Rosedale Creek

Rosedale Creek

RosedaleCreek FISH3 JULY15

Middle Rideau Subwatershed Report 2015

ROSEDALE CREEK

 

The RVCA produces individual reports for ten catchments in the Middle Rideau subwatershed. Using data collected and analysed by the RVCA through its watershed monitoring and land cover classification programs, surface water quality conditions are reported for Rosedale Creek along with a summary of environmental conditions for the surrounding countryside every six years.

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

The following pages of this report are a compilation of that work and contain information on surface water quality, riparian conditions, land cover, stewardship activity and hazard land and water resources protection.

1. Catchment Facts

General Geography

  • The Rideau River flows through the heart of the Middle Rideau and is a focal point for residents and visitors to the area. It extends from the outlet of Lower Rideau Lake at Poonamalie (where there is one dam and one lock) to Burritts Rapids (where there is also a dam and lock), at which point it enters the Lower Rideau on its way to Rideau Falls. The Rideau River is also an integral part of the Rideau Canal National Historic Site of Canada and is a significant tourist attraction which draws boaters, cottagers, and campers to the area
  • Smiths Falls, Merrickville and Burritts Rapids are the main urban settlements in the Middle Rideau subwatershed. The Rosedale Creek catchment is predominantly rural in character with agriculture being the main land use. Settlement areas include Nolan’s Corners and Rosedale
  • Parks Canada staff manage water levels for recreational purposes along the Rideau Canal/Waterway that flows by the catchment, ensuring 1.5 metres of draft during the navigation season. In this managed system, water levels on the Rideau Canal are manipulated by operation of numerous dams. In the Middle Rideau subwatershed, Parks Canada staff operate 9 dam and lock complexes with 13 locks for a fall of 36.2 metres over 35.6 kilometres. Water levels are maintained as close as possible to set objectives through the May to October navigation season. The levels are lowered through the rest of October and into November and held at the winter levels until the spring freshet in late March or early April naturally increases inflows to the system. To reduce the impact of the higher flows in the spring, the amount of snow water equivalent, forecast rain, ice cover, flows and levels are assessed and the dams in the Middle Rideau reach are operated accordingly to quickly pass as much water as possible. In late April and early May, the dams are gradually closed and water levels are brought up to be ready, once again, for the navigation season

Physical Geography

  • All of Rosedale Creek Catchment and the rest of the Middle Rideau Subwatershed primarily resides within the Smith Falls Limestone Plain, which in this area, happens to consist of older Paleozoic quartz sandstone and dolostone of the March Formation. A small section of the Oxford Formation dolostone however, is also found within the southern part of the catchment. The bedrock in the catchment is overlain by a thin veneer of glacial sediment, referred to as ‘drift’ that is generally less than a metre in thickness; although there are organic deposits underlying the two main wetlands in the catchment and clay lining the creek’s corridor. A geologic fault likely transects the southern part of the catchment
  • One Hundred percent of the catchment lies within the Township of Montague
  • Rosedale Creek catchment drainage area is 64 square kilometres and occupies about eight percent of the Middle Rideau subwatershed and one percent of the Rideau Valley watershed

Vulnerable Areas

  • Lower reach of Rosedale Creek is subject to a flooding hazard during the regional storm flood (the 100 year flood). Surveys and studies undertaken in accordance with provincial standards have determined that the 100 year flood elevation in this area ranges from 107.9 metres above mean sea level at the upper, mapped extent of the regulation limit above Rosedale Road South to 104.3 metres above mean sea level at its outlet to the Rideau River
  • The Assessment Report developed under the Ontario Clean Water Act identifies the upper bedrock aquifer underlying all of the catchment area as a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer, although, where sediments are thicker in a local area, the vulnerability would be less. The southern half of the catchment lies within part of the Wellhead Protection Area for the Merrickville municipal wells; related provincial policies apply

Development/Trends

  • The Township of Montague consists of scattered residential and agricultural development, mostly along traditional transportation routes and in areas of good agricultural capability. The hamlet of Rosedale, with some more recent subdivision development is the area of densest rural residential development in the catchment. Commercial and industrial development is very limited outside the settled areas and there are no major employers within the Township
  • Recent years have seen an increase in residential lot creation throughout the catchment, after a lengthy period of stagnant population. Montague's relative proximity to Ottawa and ease of access, as well as relatively affordable land are thought to have contributed to this. Interestingly, most recent severances have been in the more rural forested settings, as opposed to along major transportation corridors or established built communities. As such, site specific environmental impact studies and development conditions have often accompanied approvals. Lot sizes have often also been larger than the 'standard minimum' of an acre. Montague's population had one of the highest rates of increase among Lanark County municipalities between 2006 and 2011

Conditions at a Glance

Water Quality

  • Surface chemistry water quality rating in Rosedale Creek is “Fair” at both monitoring sites (2009 to 2014). Site ROS-01 (County Rd. 43) has improved from a “Poor” to a “Fair rating from 2003-2008 to 2009-2014, while site ROS-02 (Rosedale Rd. South) remains unchanged. Elevated bacterial counts and nutrient concentrations from inflows of nutrients (from private septic systems, agricultural, commercial, residential surface runoff) are a feature of Rosedale Creek and decreased nutrient and bacterial counts are needed to improve the overall health of the creek
  • Instream biological water quality conditions at the Rosedale Creek sample location range from “Very Poor” to “Fair” from 2003 to 2014 (using a grading scheme developed by Ontario Conservation Authorities in Ontario for benthic invertebrates) with an overall benthic invertebrate water quality rating of “Very Poor” to “Fair” determined for this period

Instream and Riparian

  • Overall instream and riparian condition for the Rosedale creek catchment as assessed by the stream characterization and headwater drainage feature assessment programs show that Rosedale Creek and its tributaries are in generally good condition. The majority of the system has a healthy riparian corridor with low levels erosion along the system. Instream diversity of aquatic habitat is somewhat variable with moderate levels of riffle habitat and low levels of pool habitat. Several opportunities were identified on tributaries of Rosedale Creek to enhance riparian habitat conditions.  One weir and multiple beaver dams were identified as potential migratory obstructions for fish passage along the creek at the time of the survey
  • The Rosedale Creek catchment has 25 species of recreational and bait fish and is classified as having a cool/warm water thermal guild that supports the Rosedale Creek/Rideau River fishery
  • In the Rosedale Creek catchment, the riparian buffer (30 m. wide strip along the shoreline of all lakes and streams) is comprised of wetland (63 percent), crop and pastureland (20 percent), woodland (12 percent), settlement areas (three percent) and roads (two percent)

Land Cover

  • Dominant land cover is woodland (36 percent) followed by crop and pastureland (31 percent), wetland (27 percent), settlement areas (four percent) and roads (two percent). From 2008 to 2014, there was an overall change of 143 hectares (from one land cover class to another). Within the catchment, major change is a result of the conversion of woodland to crop and pastureland. A slightly smaller proportion of change is also associated with crop and pastureland emerging as young woodland. Another factor of change is the conversion of crop and pastureland and woodland to settlement
  • Woodland cover in the catchment has decreased by 29 hectares between 2008 and 2014 and interior forest habitat has decreased by 27 hectares
  • Wetland cover has decreased by one percent (56 ha) from pre-settlement times to the present and now occupies 36 percent of the catchment area

Other

  • Approximately 720 to 760 in-use water wells with provincial records in this catchment. While most water wells are used for domestic water supply, in this catchment, several are also used for public and agricultural water supplies, monitoring or cooling
  • Two bedrock aggregate licenses occur in or partially within the catchment and there is one sand and gravel pit license in the catchment
  • There is one Environmental Compliance Approval for an institutional sewage works and one for municipal air emissions and a Permit to Take Water has been issued in this catchment for commercial dewatering

Catchment Care

  • Thirty stewardship projects have been completed with assistance from the RVCA’s Rural Clean Water and Tree Planting Programs (see Section 5 of this report for details)
  • Rosedale Creek surface water quality has been monitored by the RVCA through its Baseline Monitoring Program since 2003. The surface water quality at sites ROS-01 and ROS-02 is monitored once a month from April to November
  • RVCA has been collecting benthic invertebrates in Rosedale Creek at the Matheson Drive site since 2003
  • RVCA conducted a fish survey along Rosedale Creek in 2014
  • RVCA completed the stream characterization survey on Rosedale Creek in 2014, working upstream to the headwaters from the mouth of the creek where it empties into the Rideau River taking measurements and recording observations on instream habitat, bank stability, other attributes and preparing a temperature profile
  • RVCA completed 18 headwater drainage feature assessments at road crossings in the Rosedale Creek catchment in 2014. This protocol measures zero and first order headwater drainage features and is a rapid assessment method characterizing the amount of water, sediment transport, and storage capacity within headwater drainage features
  • 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 Rosedale Creek catchment
  • The Township of Montague has land use planning policies and zoning provisions - on lake capacity, water setbacks, frontage and naturalized shorelines and wetland protection - and use site plan control to implement these policies and provisions. Together with RVCA, the Township works with landowners on a case by case basis to achieve net environmental gains (particularly with respect to shoreline vegetation protection and rehabilitation) through the application of shoreline best management practices. Through the land-use planning process, the Township, RVCA and agencies request conditions of approval to ensure that development and redevelopment is appropriate for the property, impacts on neighbours are minimized (particularly on very small lots) and development setbacks for the shoreline are maximized
  • Development in and adjacent to the Provincially Significant Wetlands in the catchment (North Montague Swamp, Pinery Road, Rideau River Part 1, South Mud Lake) are subject to Ontario Regulation 174-06 (entitled “Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses”) that protects the hydrologic function of the wetland and also protects landowners and their property from natural hazards (flooding, fluctuating water table, unstable soils) associated with them

2. Surface Water Quality Conditions

Surface water quality conditions in the Rosedale Creek catchment are monitored by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority’s (RVCA) Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Program. The Baseline Water Quality Program focuses on streams; data is collected for 22 parameters including nutrients (total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl nitrogen and ammonia), E. coli, metals (like aluminum and copper) and additional chemical/physical parameters (such as alkalinity, chlorides, pH and total suspended solids). Figure 1 shows the location of the monitoring sites in the catchment.

Figure 1 Water quality monitoring sites on Rosedale Creek
Figure 1 Water quality monitoring sites on Rosedale Creek 

Rosedale Creek Water Quality

Water Quality Rating

The water quality rating for Rosedale Creek sites (ROS-01 and ROS-02) are both “Fair” (Table 1) as determined by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Water Quality Index and are largely influenced by frequent high nutrient concentrations, occasional metal exceedances and high bacterial counts. A "Fair" rating indicates that water quality is usually protected but is occasionally threatened or impaired; conditions sometimes depart from natural or desirable levels. Each parameter is evaluated against established guidelines to determine water quality conditions. Those parameters that frequently exceed guidelines are presented below. Analysis of the data has been broken into two periods; 2003 to 2008 and 2009 to 2014 to examine if conditions have changed between these periods. The water quality score at both sites has improved and ROS-01 has seen its rating change from “Poor” to “Fair”. Table 1 shows the overall rating for the monitored surface water quality sites within the Rosedale Creek catchment and Table 2 outlines the Water Quality Index (WQI) scores and their corresponding ratings.

Table 1 Water Quality Index ratings for the Otter Creek Catchment
Sampling SiteLocation 2003-2008Rating
ROS-01Rosedale Creek at Highway 4353Poor
ROS-02Rosedale Creek at Rosedale Rd. South 66Fair
Sampling SiteLocation 2009-2014Rating
ROS-01Rosedale Creek at Highway 4370Fair
ROS-02Rosedale Creek at Rosedale Rd. South 72Fair
Table 2 Water Quality Index ratings and corresponding index scores (RVCA terminology, original WQI category names in brackets
RatingIndex Score
Very Good (Excellent)95-100
Good80-94
Fair65-79
Poor (Marginal)45-64
Very Poor (Poor)0-44

Nutrients

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

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

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

Table 3 Summary of total phosphorus results for Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008 and 2009-2014. Highlighted values indicate average concentrations exceed the guideline
Total Phosphorous 2003-2008
SiteAverageBelow GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-010.07636%42
ROS-020.03071%28
Total Phosphorous 2009-2014
SiteAverageBelow GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-010.03062%37
ROS-020.02576%37
Table 4 Summary of total Kjeldahl nitrogen results for Rosedale Creek from 2003-2008 and 2009-2014. Highlighted values indicate average concentrations exceed the guideline
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2003-2008
SiteAverageBelow GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-010.66219%42
ROS-020.57229%28
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2009-2014
SiteAverageBelow GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-010.57827%37
ROS-020.62022%37
Table 5 Summary of ammonia results for Rosedale Creek from 2003-2008 and 2009-2014. Highlighted values indicate average concentrations exceed the guideline
Ammonia 2003-2008
SiteAverageBelow GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-010.02150%12
ROS-020.01075%8
Ammonia 2009-2014
SiteAverageBelow GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-010.01750%12
ROS-020.01283%12
 

ROS-01

The majority of samples at site ROS-01 were above the TP guideline from 2003-2008; however the amount of exceedances decreased in the 2009-2014 monitoring period (Figures 2 and 3). The number of samples below the guideline increased from 36 percent in 2003-2008 to 62 percent from 2009-2014. The average TP concentrations decreased from 0.076 mg/l (2003–2008) to 0.030 mg/l (2009–2014).

TKN concentrations show that the bulk of results exceeded the guideline (Figures 4 and 5); there were few samples (19 percent) below the guideline in the 2003-2008 period and this slightly increased to 27 percent in the 2009-2014 period. The average concentration was generally elevated but decreased from 0.662 mg/l to 0.578 mg/l (Table 4).

In the 2003-2008 reporting period half of NH3 results were below the guideline with an average concentration of 0.021 mg/l (Figure 6). The percentage of results remained the same for both monitoring periods, with 50 percent of samples below the guideline. The average concentration in 2009-2014 decreased to 0.017 mg/l (Figure 7).

ROS-02

Elevated TP results were an occasional occurrence at site ROS-02; 71 percent of samples were below the guideline in the 2003-2008 period (Figure 2); this increased to 76 percent of samples in the 2009-2014 period (Figure 3). The average TP concentration also decreased slightly from 0.030 mg/l (2003- 2008) to 0.025 mg/l (2009-2014).

The bulk of TKN results have exceeded the guideline (Figure 4 and 5), with 29 percent of samples below the guideline in the 2003-2008 period, decreasing to 22 percent of samples below the guideline from 2009-2014. The average concentration was elevated and increased from 0.572 mg/l to 0.620 mg/l (Table 4).

The results for NH3 indicate that exceedances were an occasional occurrence. The proportion of results that were below the guideline were 75 percent in 2003-2008 (Figure 6); this increased to 83 percent in the 2009-2014 reporting periods (Figure 7). The average NH3 concentration increased slightly from 0.010 mg/l to 0.012 mg/l (Table 5). 

Figure 2 Total phosphorous concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008
Figure 2 Total phosphorous concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008
Figure 3 Total phosphorous concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
Figure 3 Total phosphorous concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
 
Figure 4 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008
Figure 4 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008
Figure 5 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
Figure 5 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
Figure 7 Ammonia Concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
Figure 6 Ammonia concentrations is Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008
Figure 7 Ammonia Concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
Figure 7 Ammonia Concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
 

Summary

Nutrient enrichment is a feature of Rosedale Creek. Overall average nutrient concentrations have decreased over the two reporting periods. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen remains above the PWQO for sites ROS-01 and ROS-02, whereas total phosphorous and ammonia have average concentrations below their guidelines in the second reporting period. Elevated nutrients may result in nutrient loading downstream. High nutrient concentrations can help stimulate the growth of algae blooms and other aquatic vegetation in a waterbody and deplete oxygen levels as the vegetation dies off. Best management practices such as an enhanced shoreline buffer, preventing the use of fertilizers and restricting cattle access can help to reduce nutrient enrichment in Rosedale Creek. 

E. Coli

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

Table 6 summarizes the geometric mean[2] for the monitored sites on Rosedale 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 two periods, 2003-2008 and 2009- 2014, are shown in Figures 8 and 9 respectively.

Table 6 Summary of E. coli results for Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008 and 2009-2014. Highlighted values indicate the Geometric mean exceeds the guideline
E.coli 2003-2008
SiteGeometric Mean (CFU/100ml)Below GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-0118026%42
ROS-0218636%28
E.coli 2009-2014
SiteGeometric Mean (CFU/100ml)Below GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-0115630%37
ROS-02 14643%37

 

ROS-01

E. coli counts at site ROS-01 indicate a slight improvement with regard to bacterial contamination. The proportion of samples below the guideline increased from 26 percent (Figure 8) to 30 percent (Figure 9). The count at the geometric mean decreased from 180 CFU/100ml in 2003-2008 to 156 CFU/100ml from 2009-2014 (Table 6). Although the count at the geometric mean decreased, the results exceeded the guideline for both reporting periods. 

ROS-02

Elevated E.coli counts at site ROS-02 were a common occurrence. The proportion of samples below the guideline did increase from 36 percent (Figure 8) from 2003-2008 to 43 percent (Figure 9) from 2009-2014. The geometric mean also did decrease between the two monitoring periods from 186 CFU/100ml to 146 CFU/100ml (Table 6). Although E.coli counts did decrease, the geometric mean was above the guideline for both reporting periods. 

Rosedale-Creek-Data24599image001
Figure 8 Geometric mean of E.coli results in Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008
Figure 9 Geometric mean of E.coli results in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
Figure 9 Geometric mean of E.coli results in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
 

Summary

Bacterial contamination is a concern on Rosedale Creek. Both sites ROS-01 and ROS-02 have exceeded the guideline for both monitoring periods. The count at the geometric mean has decreased from the 2003-2008 to the 2009-2014 reporting period. Properly maintaining septic systems, enhancing shoreline buffers and restricting cattle access can help to improve E.coli levels in Hutton Creek.

Metals

Of the metals routinely monitored in Rosedale Creek, aluminum (Al), copper (Cu) and iron (Fe) occasionally reported concentrations above their respective PWQOs. In elevated concentrations, these metals can have toxic effects on sensitive aquatic species.

Tables 7, 8 and 9 summarize metal concentrations at sites ROS-01 and ROS-02 as well as show the proportion of samples that meet guidelines. Figures 10 to 15 show metal concentrations with respect to the guidelines for the two periods of interest, 2003–2008 and 2009–2014. For Al, the PWQO is 0.075 mg/l, Cu it is 0.005 mg/l and Fe it is 0.300 mg/l.

Table 7 Summary of Aluminum results for Dales Creek from 2003-2008 and 2009-2014. Highlighted values indicate average concentrations exceed the guideline
Aluminum 2003-2008
SiteAverage (mg/l)Below GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-011.2120%27
ROS-020.2316%17
Aluminum 2009-2014
SiteAverage (mg/l)Below GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-010.20456%25
ROS-020.09956%25
Table 8 Summary of Copper results for Dales Creek from 2003-2008 and 2009-2014
Copper 2003-2008
SiteAverage (mg/l)Below GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-010.00378%27
ROS-020.00394%17
Copper 2009-2014
SiteAverage (mg/l)Below GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-010.00284%25
ROS-020.00184%25
Table 9 Summary of Iron results for Dales Creek from 2003-2008 and 2009-2014. Highlighted values indicate average concentrations exceed the guideline
Iron 2003-2008
SiteAverage (mg/l)Below GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-011.4804%27
ROS-020.36629%17
Iron 2009-2014
SiteAverage (mg/l)Below GuidelineNo. Samples
ROS-010.24580%25
ROS-020.14084%25

 

ROS-01

The Al concentrations in site ROS-01 exceeded the guideline. There were no results below the guideline (Figure 10) from 2003-2008, however this did improve to 56 percent (Figure 11) of results reporting below the guideline from 2009-2014. The average concentration decreased from 1.212 mg/l to 0.204 mg/l (Table 7). Although Al has declined, the average concertation is still above the guideline.

Copper concentrations occasionally exceeded the PWQO, with 78 percent of samples below the guideline in 2003-2008 (Figure 12). The Cu concentrations increased to 84 percent of samples being below the guideline in 2009-2014 (Figure 13). The average concentration of copper marginally decreased during the two reporting periods from 0.003 mg/l to 0.002 mg/l (Table 8). 

Results from ROS-01 indicated that Fe concentrations exceeded the guideline. The proportion of samples below the guideline increased from 4 percent to 80 percent (Figures 14 and 15). During the 2003-2008 reporting period Fe concentrations were well above the guideline with an average concentration of 1.480 mg/l. The average Fe concertation fell below the guideline in the 2009-2014 reporting period, with an average concertation of 0.245 mg/l (Table 9).

ROS-02

Results from ROS-02 show that Al concentrations had multiple exceedances with 6 percent of samples below the guideline in the 2003-2008 period (Figure 10). This improved to 56 percent of samples in the 2009-2014 period (Figure 11). The average concentration of Al was 0.231 mg/l from 2003-2008 and 0.099 mg/l from 2009-2014 (Table 7). Both monitoring periods had average concentrations which exceeded the guideline.

Copper concentrations have occasionally exceeded the guidelines. In the 2003-2008 period 94 percent of samples were below the guideline (Figure 14) and decreased to 84 percent of samples in the 2009–2014 period (Figure 15). The average concentrations (Table 8) decreased from 0.003 mg/l (2003–2008) to 0.001 mg/l (2009–2014). 

Iron concentrations also exceeded the guideline. The proportion of samples below the guideline increased from 29 percent to 84 percent (Figures 12 and 13). The average concentration of 0.366 mg/l during the 2003-2008 reporting period exceeded the guideline. The average concentration decreased to below the guideline in the 2009-2014 reporting period with an average of 0.140 mg/l (Table 9). 

Figure 10 Average aluminum concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008
Figure 10 Average aluminum concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008
Figure 11 Average aluminum concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
Figure 11 Average aluminum concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
 
Figure 12 Average copper concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008
Figure 12 Average copper concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008
Figure 13 Average copper concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
Figure 13 Average copper concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
 
Figure 14 Average iron concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008
Figure 14 Average iron concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2003-2008
Figure 15 Average iron concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
Figure 15 Average iron concentrations in Rosedale Creek, 2009-2014
 

Summary

Aluminum, copper and iron concentrations all declined from the 2003-2008 monitoring period to the 2009-2014 period. Although these metals have declined, both ROS-01 and ROS-02 have average Al concentrations that are above the guideline. Efforts should continue to be made to identify pollution sources and implement best management practices to reduce any inputs such as runoff, metal alloys, fungicides and pesticides to improve overall stream health and lessen downstream impacts.


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

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

3. Riparian Conditions

Shoreline Buffer Land Cover Evaluation

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 Environment Canada’s Guideline: How Much Habitat is Enough?) 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 16 shows the extent of the naturally vegetated riparian zone along a 30 metre wide strip of shoreline of Rosedale Creek and its tributaries. This information is derived from a dataset developed by the RVCA’s Land Cover Classification Program through heads-up digitization of 20cm DRAPE ortho-imagery at a 1:4000 scale, which details the catchment landscape using 10 land cover classes.

RiparianLCRosedale-Creek-001-001
Figure 16 Natural and other riparian land cover in the Rosedale Creek catchment

This analysis shows that the riparian buffer in the Rosedale Creek catchment is comprised of wetland (63 percent), crop and pastureland (20 percent), woodland (12 percent), settlement areas (three percent) and roads (two percent). Additional statistics for the Rosedale Creek catchment are presented in Table 10 and show that there has been very little change in shoreline cover from 2008 to 2014.

Table 10 Riparian land cover (2008 vs. 2014) in the Rosedale Creek catchment
Riparian Land Cover20082014Change - 2008 to 2014
AreaAreaArea
Ha.Percent Ha.PercentHa.Percent
Wetland327623306331
> Unevaluated(241)(46)(244)(47)(3)(1)
> Evaluated(86)(16)(86)(16)(0)(0)
Crop & Pasture102201022000
Woodland68136412-4-1
Settlement14315310
Transportation13213200

Rosedale Creek Overbank Zone

Riparian Buffer Width Evaluation

Figure 17 demonstrates the buffer conditions of the left and right banks separately.  Rosedale Creek had a buffer of greater than 30 meters along 84 percent of the right bank and 84 percent of the left bank.

Figure 16 Riparian Buffer Evaluation along Rosedale Creek
Figure 17 Riparian Buffer Evaluation along Rosedale Creek 

Adjacent Land Use

The RVCA’s Stream Characterization Program identifies nine different land uses beside Rosedale Creek (Figure 18). 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 made up 82 percent of the stream, characterized by wetlands, forest, scrubland and meadow. The remaining land use consisted of active agriculture, pasture, residential, commercial/industrial and infrastructure in the form of road crossings.

Figure 17 Land Use along Rosedale Creek
Figure 18 Land Use along Rosedale Creek

Rosedale Creek Shoreline Zone

Instream Erosion

Erosion is a normal, important stream process and may not affect actual bank stability; however, excessive erosion and deposition of sediment within a stream can have a detrimental effect on important fish and wildlife habitat.  Poor bank stability can greatly contribute to the amount of sediment carried in a waterbody as well as loss of bank vegetation due to bank failure, resulting in trees falling into the stream and the potential to impact instream migration.   Figure 19 shows variable erosion levels along Rosedale Creek with conditions ranging from no erosion to moderate levels of erosion.

Figure 18 Erosion along Rosedale Creek
Figure 19 Erosion along Rosedale Creek

Undercut Stream Banks

Undercut banks are a normal and natural part of stream function and can provide excellent refuge areas for fish. Figure 20 shows that Rosedale Creek had varying levels of undercut banks along the system.

Figure 19 Undercut stream banks along Rosedale Creek
Figure 20 Undercut stream banks along Rosedale Creek

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. Figure 21 shows low to moderate levels of stream shading conditions along Rosedale Creek.

Figure 20 Stream shading along Rosedale Creek
Figure 21 Stream shading along Rosedale Creek

Instream Woody Debris

Figure 22 shows that the majority of Rosedale Creek had low to moderate levels of instream woody debris in the form of branches and trees. Instream woody debris is important for fish and benthic invertebrate habitat, by providing refuge and feeding areas.

Figure 21 Instream woody debris along Rosedale Creek
Figure 22 Instream woody debris along Rosedale Creek

Overhanging Trees and Branches

Figure 23 shows the system is dominated by low to moderate levels of overhanging branches and trees along Rosedale Creek. Overhanging branches and trees provide a food source, nutrients and shade which helps to moderate instream water temperatures.

Figure 22 Overhanging trees and branches along Rosedale Creek
Figure 23 Overhanging trees and branches along Rosedale Creek

Anthropogenic Alterations

Figure 24 shows 70 percent of Rosedale Creek remains “unaltered” with no anthropogenic alterations.   Twenty eight percent of Rosedale Creek was classified as natural with minor anthropogenic changes and two percent was considered altered in the form of road crossings and areas with a reduced natural buffer. 

Figure 23 Anthropogenic alterations along Rosedale Creek
Figure 24 Anthropogenic alterations along Rosedale Creek

Rosedale Creek Instream Aquatic Habitat

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 Matheson Drive site on Rosedale Creek since 2003. Monitoring data is analyzed for each sample site and the results are presented using the Family Biotic Index, Family Richness and percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera.

Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index

The Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (FBI) is an indicator of organic and nutrient pollution and provides an estimate of water quality conditions for each site using established pollution tolerance values for benthic invertebrates. FBI results for Rosedale Creek are separated by reporting period 2003 to 2008 and 2009 to 2014.  “Very Poor” to “Fair” water quality conditions being observed at the Rosedale Creek sample location for the period from 2003 to 2014 (Fig.25) using a grading scheme developed by Conservation Authorities in Ontario for benthic invertebrates.

Figure 24 Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index on Rosedale Creek
Figure 25 Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index on Rosedale Creek

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.   Rosedale Creek is reported to have “Poor” to “Good” family richness (Fig.26).

Figure 25 Family Richness in Rosedale Creek
Figure 26 Family Richness in Rosedale Creek

EPT

Ephemeroptera (Mayflies), Plecoptera (Stoneflies), and Trichoptera (Caddisflies) are species considered to be very sensitive to poor water quality conditions. High abundance of these organisms is generally an indication of good water quality conditions at a sample location.  During more recent sampling years the community structure has been shifting to species that are more sensitive to poor water quality conditions.  As a result, the EPT indicates that Rosedale Creek is reported to have “Poor” to “Good” water quality (Fig.27) from 2003 to 2014.

Figure 26 EPT in Rosedale Creek
Figure 27 EPT in Rosedale Creek

Conclusion

Overall Rosedale Creek aquatic habitat conditions from a benthic invertebrate perspective range from “Poor” to “Fair” from 2003 to 2014.

Habitat Complexity

Streams are naturally meandering systems and move over time; there are varying degrees of habitat complexity, depending on the creek. Examples of habitat complexity include variable habitat types such as pools and riffles as well as substrate variability and woody debris structure.  A high percentage of habitat complexity (heterogeneity) typically increases the biodiversity of aquatic organisms within a system. Thirty seven percent of Rosedale Creek was considered heterogeneous, as shown in Figure 28.

Figure 27 Habitat complexity along Rosedale Creek
Figure 28 Habitat complexity along Rosedale Creek

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.  Figure 29 shows that 27 percent of the substrate observed on Rosedale Creek was dominated by clay.  Overall substrate conditions were highly variable along Rosedale Creek.  Figure 30 shows the dominant substrate type observed for each section surveyed along Rosedale Creek.

Figure 28 Instream substrate along Rosedale Creek
Figure 29 Instream substrate along Rosedale Creek
Figure 29 shows the dominant substrate type along Rosedale Creek.
Figure 30 shows the dominant substrate type along Rosedale Creek.

Cobble and Boulder Habitat

Boulders create instream cover and back eddies for large fish to hide and/or rest out of the current.  Cobble provides important spawning habitat for certain fish species like walleye and various shiner species who are an important food source for larger fish.  Cobble can also provide habitat conditions for benthic invertebrates that are a key food source for many fish and wildlife species.  Figure 31 shows where cobble and boulder substrate are found in Rosedale Creek.

Figure 30 Instream substrate cobble and boulder along Rosedale Creek
Figure 31 Instream substrate cobble and boulder along Rosedale Creek

Instream Morphology

Pools and riffles are important habitat features for fish. Riffles are areas of agitated water and they contribute higher dissolved oxygen to the stream and act as spawning substrate for some species of fish, such as walleye. Pools provide shelter for fish and can be refuge pools in the summer if water levels drop and water temperature in the creek increases. Pools also provide important over wintering areas for fish. Runs are usually 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 32 shows that Rosedale Creek is fairly uniform; 91 percent consists of runs, 9 percent riffles and 1 percent pools. Figure 33 shows where riffle habitat was observed along Rosedale Creek.

Figure 31 Instream morphology along Rosedale Creek
Figure 32 Instream morphology along Rosedale Creek
Figure 32 Riffle habitat locations along Rosedale Creek
Figure 33 Riffle habitat locations along Rosedale Creek

Vegetation Type

Instream vegetation provides a variety of functions and is a critical component of the aquatic ecosystem.  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.  The dominant vegetation type recorded at thirty two percent consisted of narrow leafed emergent in the form of grasses and sedges. Rosedale Creek had high levels of diversity for instream vegetation. Figure 34 depicts the plant community structure for Rosedale Creek. Figure 35 shows the dominant vegetation type observed for each section surveyed along Rosedale Creek.

Figure 33 Vegetation type along Rosedale Creek
Figure 34 Vegetation type along Rosedale Creek
Figure 34 Dominant vegetation type along Rosedale Creek
Figure 35 Dominant vegetation type along Rosedale Creek

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 36 demonstrates that Rosedale Creek had common and normal levels of instream vegetation for 55 percent of its length.  Low, rare and no vegetation were measured at 44 percent, while extensive levels were recorded at only two percent of stream surveys. 

Figure 35 Instream vegetation abundance along Rosedale Creek
Figure 36 Instream vegetation abundance along Rosedale Creek

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 Rosedale Creek had invasive species (Figure 37). The invasive species observed in Rosedale Creek were European frogbit, purple loosestrife, glossy and common buckthorn, poison/wild parsnip, rusty crayfish, banded mystery snail, honey suckle, Eurasian milfoil and Manitoba maple. Figure 38 shows the frequency of the invasive species observed along Rosedale Creek.

Figure 36 Invasive species along Rosedale Creek
Figure 37 Invasive species along Rosedale Creek
Figure 37 Frequency of the invasive species observed along Rosedale Creek
Figure 38 Frequency of the invasive species observed along Rosedale Creek

Water Chemistry

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

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 39 shows that the dissolved oxygen in Rosedale Creek was within the threshold for warmwater biota in most reaches of the system, however areas near the Rideau River and the upper headwaters were below the warmwater threshold.  The average dissolved oxygen levels observed within the main stem of Rosedale Creek was 8. 08 mg/L which is within the recommended levels for warmwater biota.

Figure 38 Dissolved oxygen ranges in Rosedale Creek
Figure 39 Dissolved oxygen ranges in Rosedale Creek

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 Rosedale Creek was 321.1 µs/cm. Figure 40 shows the conductivity readings for Rosedale Creek.

Figure 39 Specific conductivity ranges in Rosedale Creek
Figure 40 Specific conductivity ranges in Rosedale Creek

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 Rosedale Creek averaged 7.94 thereby meeting the provincial standard (Figure 41).

Figure 40 pH ranges in Rosedale Creek
Figure 41 pH ranges in Rosedale Creek

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 42 shows where the thermal sampling sites were located along Rosedale Creek.  Analysis of the data collected indicates that Rosedale Creek is classified as a cool water system with warm water reaches (Figure 43). 

Figure 41 Temperature logger locations on Rosedale Creek
Figure 42 Temperature logger locations on Rosedale Creek
Figure 38 Dissolved oxygen ranges in Rosedale Creek
SITE IDY_WATERX_AIRCLASSIFICATIONPROGRAMYEAR
RS1 - Rosedale Rd25.528.4WARMWATERMACRO2014
RS2 - Matheson Dr23.428.4COOL-WARMMACRO2014
RS3 - Code Rd22.227.6COOL-WARMMACRO2014
Figure 43 Temperature logger data for three sites on Rosedale 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

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 44 shows areas where one or more of the above groundwater indicators were observed during stream surveys and headwater assessments.

Figure 43 Groundwater indicators observed in the Rosedale Creek catchment
Figure 44 Groundwater indicators observed in the Rosedale Creek catchment

Headwaters Drainage Features Assessment 

The RVCA Stream Characterization program assessed Headwater Drainage Features for the Middle Rosedale subwatershed in 2014. 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 2014 the program sampled 18 sites at road crossings in the Rosedale Creek catchment area (Figure 45).

Figure 44 Locations of the headwater sampling sites in the Rosedale Creek catchment
Figure 45 Locations of the headwater sampling sites in the Rosedale Creek catchment
Spring photo of a headwater sample site in the Rosedale Creek catchment located on Matheson Drive
Spring photo of a headwater sample site in the Rosedale Creek catchment located on Matheson Drive

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 Rosedale Creek catchment is dominated by wetland and natural headwater drainage features.  Two features were classified as having been channelized and one feature was identified as roadside drainage features.  Figure 46 shows the feature type of the primary feature at the sampling locations.

Figure 45 Headwater feature types in the Rosedale Creek catchment
Figure 46 Headwater feature types in the Rosedale Creek catchment

Feature Channel Modifications

Channel modifications were assessed at each headwater drainage feature sampling location.  Modifications include channelization, dredging, hardening and realignments.  The majority of sampling locations for the Rosedale Creek catchment area were classified as having no channel modifications, five appeared to have been historically dredged and one was classified as having an online pond.  Figure 47 shows the channel modifications observed at the sampling locations for Rosedale Creek.

Figure 46 Headwater feature channel modifications in the Rosedale Creek catchment
Figure 47 Headwater feature channel modifications in the Rosedale Creek catchment

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.  The features assessed in the Rosedale Creek catchment were classified being dominated by wetland.  Two features were classified as meadow, one as lawn and six were classified as having no vegetation within the feature. Figure 48 depicts the dominant vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Rosedale Creek catchment.

Figure 47 Headwater feature vegetation types in the Rosedale Creek catchment
Figure 48 Headwater feature vegetation types in the Rosedale Creek catchment

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.  The sample locations in Rosedale Creek were dominated by natural vegetation in the form of meadow, scrubland, forest and wetland vegetation.  Figure 49. Depicts the type of riparian vegetation observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Rosedale Creek catchment.

Figure 48 Headwater feature riparian vegetation types in the Rosedale Creek catchment
Figure 49 Headwater feature riparian vegetation types in the Rosedale Creek catchment

Headwater Feature Sediment Deposition

Assessing the amount of recent sediment deposited in a channel provides an index of the degree to which the feature could be transporting sediment to downstream reaches (OSAP, 2013).  Evidence of excessive sediment deposition might indicate the requirement to follow up with more detailed targeted assessments upstream of the site location to identify potential best management practices to be implemented.  Conditions ranged from no deposition observed to extensive deposition recorded. Figure 50 depicts the degree of sediment deposition observed at the sampled headwater sites in the Rosedale Creek catchment.

Figure 49 Headwater feature sediment deposition in the Rosedale Creek catchment
Figure 50 Headwater feature sediment deposition in the Rosedale Creek catchment

Headwater Feature Upstream Roughness

Feature roughness will provide a measure of the amount of materials within the bankfull channel that could slow down the velocity of water flowing within the headwater feature (OSAP, 2013).  Materials on the channel bottom that provide roughness include vegetation, woody debris and boulders/cobble substrates.  Roughness can provide benefits in mitigating downstream erosion on the headwater drainage feature and the receiving watercourse by reducing velocities.  Roughness also provides important habitat conditions to aquatic organisms. The sample locations in the Rosedale Creek catchment area ranged from minimal to high roughness conditions.  Figure 51 shows the feature roughness conditions at the sampling locations in the Rosedale Creek catchment.

Figure 50 Headwater feature roughness in the Rosedale Creek catchment
Figure 51 Headwater feature roughness in the Rosedale Creek catchment

Fish Community

The Rosedale Creek catchment is classified as a mixed community of warm and cool water recreational and baitfish fishery with 25 species observed.  Table 11 lists those species observed in the catchment (Source: MNR/RVCA). Figure 52 shows the sampling locations along Rosedale Creek.

Figure 51 Rosedale Creek fish community
Figure 52 Rosedale Creek fish community
Table 11 Fish species observed in Rosedale Creek
Fish SpeciesFish codeFish SpeciesFish code
blacknose shinerBnShifinescale daceFsDac
bluegillBlueggolden shinerGoShi
bluntnose minnowBnMinlargemouth bassLmBas
brassy minnowBrMinlogperchLogpe
brook sticklebackBrStilongnose daceLnDac
brown bullheadBrBulmottled sculpinMoScu
carps and minnowsCA_MInorthern pearl dacePeDac
central mudminnowCeMudnorthern pikeNoPik
common shinerCoShinorthern redbelly daceNRDac
creek chubCrChupumpkinseedPumpk
etheostoma sp.EthSprock bassRoBas
fallfishFallfwhite suckerWhSuc
fathead minnowFhMin

 

Weighing and identifying fish on Rosedale Creek
Weighing and identifying fish on Rosedale Creek

Migratory Obstructions

It is important to know locations of migratory obstructions because these can prevent fish from accessing important spawning and rearing habitat. Migratory obstructions can be natural or manmade, and they can be permanent or seasonal. Figure 53 shows that Rosedale Creek had multiple beaver dams and one debris dam at the time of the survey in 2014. In addition one weir and one natural grade barrier was identified in the Rosedale Creek catchment.

Figure 52 Migratory obstructions along Rosedale Creek
Figure 53 Migratory obstructions along Rosedale Creek

Riparian Restoration

Figure 54 depicts the location of riparian restoration opportunities as a result of observations made during the stream survey and headwater drainage feature assessments.

Figure 53 Riparian restoration opportunities along Rosedale Creek
Figure 54 Riparian restoration opportunities along Rosedale Creek

4. Land Cover

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

As shown in Table 12, the dominant land cover type in the catchment through 2008 and 2014 was wetland along with crop and pastureland and woodland.

Table 12 Land cover (2008 vs. 2014) in the Rosedale Creek catchment
Land Cover20082014Change - 2008 to 2014
AreaAreaArea
Ha.PercentHa.PercentHa.Percent
Wetland **23013623053640
> Evaluated(1064)(17)(1064)(17)(0)(0)
> Unevaluated(1237)(19)(1241)(19)(+4)(0)
Crop & Pasture200231199931-30
Woodland *173127169727-340
Settlement24442734290
Transportation1172117200
* Does not include treed swamps ** Includes treed swamps

From 2008 to 2014, there was an overall change of 143 hectares from one land cover class to another. The major land cover change in the Rosedale Creek catchment is a result of the conversion of woodland to crop and pastureland. A slightly smaller proportion of change is also associated with crop and pastureland (i.e., previously cultivated areas/fallow fields) emerging as young woodland (i.e., regenerative and/or plantation) (see Figure 55 for the location of the major changes). Another driving force identified as a factor of change is the conversion of crop and pastureland and woodland to settlement.

Figure xx Dominant land cover change in the Rosedale Creek catchment (2014)
Figure 55 Dominant land cover change in the Rosedale Creek catchment (2014)

Table 13 shows the type of land cover change that has taken place between land cover classes/types from 2008 to 2014. Overall, the net area of woodland change (loss) is relatively small at 34 hectares relative to the remaining area of woodland in the catchment (as of 2014). Similarly, the net area of crop and pastureland change (loss) is very small at two hectares relative to the remaining area of crop and pastureland in the catchment (as of 2014). However, the net area of settlement change (gain) is greater (at 29 hectares) relative to the remaining area of settlement in the catchment (as of 2014).

Table 13 Land cover change in the Rosedale Creek catchment (2008 to 2014)
Land CoverChange - 2008 to 2014
Area
Ha.Percent
Wooded Area to Crop and Pasture58.140.6
Crop and Pasture to Wooded Area3927.3
Crop and Pasture to Settlement25.818.1
Wooded Area to Unevaluated Wetland9.26.5
Unevaluated Wetland to Crop and Pasture4.53.2
Wooded Area to Settlement3.32.3
Wooded Area to Aggregate Site2.61.8
Unevaluated Wetland to Settlement0.20.2

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 Middle Rideau 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 56, 30 percent of the Rosedale Creek catchment contains 1696 hectares of upland forest and 259 hectares of lowland forest (treed swamps) versus the 34 percent of woodland cover in the Middle Rideau subwatershed. This is the same as 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 34 Woodland cover and forest interior (2014)
Figure 56 Woodland cover and forest interior (2014)

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 Rosedale Creek catchment (in 2014), 89 (38 percent) of the 231 woodland patches are very small, being less than one hectare in size. Another 109 (47 percent) of the woodland patches ranging from one to less than 20 hectares in size tend to be dominated by edge-tolerant bird species. The remaining 33 (15 percent of) woodland patches range between 21 and 104 hectares in size. Thirty-two of these patches contain woodland between 20 and 100 hectares and may support a few area-sensitive species and some edge intolerant species, but will be dominated by edge tolerant species.

Conversely, one (one percent) of the 231 woodland patches in the drainage area exceed the 100 plus hectare size needed to support most forest dependent, area sensitive birds and is large enough to support approximately 60 percent of edge-intolerant species. No patch tops 200 hectares, which according to the Environment Canada Guideline will support 80 percent of edge-intolerant forest bird species (including most area sensitive species) that prefer interior forest habitat conditions.

Table 14 presents a comparison of woodland patch size in 2008 and 2014 along with any changes that have occurred over that time. A decrease (of 29 ha) has been observed in the overall woodland patch area between the two reporting periods with most change occurring in the larger woodland patches in the catchment.

Table 14 Woodland patches in the Rosedale Creek catchment (2008 and 2014)
Woodland Patch Size Range (ha)Woodland* PatchesPatch Change
200820142008 to 2014
NumberAreaNumberAreaNumberArea
CountPercentHaPercentCountPercentHaPercentCountHa
Less than 1 86394128938413830
1 to 20105474932510947469474-24
20 to 50221067634231070910133
50 to 10073469249463342164
100 to 2003130515111031-2-202
Totals223100198410023110019551008-29
*Includes treed swamps

Forest Interior

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 Rosedale Creek catchment (in 2014), the 231 woodland patches contain 67 forest interior patches (Figure 56) that occupy three percent (183 ha.) of the catchment land area (which is less than the five percent of interior forest in the Middle Rideau 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, 44 of which have small areas of interior forest habitat less than one hectare in size. The remaining nine patches contain interior forest ranging between 10 and 24 hectares in area.

Between 2008 and 2014, there has been a change in the number of woodland patches containing smaller areas of interior habitat (Table 15). For example, there has been an increase of 25 woodlands containing less than one hectare of interior forest over this period and five woodlands with one to 10 hectares of interior habitat. At the same time, there has been a reported loss of 27 hectares of interior forest habitat in the catchment, which appears to have occurred as a result of the loss of interior forest habitat in the largest woodland patches.

Table 15 Woodland interior in the Rosedale Creek catchment (2008 and 2014)
Woodland Interior Habitat Size Range (ha)Woodland InteriorInterior Change
200820142008 to 2014
NumberAreaNumberAreaNumberArea
CountPercentHaPercentCountPercent HaPercentCountHa
Less than 11953944466116252
1 to 10925331614214625513
10 to 30617914391312669335
30 to 502577370000-2-77
Totals361002101006710018310031-27

Wetland Cover

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

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

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

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

Using the same dataset, it is estimated that pre-settlement (historic) wetland cover averaged 32 percent in the Middle Rideau subwatershed versus the 27 percent of cover existing in 2014. This decline in wetland cover is also evident in the Rosedale Creek catchment (as seen in Figure 57) where there has been a one percent decrease in the area of wetland cover from pre-settlement times to the present (as summarized in Table 16).

Figure 35 Catchment wetland cover While there has been a reported decrease in wetland cover in the Rosedale Creek catchment from pre-settlement times, the remaining wetland cover in 2014 remains above
Figure 57 Wetland cover in the Middle Rideau subwatershed and Rosedale Creek catchment (Historic to 2014)

While there has been a reported decrease in wetland cover in the Rosedale Creek catchment from pre-settlement times, the remaining wetland cover in 2014 remains above the ecological thresholds cited in the Environment Canada Guideline. Nonetheless, in order 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 for landowners and surrounding communities.

Table 16 Wetland cover in the Middle Rideau subwatershed and Rosedale Creek catchment (Historic to 2014)
Wetland CoverPre-settlement2008 Cover2014 CoverChange - Historic to 2014
Area Area Area Area
HaPercentHaPercentHaPercentHaPercent
Rosedale Creek236137230136230536-56-2
Middle Rideau268153222127272222827-4688-17
Rideau Valley 13411535------8019421-53921-40

5. Stewardship and Protection

The RVCA and its partners are working to protect and enhance environmental conditions in the Middle Rideau Subwatershed. Figure 58 shows the location of all stewardship projects completed in the Rosedale Creek catchment along with sites identified for potential shoreline restoration.

Rural Clean Water Projects

From 2009 to 2014, two septic system replacements, one well decommissioning, one well replacement, one well upgrade and one livestock fencing project were completed. Between 2003 and 2008, two septic system replacements, one well upgrade, one livestock fencing project and one fuel storage and handling facility were constructed along with one septic system replacement and one manure storage facility prior to 2003. Total value of all 13 projects is $99,224 with $45,415 of that amount funded through grant dollars from the RVCA.

StewardshipwRipRestorationRideau-Creek-001-001
Figure 58 Stewardship and potential restoration locations  

Tree Planting Projects

The location of RVCA Tree Planting Program projects is shown in Figure 58. From 2009 to 2014, 13,100 trees were planted at five sites. Between 2003 and 2008, 500 trees were planted at one site and prior to 2003, 62,210 trees were planted at 11 sites, resulting in the reforestation of 40 hectares. Total value of all 17 projects is $222,963 with $65,627 of that amount coming from various fundraising sources.

Valley, Stream, Wetland and Hazard Land Regulation

The Rosedale Creek catchment covers 64 square kilometres with 16.6 square kilometres (or 26 percent) of the drainage area being within the regulation limit of Ontario Regulation 174/06 (Figure 59), giving protection to wetland areas and river or stream valleys that are affected by flooding and erosion hazards.

Wetlands occupy 23.1 sq. km. (or 36 percent) of the catchment. Of these wetlands, 10.5 sq. km (or 45 percent) are designated as provincially significant and included within the RVCA regulation limit. This leaves the remaining 12.6 sq. km (or 55 percent) of wetlands in the catchment outside the regulated area limit.

Of the 90.6 kilometres of stream in the catchment, regulation limit mapping has been plotted along 22.3 kilometers of streams (representing 25 percent of all streams in the catchment). Some of these regulated watercourses (14.8 km or 16 percent of all streams) flow through regulated wetlands; the remaining 7.4 km (or 33 percent) of regulated streams are located outside of those wetlands. Plotting of the regulation limit on the remaining 68.3 km (or 75 percent) of streams requires identification of flood and erosion hazards and valley systems.

Within the regulation limit, “development” and “site alteration” require RVCA permission. The “alteration to waterways” provision of Ontario Regulation 174/06 applies to all watercourses.

StewardshipwRipRestorationRideau-Creek-001-001
Figure 59 RVCA regulation limits

Vulnerable Drinking Water Areas

The Rosedale Creek drainage catchment is considered to have a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer. This means that the nature of the overburden (thin soils, fractured bedrock) does not provide a high level of protection for the underlying groundwater making the aquifer more vulnerable to contaminants released on the surface. The Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan includes policies that focus on the protection of groundwater region-wide due to the fact that most of the region, which encompasses the Mississippi and Rideau watersheds, is considered Highly Vulnerable Aquifer. For detailed maps and policies that have been developed to protect drinking water sources, please go to the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Region website at www.mrsourcewater.ca to view the Mississippi-Rideau Source Protection Plan.

6. Challenges/Issues

Water Quality

  • Surface water quality along Rosedale Creek is “Fair” as determined by surface water chemistry data. Occasional exceedances of nutrients, E.coli and metals contributed to the rating
  • Instream (biological) water quality conditions at the Rosedale Creek sample location range from “Very Poor” to “Fair” from 2003 to 2014 (using a grading scheme developed by Ontario Conservation Authorities in Ontario for benthic invertebrates) with an overall benthic invertebrate water quality rating of “Very Poor” to “Fair” determined for this period

Shorelines

  • Emerald ash borer poses a significant threat to the ecology of the subwatershed, given the prominence of ash trees along shorelines and in riparian and wetland areas. Many tree stands are predominantly ash and with their anticipated loss, it is unclear what will replace them and the overall effect of their collective demise on the physical and natural functions/values they provide for erosion, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat protection 

Land Cover

  • The catchment contains 1241 ha of unevaluated wetland (occupying 19 percent of its total area) that provides many important social, hydrological, biological and ecological functions/services. Although not under imminent threat from development activity, they do remain vulnerable to drainage and land clearing activities in the absence of any regulatory and planning controls that would otherwise protect them

7. Opportunities/Actions

Water Quality

  • Investigate the source of possible pollutants along Rosedale Creek and consider implementing measures to reduce nutrient and bacterial loadings
  • Implement agricultural and residential best management practices to address the occasional exceedances of nutrient concentrations, high bacteria counts and metal concentrations on Rosedale Creek by restricting livestock access to the creek, limiting the use of fertilizers and pesticide applications and improving or maintaining a shoreline buffer
  • Continue to offer the suite of water quality improvement projects provided by the Rideau Valley Rural Clean Water Program to landowners
  • Continue to protect Rosedale Creek and its tributaries through implementation of municipal and agency land use planning and development policies and practices

Shorelines/Headwaters

  • Continue to promote the Rideau Valley Shoreline Naturalization and Tree Planting Programs to landowners
  • RVCA and the Township of Montague are to continue educating landowners about the value and importance of headwater drainage features, natural shorelines and waterfront property best management practices with respect to shoreline use and development, septic system installation and maintenance and shoreline vegetation retention and enhancement
  • Protect the riparian buffer along the shoreline of Rosedale Creek and other catchment streams (headwaters) during the development approvals process through adherence to and enforcement of municipal land-use policies and zoning standards
  • Target shoreline restoration at sites identified in this report (shown as “Other riparian land cover” in Figure 16 and “Potential Riparian/Shoreline Restoration” in Figure 54) and explore other restoration and enhancement opportunities along Rosedale Creek and its tributaries

Development

  • Collectively work with approval authorities (Township of Montague, Conservation Authority) to consistently implement current land use planning and development policies for water quality and shoreline protection adjacent to Rosedale Creek and other catchment streams (e.g., a minimum 30 metre development setback from water)
  • Explore ways and means to more effectively enforce and implement 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)
  • Municipalities and agencies are encouraged to strengthen natural heritage and water resources official plan policies and zoning provisions (water setbacks, frontage and naturalized shorelines and wetland protection) where deemed appropriate
  • Utilize RVCA subwatershed and catchment reports to help develop/revise official plan policies to protect surface water resources and the natural environment (including woodlands, wetlands and shoreline cover)
  • Consider establishing RVCA regulations limits to protect additional wetlands

Full Catchment Report