converted to settlement (Figure 120).

Figure 120 Land cover change in the Bobs Lake catchment (2008 to 2014)

 

Table 45 provides a detailed breakdown of all land cover change that has taken place in the Bobs Lake catchment between 2008 and 2014.

Table 45 Land cover change in the Bobs Lake catchment (2008 to 2014)

	Change - 2008 to 2014
Land Cover	Area
	Ha.	Percent
Woodland to Unevaluated Wetland	13.4	40.8
Woodland to Settlement	6.1	18.6
Settlement to Unevaluated Wetland	3.8	11.7
Meadow-Thicket to Woodland	1.9	5.9
Meadow-Thicket to Unevaluated Wetland	1.7	5.3
Woodland to Transportation	1.4	4.2
Meadow-Thicket to Settlement	1.1	3.3
Crop and Pasture to Settlement	1	3
Meadow-Thicket to Transportation	0.6	1.9
Unevaluated Wetland to Settlement	0.6	1.7
Woodland to Crop and Pasture	0.5	1.5
Crop and Pasture to Unevaluated Wetland	0.4	1.3
Crop and Pasture to Woodland	0.2	0.7

 

 

4.1.2 Crow Lake Catchment Change

As shown in Table 46 and Figure 1b, the dominant land cover type in 2014 is woodland.

Table 46 Land cover (2008 vs. 2014) in the Crow Lake catchment

Land Cover	2008		2014		Change - 2008 to 2014
	Area		Area		Area
	Ha	Percent	Ha	Percent	Ha	Percent
Woodland*	3054	60	3048	60	-6
Wetland **	886	18	891	18	5	1
>Unevaluated	886	18	891	18	5	1
Water	584	12	584	12
Meadow-Thicket	207	4	207	4
Crop and Pasture	124	2	124	2
Settlement	107	2	109	2	2
Transportation	101	2	101	2
Aggregate	2	<1	2	<1

* Does not include treed swamps ** Includes treed swamps

 

From 2008 to 2014, there was an overall change of six hectares (from one land cover class to another). Most of the change in the Crow Lake catchment is a result of woodland reverting to wetland (Figure 121).

Figure 121 Land cover change in the Crow Lake catchment (2008 to 2014)

 

Table 47 provides a detailed breakdown of all land cover change that has taken place in the Crow Lake catchment between 2008 and 2014.

Table 47 Land cover change in the Crow Lake catchment (2008 to 2014)

Land Cover	Change - 2008 to 2014
	Area
	Ha.	Percent
Wooded Area to Unevaluated Wetland	4.2	74
Crop and Pasture to Settlement	0.8	14
Wooded Area to Settlement	0.7	12

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 Tay 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.

 

Bobs Lake Catchment

As shown in Figure 122, 50 percent of the Bobs Lake catchment contains 6542 hectares of upland forest and 49 hectares of lowland forest (treed swamps) versus the 47 percent of woodland cover in the Tay River subwatershed. This is greater 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.

Figure 122 Woodland cover and forest interior in the Bobs Lake catchment (2014)

 

Crow Lake Catchment

As shown in Figure 123, 61 percent of the Crow Lake catchment contains 3048 hectares of upland forest and 26 hectares of lowland forest (treed swamps) versus the 47 percent of woodland cover in the Tay River subwatershed. This is greater 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.

Figure 123 Woodland cover and forest interior in the Crow Lake catchment (2014)

 

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.

Bobs Lake Catchment

In the Bobs Lake catchment (in 2014), three hundred and twenty-six (54 percent) of the 609 woodland patches are very small, being less than one hectare in size. Another 225 (37 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 58 (nine percent of) woodland patches range between 20 and 809 hectares in size. Forty-three 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, 15 (two percent) of the 609 woodland patches in the drainage area exceed 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. Six patches 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 48 presents a comparison of woodland patch size in 2008 and 2014 along with any changes that have occurred over that time. A decrease (of 20 hectares) has been observed in the overall woodland patch area between the two reporting periods with most change occurring in the 50 to 100 woodland patch size class range.

Table 48 Woodland patches in the Bobs Lake catchment (2008 and 2014)

Woodland Patch Size Range (ha)	Woodland* Patches								Patch Change
	2008				2014				2008 to 2014
	Number		Area		Number		Area		Number	Area
	Count	Percent	Ha	Percent	Count	Percent	Ha	Percent	Count	Ha
Less than 1	317	53	120	2	326	54	121	2	9	1
1 to 20	222	37	936	14	225	37	953	14	3	17
20 to 50	30	5	969	15	30	5	968	15		-1
50 to 100	13	2	975	15	13	2	952	14		-23
100 to 200	9	2	1321	20	9	1	1319	20		-2
Greater than 200	6	1	2290	34	6	1	2278	35		-12
Totals	597	100	6611	100	609	100	6591	100	12	-20

*Includes treed swamps

 

Crow Lake Catchment

In the Crow Lake catchment (in 2014), one hundred and four (54 percent) of the 191 woodland patches are very small, being less than one hectare in size. Another 66 (34 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 21 (12 percent of) woodland patches range between 21 and 599 hectares in size. Twelve 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, nine (five percent) of the 191 woodland patches in the drainage area exceed 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. Four patches 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 49 presents a comparison of woodland patch size in 2008 and 2014 along with any changes that have occurred over that time. A decrease (of five hectares) has been observed in the overall woodland patch area between the two reporting periods with most change occurring in the greater than 200 woodland patch size class range.

Table 49 Woodland patches in the Crow Lake catchment (2008 and 2014)

Woodland Patch Size Range (ha)	Woodland* Patches								Patch Change
	2008				2014				2008 to 2014
	Number		Area		Number		Area		Number	Area
	Count	Percent	Ha	Percent	Count	Percent	Ha	Percent	Count	Ha
Less than 1	102	54	31	1	104	54	31	1	2
1 to 20	65	34	348	11	66	34	348	11	1
20 to 50	9	5	244	8	9	5	244	8
50 to 100	3	2	229	7	3	2	229	7
100 to 200	5	3	699	23	5	3	698	23		-1
Greater than 200	4	2	1529	50	4	2	1525	50		-4
Totals	188	100	3080	100	191	100	3075	100	3	-5

*Includes treed swamps

 

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.

Bobs Lake Catchment

In the Bobs Lake catchment (in 2014), the 609 woodland patches contain 76 forest interior patches (Figure 122) that occupy seven percent (646 ha.) of the catchment land area (which is greater than the five percent of interior forest in the Tay 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 (58) have less than 10 hectares of interior forest, 27 of which have small areas of interior forest habitat less than one hectare in size. The remaining 18 patches contain interior forest between 11 and 78 hectares in area. Between 2008 and 2014, the greatest change in woodland interior patch area has taken place in the 50 to 100 hectare range (Table 50), suggesting an increase in forest fragmentation over the six year period.

Table 50 Woodland interior in the Bobs Lake catchment (2008 and 2014)

Woodland Interior Habitat Size Range (ha)	Woodland Interior								Interior Change
	2008				2014				2008 to 2014
	Number		Area		Number		Area		Number	Area
	Count	Percent	Ha	Percent	Count	Percent	Ha	Percent	Count	Ha
Less than 1	27	36	7	1	27	36	7	1
1 to 10	31	41	102	16	31	41	101	16		-1
10 to 30	10	13	165	25	11	14	194	30	1	29
30 to 50	4	5	137	21	4	5	155	24		18
50 to 100	4	5	241	37	3	4	189	29	-1	-52
Totals	76	100	652	100	76	100	646	100		-6

 

Crow Lake Catchment

In the Crow Lake catchment (in 2014), the 191 woodland patches contain 35 forest interior patches (Figure 123) that occupy four percent (196 ha.) of the catchment land area (which is less than the five percent of interior forest in the Tay 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 (27) have less than 10 hectares of interior forest, fifteen of which have small areas of interior forest habitat less than one hectare in size. The remaining eight patches contain interior forest between 11 and 32 hectares in area. Between 2008 and 2014, there was an overall loss of two hectares of interior forest habitat in the catchment (Table 51).

Table 51 Woodland interior in the Crow Lake catchment (2008 and 2014)

Woodland Interior Habitat Size Range (ha)	Woodland Interior								Interior Change
	2008				2014				2008 to 2014
	Number		Area		Number		Area		Number	Area
	Count	Percent	Ha	Percent	Count	Percent	Ha	Percent	Count	Ha
Less than 1	15	43	5	3	15	43	5	3
1 to 10	12	34	46	23	12	34	46	23
10 to 30	7	20	114	57	7	20	113	58		-1
30 to 50	1	3	33	17	1	3	32	16		-1
Totals	35	100	198	100	35	100	196	100		-2

*Includes treed swamps

 

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.

Bobs Lake Catchment

Reliable, pre-settlement wetland cover data is unavailable for the Bobs Lake catchment; however, data for the years 2008 and 2014 is available and shows that wetland cover remains largely unchanged at 14 percent in 2014 (as shown in Figure 124 and indicated in Table 52). 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.

Figure 124 Wetland cover in the Bobs Lake catchment (2014)

 

Table 52 Wetland cover in the Bobs Lake catchment (2014)

Wetland Cover	Pre-settlement		2008		2014		Change - Historic to 2014
	Area		Area		Area		Area
	Ha	Percent	Ha	Percent	Ha	Percent	Ha	Percent
Bobs Lake	n/a	n/a	1774	13	1789	14	n/a	n/a
Tay River	n/a	n/a	15280	19	15330	19	n/a	n/a
Rideau Valley	134115	35	n/a	n/a	82076	21	-52039	-39

 

Crow Lake Catchment

Reliable, pre-settlement wetland cover data is unavailable for the Crow Lake catchment; however, data for the years 2008 and 2014 is available and shows that wetland cover remains largely unchanged at 18 percent in 2014 (as indicated in Table 53 and shown in Figure 125). 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.

Figure 125 Wetland cover in the Crow Lake catchment (2014)

 

Table 53 Wetland cover in the Crow Lake catchment (2014)

Wetland Cover	Pre-settlement		2008		2014		Change - Historic to 2014
	Area		Area		Area		Area
	Ha	Percent	Ha	Percent	Ha	Percent	Ha	Percent
Crow Lake	n/a	n/a	886	17	891	18	n/a	n/a
Tay River	n/a	n/a	15280	19	15330	19	n/a	n/a
Rideau Valley	134115	35	n/a	n/a	82076	21	-52039	-39

 

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.

 

Bobs Lake Catchment

Figure 126 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 around Bobs Lake, other lakes and along both sides of the shoreline of the many unnamed watercourses (including headwater streams) found in the Bobs Lake catchment.

Figure 126 Natural and other riparian land cover in the Bobs Lake catchment (2014)

 

This analysis shows that the Bobs Lake catchment riparian buffer is composed of woodland (56 percent), wetland (32 percent), settlement (five percent), crop and pastureland (three percent), transportation (two percent) and meadow-thicket (two percent). Along the many watercourses (including headwater streams) flowing into Bobs Lake, the riparian buffer is composed of wetland (46 percent), woodland (44 percent), crop and pastureland (four percent), meadow-thicket (three percent), roads (two percent), and settlement areas (one percent).

Around Bobs Lake itself, the shoreline buffer is dominated by woodland (79 percent) and cottages, houses and camps (14 percent) with the remainder comprised of roads (three percent), wetlands (two percent) and crop and pastureland (one percent) along with meadow-thicket (one percent).

Additional statistics for the Bobs Lake catchment and Bobs Lake itself are presented in Tables 54 to 56 and show that there has been little change in shoreline cover from 2008 to 2014.

 

Table 54 Riparian land cover in the Bobs Lake catchment (2008 vs. 2014)

Riparian Land Cover	2008		2014		Change - 2008 to 2014
	Area		Area		Area
	Ha.	Percent	Ha.	Percent	Ha.	Percent
Woodland	1194.32	56.36	1190.62	56.18	-3.70	-0.18
Wetland	663.25	31.29	669.16	31.57	5.91	0.28
> Unevaluated	(592.22)	(27.94)	(598.13)	(28.22)	(5.91)	(0.28)
> Evaluated	(71.03)	(3.35)	(71.03)	(3.35)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Settlement	102.68	4.85	101.59	4.79	-1.09	-0.06
Crop & Pasture	60.64	2.86	60.58	2.86	-0.06	0.00
Transportation	49.65	2.34	49.75	2.35	0.10	0.01
Meadow-Thicket	48.67	2.3	47.51	2.24	-1.16	-0.06

Table 55 Riparian land cover around Bobs Lake (2008 vs. 2014)

Riparian Land Cover	2008		2014		Change - 2008 to 2014
	Area		Area		Area
	Ha.	Percent	Ha.	Percent	Ha.	Percent
Woodland	439.02	78.61	438.11	78.45	-0.91	-0.16
Wetland	13.32	2.39	13.44	2.41	0.12	0.02
> Unevaluated	(12.84)	(2.30)	(12.96)	(2.32)	(0.12)	(0.02)
> Evaluated	(0.48)	(0.09)	(0.48)	(0.09)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Settlement	79.34	14.21	80.13	14.35	0.79	0.14
Transportation	17.67	3.17	17.67	3.17	0.00	0.00
Meadow-Thicket	4.64	0.83	4.64	0.83	0.00	0.00
Crop & Pasture	4.44	0.80	4.44	0.80	0.00	0.00

Table 56 Riparian land cover along streams in the Bobs Lake catchment (2008 vs. 2014)

Riparian Land Cover	2008		2014		Change - 2008 to 2014
	Area		Area		Area
	Ha.	Percent	Ha.	Percent	Ha.	Percent
Wetland	604.74	45.19	610.53	45.63	5.79	0.44
> Unevaluated	(536.11)	(40.06)	(541.90)	(40.50)	(5.79)	(0.44)
>Evaluated	(68.63)	(5.13)	(68.63)	(5.13)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Woodland	591.56	44.21	588.77	44.00	-2.79	-0.21
Crop & Pasture	54.45	4.07	54.39	4.06	-0.06	-0.01
Meadow-Thicket	39.10	2.92	37.94	2.84	-1.16	-0.08
Transportation	29.28	2.19	29.39	2.20	0.11	0.01
Settlement	18.99	1.42	17.10	1.28	-1.89	-0.14

 

 

Crow Lake Catchment

Figure 127 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 around Crow Lake, other lakes and along both sides of the shoreline of the many unnamed watercourses (including headwater streams) found in the Crow Lake catchment.

Figure 127 Natural and other riparian land cover in the Crow Lake catchment

 

This analysis shows that the riparian zone in the Crow Lake catchment is composed of woodland (56 percent), wetland (35 percent), meadow-thicket (three percent), settlement (three percent),  roads (two percent) and crop and pastureland (one percent).

Along the many watercourses (including headwater streams) flowing into Beaver, Crow, Sucler and Victoria Lake, the riparian buffer is composed of woodland (51 percent), wetland (42 percent), meadow-thicket (three percent), roads (two percent), settlement areas (one percent) and crop and pastureland (one percent).

Around Crow Lake itself, the shoreline buffer is dominated by woodland (65 percent) and cottages, houses and camps (21 percent) with the remainder comprised of roads (seven percent), wetlands (four percent), crop and pastureland (two percent) and meadow-thicket (one percent).

Additional statistics for the Crow Lake catchment are presented in Tables 57 to 59 and show that there has been little change in shoreline cover from 2008 to 2014.

 

Table 57 Riparian land cover (2008 vs. 2014) in the Crow Lake catchment

Riparian Land Cover	2008		2014		Change - 2008 to 2014
	Area		Area		Area
	Ha.	Percent	Ha.	Percent	Ha.	Percent
Woodland	456	56	455	56	-1
Wetland	284	35	285	35	1
> Unevaluated	(284)	(35)	(285)	(35)	(1)	(0)
Meadow-Thicket	26	3	26	3
Settlement	23	3	23	3
Transportation	16	2	16	2
Crop & Pasture	7	1	7	1

Table 58 Riparian land cover (2008 vs. 2014) around Crow Lake

Riparian Land Cover	2008		2014		Change - 2008 to 2014
	Area		Area		Area
	Ha.	Percent	Ha.	Percent	Ha.	Percent
Woodland	37.37	65.01	37.37	65.01	0.00	0.00
Settlement	12.25	21.31	12.30	21.41	0.10	0.10
Transportation	3.77	6.57	3.77	6.57	0.00	0.00
Wetland	2.10	3.66	2.10	3.66	0.00	0.00
> Unevaluated	(2.10)	(3.66)	(2.10)	(3.66)	(0.00)	(0.00)
Crop & Pasture	1.37	2.40	1.32	2.30	-0.10	-0.10
Meadow-Thicket	0.60	1.06	0.60	1.06	0.00	0.00

Table 59 Riparian land cover (2008 vs. 2014) along streams in the Crow Lake Catchment

Riparian Land Cover	2008		2014		Change - 2008 to 2014
	Area		Area		Area
	Ha.	Percent	Ha.	Percent	Ha.	Percent
Woodland	334.83	50.72	334.46	50.67	-0.37	-0.05
Wetland	275.21	41.69	275.58	41.75	0.37	0.06
> Unevaluated	(275.21)	(41.69)	(275.58)	(41.75)	(0.37)	(0.06)
Meadow-Thicket	23.21	3.52	23.21	3.52	0.00	0.00
Transportation	10.49	1.59	10.49	1.59	0.00	0.00
Settlement	10.23	1.55	10.23	1.55	0.00	0.00
Crop & Pasture	6.12	0.93	6.12	0.93	0.00	0.00