wilmot creek fmp chapter 2 outline€¦ · in 2000, the lindsay district fisheries management plan...

Acknowledgements

The Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Plan was written by Marc Desjardins (Ganaraska Region

Conservation Authority) and Jeff McNeice (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources), with input from

the members of the technical steering committee and community advisory council, in accordance

with the OMNR Watershed-based Fisheries Management Guideline (Koenig 2006).

TECHNICAL STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Marc Desjardins Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority

Dr. Doug Dodge Scientist

Stephen Haayen Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Warren May Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Cam McCauley Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Tim Rance Toronto Region Conservation Authority

Lori Riviere Regional Municipality of Durham

Les Stanfield Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Janice Szwarz Municipality of Clarington

COMMUNITY ADVISORY COUCIL MEMBERS

Appreciation is also extended to the members and groups of the Community Advisory Council who

provided input and technical support, specifically:

Bonnie Anderson Wilmot Creek Outdoor Education Centre

Nancy Armishaw Citizen

Tara Borwick Community Stream Steward Program, OFAH

Arthur Burrows Samuel Wilmot Nature Area

Doug Elliot Citizen

Eli Garret Trout Unlimited

Gerry Gibson The Wilmot Fishing Club

Bert Gibson The Wilmot Fishing Club

Rick Gregorczyk Float Fishing Conservation Group

Wayne Kerr Citizen

Kelly Kerr Citizen

Eric Lawlor Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Don Lycett Citizen

Natalie Meade Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority

Libby Racansky Citizen

Carole Seysmith Durham Land Stewardship Council, OMNR

Cam Simpson Float Fishing Conservation Group

John Slater Orono Crown Lands Trust

Funding for this project was provided by the Fisheries and Oceans Canada and with in-kind resources

provided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ganaraska Region Conservation

Authority.

Executive Summary

Wilmot Creek is situated along the north shore of Lake Ontario east of Toronto but within the

Greater Toronto Area (GTA). The creek extends from its origins on the Oak Ridges Moraine

south to its outlet into the lake and includes all of Wilmot, Foster, Hunter, Stalker and Orono

Creeks and their tributaries. The Wilmot Creek watershed is located within the Regional

Municipality of Durham and the local Municipality of Clarington (former Clarke and Darlington

Townships), and includes the villages of Newcastle, Orono, Kirby, and Leskard.

Wilmot Creek has a rich natural history revolving around its fisheries. Native brook trout and

Atlantic salmon were important food and economic resources for early European settlers. In the

early 19th

century, land clearing and damming of the creek for mills began to take its toll on the

fisheries, a trend that was occurring in other Lake Ontario watersheds as well. In response to

these changes, in 1842 a local landowner and other local settlers and workers attempted to claim

the diminishing stocks and prohibit further exploitation from the local community. This conflict

resulted in a bloody confrontation between the involved parties at the mouth of Wilmot Creek,

commonly referred to as the salmon wars (Schmidt and Rutherford, 1975). In 1865, Samuel

Wilmot began experimenting with propagation of Atlantic salmon in an attempt to recover the

once abundant population. By 1968, the first fish hatchery in Canada was in full operation on

Wilmot Creek; however, the efforts were in vain. By the turn of the century Atlantic salmon

were extirpated from Lake Ontario.

The watershed has since recovered and Wilmot Creek and its tributaries now support diverse fish

communities of cold, cool and warm water species. Within the lower reaches of the creek and

the Newcastle coastal marsh on Lake Ontario there exists a diverse warm water community

including yellow perch, northern pike, darters and cyprinids. The mid reaches of the creek are

dominated by rainbow trout and mottled sculpin, and are utilized by migratory Chinook salmon.

On the mainstem of the creek north of Taunton Road, brown trout dominate and mottled sculpin

are replaced by slimy sculpin. In the headwaters of both Wilmot and Orono Creeks, the fish

community is dominated by brook trout. The boundaries between these communities are marked

by changes in geology and the presence of barriers.

Like all watersheds in the Greater Toronto Area, Wilmot Creek is facing many pressures

including landscape development (e.g. future housing developments and the extension of

Highway 407) and introduction of invasive species. Population and housing statistics for the

Municipality of Clarington indicate that the population increased by 15.2% between 2001 and

2006 (from 69,834 to 77,820 respectively) and is expected to increase to 112,500 by 2016

(Statistics Canada 2007). Within the Municipality of Clarington, Ward 4 (former Clarke

Township which includes the villages of Newcastle and Orono) has a population of 13,773

people (2006) and is expected to increase by 43% (to 19,700) by 2016. Most of this growth will

occur in Newcastle Village (Municipality of Clarington, Personal Communications, 2007).

In 2000, the Lindsay District Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) expired, a document which

guided fisheries management in the Wilmot Creek watershed and provided direction for

watershed development, planning and restoration. After its expiration, agencies responsible for

fisheries management began compiling background information and directing the development

of a watershed-based fisheries management plan for Wilmot Creek. These agencies included the

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) the

Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA).

Throughout the development of the plan, the public were given the opportunity to provide input

and identify issues that they felt were important. A Community Advisory Council (CAC) was

assembled in the early stages of development to represent the diverse group of interested

stakeholders including local landowners, farmers, angler groups, environmentalists and the

general public. This group helped to mould the plan into its current stage. In addition, a series

of public consultation sessions were held to solicit input on the content of the plan.

Based on this input and a review of historical and current data, target species for management

were developed including native brook trout and Atlantic salmon, and naturalized salmonids

including Chinook salmon and rainbow trout. In order to facilitate the effective implementation

of management objectives and address the issues identified through public consultation and data

analysis, the watershed was delineated into smaller subwatershed fisheries management units.

These management units, or fisheries management zones, are based on distinct fish communities

due in part to surficial geology and the presence of barriers to fish migration.

The Wilmot Creek FMP will provide direction for the management of fisheries for a period of

five years (2007-2012). It provides information on the current status of fish, fish habitat and land

use in the watershed and in the seven fisheries management zones. It is anticipated that this

information will be used by the public, municipalities, the private sector and government

agencies to help guide future management of the aquatic resources in the Wilmot Creek

watershed.

The objectives of the FMP are:

to protect and enhance the biological integrity of the aquatic ecosystem;

to achieve "no net loss" of fisheries habitat;

to promote the sustainable utilization of fisheries resources;

to develop a greater knowledge of fish populations, fish habitat and aquatic ecosystems;

to describe the existing conditions of the fish community to establish a benchmark of

ecosystem health;

to provide a framework for fisheries management at subwatershed, reach and site scales;

to rehabilitate degraded fish communities and fish habitat, for self-sustaining, native

stocks;

to promote public awareness, appreciation and understanding of fisheries resources and

the aquatic habitats on which they depend; and

to involve organized angling associations, environmental interest groups and the general

public in fisheries management activities.

The next stage Wilmot Creek fisheries management will be the implementation of the strategies

and recommendations made in this plan. This will require a concerted effort between the

stakeholders including federal, provincial and municipal governments, non-governmental

organizations, angling clubs, farmers, land owners and private citizens. Only through effective

implementation will we protect, maintain and enhance this important resource.

Table of Contents

i

Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction ……………………………………………………………..……. 1

1.1 Plan Development ……………………………………………….…… 2

1.1.1 Background Information…………………………………..…… 2

1.1.2 Fisheries Technical Steering Committee……………..……... 2

1.1.3 Stakeholder Consultation………………………………….…... 3

1.2 Plan Objectives ………………………………………………….…… 3

1.3 Context of the Plan ……………………………………………….….. 3

1.3.1 Federal Level – Fisheries and Oceans Canada…………….. 4

1.3.2 Federal Level – Transport Canada ………………...………… 6

1.3.3 Federal Level – Environment Canada……………...………… 6

1.3.4 Provincial Level – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources... 6

1.3.5 Provincial Level – Ontario Ministry of the Environment…. 7

1.3.6 Provincial Level – Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food

and Rural Affairs………………………………..………………. 9

1.3.7 Provincial Level – Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs

and Housing………………………………..……………………. 10

1.3.8 Provincial Level – Ontario Ministry of Public

Infrastructure Renewal……………………………..…..………. 12

1.3.9 Conservation Authorities…..………………………..……..…... 13

1.3.10 Municipal Level………………………………….……….……… 13

1.4 Plan Implementation ……………………………………….………… 14

CHAPTER 2 – WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………... 17

Delineation of Fisheries Management Zones ……………….…………………….. 17

2.0 Wilmot Creek Watershed …………………………………………………….20

Watershed Characteristics ……………………………………….………… 20

Geology and Physiography……….………………………..….……….. 20

Water Quality ………………………………………………..…………... 20

Stream Order……………………………………………….…………….. 21

Stream Slope ………………………………………………..……………. 21

In-stream Barriers………………………………………….…………….. 25

Land Use/Land Cover..……………….……………………….………… 26

Forest Cover………………………………………….………….……….. 28

Wetland Cover…………………………………………………..………... 28

Riparian Habitat………………………………………………..………… 28

Land Disturbance Index (LDI) ………………………………….……… 29

Land Use Planning……………………………………………….….…... 30

Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Plan

ii

Watershed Fish Community Objectives ………………………………….. 32

2.1 Fisheries Management Zone 1 – Coastal Marsh…………………...……… 33

Characteristics …………………………………………………………….. 33

Fish Community Objectives ……………………………………………… 34

2.2 Fisheries Management Zone 2 – Wilmot Creek …………………………… 35



2.3 Fisheries Management Zone 3 – Foster Creek Subwatershed…….….…… 37



2.4 Fisheries Management Zone 4 – Wilmot and Orono Creeks………..……. 39



2.5 Fisheries Management Zone 5 – Hunter and Stalker Creeks……….….…. 41



2.6 Fisheries Management Zone 6 – Hunter and Stalker Creek Headwaters ... 43



2.7 Fisheries Management Zone 7 – Wilmot and Orono Creek Headwaters.… 45



CHAPTER 3 – FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

3.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………..…… 47

3.1 Watershed Issues and Management Options………………………………..…. 49

3.2 Fisheries Management Zone 1 – Issues and Management Options…….….…... 63

3.3 Fisheries Management Zone 2 – Issues and Management Options…….….…... 67

3.4 Fisheries Management Zone 3 – Issues and Management Options…….…….... 71


3.6 Fisheries Management Zone 5 – Issues and Management Options…….……… 79


3.8 Fisheries Management Zone 7 – Issues and Management Options……..……... 87

GLOSSARY………………………………………………………………….…… 93

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 97

LEGISLATION (Web links to Legislation)…………………………...……….. 113

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………..……… 115

Habitat…………………………………………………………………….………. 116

Water Quantity …………………………………………………….……… 116

Stream Flow ……………………………….……………………………… 117

Table of Contents

iii

Hydrograph Components ………………………………………..……… 117

Fluvial Geomorphology …………………………………………………... 120

The Natural Flow Regime ………………………………………………… 122

Human Alterations to the Flow Regime and Effects ………………… 123

Ecological Response to Altered Flow Regimes ……………………... 123

The Sediment Regime …………………………………………………….. 125

Natural Channel Design …………………………………………………... 126

Forest Cover, Agriculture and Urbanization: The Influence of Land Use

on Rivers ………………………………………………………………….. 126

Hydrology ………………………………………………………………… 127

Sediment Yields ……………………………………………….……..…... 128

Water Quality ……………………………………………………..……... 129

Riparian Vegetation ………………………………………………………. 131

Large Woody Material ……………………………………………………. 132

Modeling the Impacts of Land-use on Aquatic Habitats in Lake

Ontario Streams …………………………………………………………… 134

Habitat Mitigation Strategies ……………………………………………… 139

Riparian and Table Land Planting ………………………….………… 139

Stormwater Management …………………………………………..…… 139

Tile Drains/Water Storage Ponds ……………………………..….…… 140

Water Takings (Improve Our Understanding) ………….…….……… 141

Restoring Floodplain Connections (Woody Material –

Floodplain Terracing) …………………………………….……….……. 142

Barriers/Culverts/Online Ponds ………………………………..……... 142

Environmental Farm Plans - Nutrient Management – Best

Management Practices ……………………………………………. 143

Biodiversity.............................................................................................................. 145

Biodiversity …………………………………………………….….……… 145

Species Diversity …………………………………….…….…………..… 145

Genetic Diversity ………………………………………….…………...… 145

Ecosystem Diversity ……………………………………….………..…… 145

Importance of Biodiversity ………………………………………...……… 147

Influences on Biodiversity ………………………………………....……… 147

Land Use ……………………………………………….……………..….. 147

Pollution ……………………………………………………………...…… 148

Fish Stocking ………………………………………………...…………… 148

Species Competition ……………………………………..……….……… 148

Introduced Species ……………………………………………… 149

Naturalized Species ……………………………...………...…… 149

Consumptive Use ……………………………………………..….….…… 149

Stock Recruitment ……………………………………….……… 149

Spawner Escapement …………………………………………… 150

Climate Change …………………………………………………..……… 150

Loss of Biodiversity ……………………………………………….…...….. 150


iv

Species at Risk …………………………………………….……………… 150

Mitigating for Loss of Biodiversity ……………………………….………. 151

Pollution ………………………………………………………………...… 151

Over-Harvest ……………………………………………………….……. 152

Climate Change …………………………………………………………. 152

Invasive Species …………………………………………………….…… 152

Land Use …………………………………………………………….…... 152

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 – Wilmot Creek Watershed – Location and Political Boundaries……… 18

Figure 2.2 – Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zones………………………… 19

Figure 2.3 – Strahler Stream Order in the Wilmot Creek Watershed……………… 23

Figure 2.4 – Stream Slope in the Wilmot Creek Watershed ………………………. 24

Figure 2.5 – Instream Barriers in the Wilmot Creek Watershed ………………….. 25

Figure 2.6 – Land Use in the Wilmot Creek Watershed …………………...……… 27

Figure 2.7 – Thermal Regimes and Construction Timing Windows ………..……. 31

Figure 2.8 – Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 1………………..……… 34

Figure 2.9 – Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 2………………..……… 36

Figure 2.10 – Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 3……………………… 38

Figure 2.11 – Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 4……………..……….. 40




Figure A1 – The Hydrologic Cycle ………………………………………..……… 116

Figure A2 – Hydrograph …………………………………………………..……… 118

Figure A3 – Hydrograph Response to Development ……………………………… 118

Figure A4 – Three Levels of Geomorphic Investigation ………………..………… 120

Figure A5 – Relationship between Percent Impervious Cover (PIC) and Fish

Community ……………………………………………………..……. 136

Figure A6 – Stream Segments in Need of Rehabilitation …………………..…….. 138

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 – Summary of Strahler Stream Order in the Watershed……...…….…… 21

Table 2.2 – Summary of Stream Slope in the Watershed …...……………..……… 22

Table 2.3 – Proportion of Land Use in the Watershed and Management Zones...… 26

Table 2.4 – Proportion of Naturally Vegetated Stream Length by Strahler

Stream Order…………………………………………………….……. 29

Table 2.5 – Construction Timing Windows for In-Water Works ………….……… 30

Table 3.0 – Wilmot Creek Watershed – Management Options and

Implementation……………………………………………….……… 50

Table 3.1 – Zone 1 – Management Options and Implementation………….……… 64

Table 3.2 – Zone 2 – Management Options and Implementation………….……… 68

Table 3.3 – Zone 3 – Management Options and Implementation……….………… 72

Table of Contents

v





Table A1 – Physical Responses to Altered Flow Regimes ………………….……. 124

Table A2 – Ecological Responses to Altered Flow Regimes ………………….….. 124

Table A3 – Provincial and Federal Water Quality Guidelines and Objectives ….... 131

Table A4 – Fish Species List for the Wilmot Creek Watershed ……………….…. 146

Table A5 – Species at Risk and their Status in the Watershed…………..….…….. 151

1

Chapter 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Throughout Ontario, there has been increasing recognition of the need to manage and

plan fisheries resource use on an ecosystem or watershed basis. In order to accomplish

responsible stewardship of an entire ecosystem, a holistic approach to planning is

necessary, and this is the role of watershed management plans (WMP’s) and watershed-

based fisheries management plans (FMP’s).

A watershed management plan provides recommendations on the use and management of

these natural systems that can be incorporated into the changing land use and decision

making process. It allows targets to be set before amending land use documents, and aids

municipalities and developers in making land use decisions. The primary goal of a

watershed plan is to achieve a sustainable environment by understanding natural systems

within the region, in order to avoid significant loss and habitat degradation, which may

ultimately, impact the quality of life in the region.

Watershed management is essential to fisheries management since many aspects of land

and water use affect fish habitat and productivity. The long-term health of aquatic

ecosystems is a critical consideration in any land use planning process; and fisheries

management plans are fundamental in incorporating fisheries concerns into the planning

and permitting process. With the expanding growth of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA),

the Wilmot Creek watershed will see significant development pressure. Within the

Municipality of Clarington, population has increased by 15.2% between 2001 and 2006

(from 69,834 to 77,820 respectively; Statistics Canada 2007) and is expected that the

population will more than double to 177,750 by 2031 (Statistics Canada Census,

Regional Municipality of Durham 2006).

The Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Plan is a resource document written for the

citizens and stakeholders of the Wilmot Creek watershed. The plan will create a

framework to guide the protection, rehabilitation and enhancement of the fisheries

resource in the watershed. It is hoped that this document will encourage stakeholders to

follow the recommended management actions provided and subscribe to an "ecosystem

first" approach regarding resource use and watershed development.

Specifically, the plan will provide background information on the state of the aquatic

ecosystem, identify resource issues, outline management direction, and establish

benchmarks and targets (indicators) necessary to monitor the aquatic ecosystem and

measure success of the FMP.

Chapter 1 - Introduction

2

1.1 PLAN DEVELOPMENT

1.1.1 Background Information

Fisheries management is a cooperative effort of multiple agencies working together to

achieve a common goal. While fisheries management is the responsibility of the Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources, many of the goals and objectives of fisheries management

are related to the initiatives and responsibilities of other organizations. For example,

watershed management planning is the responsibility of Conservation Authorities;

however, many of the activities in the watershed have a direct impact on the fisheries and

fish habitat of that watershed. Therefore, this plan reflects the joint effort of multiple

agencies working together to protect, maintain and enhance fisheries resources in the

Wilmot Creek watershed.

The Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Plan was conceived during early public

consultations in support of the development of the Wilmot Watershed Management Plan,

and during concurrent meetings of a technical steering committee. At that time, the

public emphasized the importance of Wilmot Creek’s aquatic resources. Furthermore,

the abundance of studies and fisheries data collected on Wilmot Creek, together with the

questions to be answered, suggested a need for a process parallel to the watershed

management process to plan for fisheries resources. A fisheries technical steering

committee was established in 2000 to guide the development and production of a

fisheries management plan for Wilmot Creek

1.1.2 Fisheries Technical Steering Committee

Data available for fisheries management planning on Wilmot Creek was extensive.

Making optimal use of these data required innovative approaches not previously

unexplored in documents of its kind. A unique product was envisioned with a larger goal

of providing powerful new tools to link stream health to land-use development.

Members of the technical steering committee met regularly to discuss the required

technical components and the analysis of background data. Members represent resource

professionals including staff from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Ontario Ministry

of Natural Resources (OMNR), university researchers, and the Ganaraska Region

Conservation Authority (GRCA). The first product was a state of the resource

background report for Wilmot Creek that was created to support the development of both

the fisheries and watershed management plans.

The preparation of the background report benefited from several research initiatives

carried out on Wilmot Creek. Specifically, work conducted by the Salmonid Ecology

Unit of the OMNR, quantifying site level variance toward the development of

standardized protocols and the concurrent development of landscape / fisheries models.

3

1.1.3 Stakeholder Consultation

An initial public consultation (open house) was held in the spring of 2004. Many outreach

presentations followed targeting stakeholders and policy makers. Additional meetings

were held in January of 2005, and June of 2006. The reason for these meetings was to

inform the public about the purpose and scope of the project, inform them of the

development of new tools, obtain comments and concerns, and solicit feedback regarding

management priorities. Following these meetings a working group comprised of the

technical committee, representatives from the municipalities, and stakeholders was

assembled to formulate the final fisheries plan.

1.2 PLAN OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Plan are as follows:

Protect and enhance the biological integrity of the aquatic ecosystem

Describe the existing conditions of the fish community to establish a benchmark of

ecosystem health

Provide a framework for fisheries management at subwatershed, reach and site-

specific scales

Promote the sustainable use of fisheries resources

Achieve a "net gain" in the productive capacity of fisheries resources

Rehabilitate degraded fish communities and fish habitat, for self-sustaining, native

stocks

Develop a greater knowledge of fish populations, fish habitat and aquatic ecosystems

Promote public awareness, appreciation and understanding of fisheries resources and

the aquatic habitats on which they depend

Involve organized angling associations, environmental interest groups and the general

public in fisheries management activities

1.3 CONTEXT OF THE PLAN

The management of aquatic resources within the Wilmot Creek watershed is the direct

responsibility of DFO and OMNR. However, numerous other agencies implement

legislation designed to examine the effects of human intervention in and around water.


4

The involved agencies include:

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Environment Canada

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Ontario Ministry of the Environment

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Conservation Authorities

Municipalities

The Inter-Jurisdictional Compliance Protocol for Fish Habitat and Associated Water

Quality provides a comprehensive summary of the compliance roles and responsibilities

of stakeholder agencies with respect to fish habitat and water quality. The following

sections are taken from this protocol in hopes that it will provide the reader with some

insight into the many agencies that are involved, either directly or indirectly, in the

management of fish and fish habitat. In particular, this section will be useful when

reviewing the management recommendations in Chapter 3 and how the stakeholders are

involved.

The principal federal legislation for the protection of aquatic habitat and water quality as

it relates to fish is the Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985. In addition, provisions of the federal

Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the provincial Public Lands Act, Environmental

Protection Act, Ontario Water Resources Act, Nutrient Management Act, Lakes and

Rivers Improvement Act, Conservation Authorities Act, Drainage Act, and associated

regulations provide a framework for the protection of fish habitat through control of

water and land based activities that can indirectly affect fish habitat and water quality.

Legislation regulating the harvest of fish in Ontario waters is the provincial Fish and

Wildlife Conservation Act and the Ontario Fishery Regulations under the Fisheries Act.

In addition to legislation, there are a number of key concepts and principals from OMNR

strategic documents that help to guide fisheries management. These include: Protecting

What Sustains Us: Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy, Our Sustainable Future – Ministry of

Natural Resources – Strategic Directions”, Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries (SPOF

II), and the Aquatic Ecosystem Approach to Managing Fisheries. Also, federal

agreements like the Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat and bi-national

agreements such as A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries and

Fish-Community Objectives for Lake Ontario help to guide the management of Lake

Ontario tributaries.

The FMP is a resource document and not a policy document. The information provided

should be used in conjunction with policy documents such as OMNR's Strategic Plan for

Ontario Fisheries (SPOF II), Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s (GLFC) Joint Strategic

Plan for the Management of Great Lakes Fisheries, and DFO’s Policy for the

Management of Fish Habitat.

5

These policy documents, however, are only one component of protecting the resource.

It is necessary to impart a strong non-regulatory approach through education, outreach

and an overall management philosophy of "net gain". Many of the actions outlined in this

plan are, therefore, based on this approach.

1.3.1 Federal Level – Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has ultimate responsibility for the management of

fisheries resources in Canada, pursuant to the Fisheries Act. In Ontario, the provisions in

the Fisheries Act are delivered by DFO and through partnership agreements with other

government agencies (Environment Canada, Parks Canada, the Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources and Conservation Authorities). In Ontario, DFO retains responsibility

for administering the fish habitat provisions of the Fisheries Act (Section 35 of the

Fisheries Act) and shares responsibility with Environment Canada for the administration

of Section 36 of the Fisheries Act (the entry of substances deleterious to fish into fish

habitat). Decisions related to the management of fish populations in Ontario, including

determining fishing seasons, catch limits, stocking of inland waters and area fish

management priorities are administered by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, on

behalf of DFO.

Section 2 of the federal Fisheries Act defines fish to include

"parts of fish, shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals and any parts

of shellfish, crustaceans or marine animals, and the eggs, sperm,

spawn, larvae, spat and juvenile stages of fish, shellfish, crustaceans

and marine animals".

Section 34(1) of the federal Fisheries Act defines fish habitat as

"spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration

areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their

life processes".

The essential ecosystem components required for healthy fish habitat include adequate

food, cover, spawning and nursery habitats and access for migration.

Section 35 is the primary section pertaining to the protection of fish habitat and states

"no person contravenes Subsection 35(1) by causing the alteration,

disruption or destruction of fish habitat by any means or under any

condition unless authorized by the minister or under regulations made

by the governor of council under this Act."

Based on the “No Net Loss” Guiding Principle, DFO has developed a variety of review

guidelines, operational statements, fact sheets and outreach materials outlining the


6

general principles used by DFO staff to conserve and protect fish habitat. DFO’s delivery

of the fish habitat management program in Ontario is accomplished through both

proactive means, such as educational outreach and the pre-development review of

proposals potentially impacting fish habitat and the enforcement of Section 35 of the

Fisheries Act through DFO’s Conservation and Protection Branch.

In addition to the above functions, DFO has been given the responsibility for the

administration of the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), as it relates to aquatic species.

Section 32 of SARA protects the habitat and individuals of Schedule 1 extirpated,

endangered or threatened SARA species from negative impacts resulting from man-made

activities or works.

1.3.2 Federal Level – Transport Canada, Navigable Waters Protection

Program (TC – NWPP)

Transport Canada is responsible for administration of the federal Navigable Waters

Protection Act. The Act is designed to protect the public right of navigation by

prohibiting the construction or placement of any work in navigable water without the

approval of the minister.

1.3.3 Federal Level – Environment Canada (EC)

Environment Canada (EC) has shared responsibility for the enforcement of the pollution

prevention provisions of the Fisheries Act.

In many cases (e.g. non-federal lands or non-federally regulated industries), EC refers

potential occurrences to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE). OMOE often

is the lead agency responding to occurrences, although if the deleterious discharge

involves sediment it will be referred to DFO.

In addition to their Fisheries Act responsibilities, EC also has a regulatory function with

respect to administering requirements of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the

Species at Risk Act (except aquatic species at risk). Both of these acts could also

potentially influence the potential to proceed with proposed works in a variety of habitats,

including aquatic ecosystems.

1.3.4 Provincial – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

The OMNR is the provincial agency responsible for the protection and management of

Ontario’s natural resources. The OMNR has primary administration and enforcement

responsibilities for a considerable number of provincial statutes. The Lakes and Rivers

Improvement Act plays a specific role in contributing to the protection of fish habitat.

Other legislation including the Public Lands Act, and the Aggregate Resources Act, also

indirectly supports the protection of fish habitat.

7

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act enables the OMNR to provide sound

management of the province's fish and wildlife. Further to this, the Endangered Species

Act ensures the conservation, protection, restoration or propagation of flora and fauna

species that are threatened with extinction in Ontario.

A current initiative to streamline Ontario’s fishing regulations is underway. Activities

seek to increase angler satisfaction by making regulations easier to understand, thereby

increasing angler compliance. In addition, this streamlining will improve fisheries

management by providing a more consistent approach to managing fisheries on a

landscape basis and developing a regulation review process that ensures consistency

across broader areas of the province.

In 1976, OMNR developed a long-term plan for managing Ontario's fisheries resources

(Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries - SPOF I). With Public consultation, OMNR

designed a new strategy in 1992 (SPOF II), which identifies ecological, economic, and

social values placed on our fisheries, and maps out a course of action to sustain aquatic

ecosystems for the future.

SPOF II consists of four parts (outlined below) and provides a basis for actions involving

the public and private sectors.

Goal for Ontario’s

Fisheries

To have "healthy aquatic ecosystems that provide sustainable benefits, contributing to

society's present and future requirements for a high quality environment, wholesome

food, employment and income, recreational activity, and cultural heritage"

Objectives

To protect healthy aquatic ecosystems

To rehabilitate degraded aquatic ecosystems

To improve cultural, social and economic benefits from Ontario's fisheries resource

Guiding Principles

Sustainable development

Limit to resource Natural reproduction

Knowledge

Societal benefits

Strategic Management

Actions

Protect and rehabilitate aquatic

ecosystems

Involve the public in decision making Ensure resources are appropriately valued

Improve program management and co-

ordination

Acquire and communicate knowledge Enforce firmly and effectively

1.3.5 Provincial - Ontario Ministry of the Environment

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment is the provincial agency responsible for

enforcing the Environmental Protection Act, Environmental Assessment Act, Nutrient

Management Act, Pesticide Act, Ontario Water Resources Act, and the Clean Water Act.


8

The Environmental Protection Act prohibits the discharge of anything that causes or has

the potential to cause an adverse environmental effect.

The Environmental Assessment Act provides for the protection, conservation and best

management of the environment.

The Nutrient Management Act provides for the management of nutrients applied to

agricultural lands and requires compliance with nutrient management strategies and plans

(discussed in more detail below – Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural

Affairs).

The Pesticides Act and Regulation 914 provide the province's regulatory framework for

pesticide management to protect human health and the natural environment. The OMOE,

through the legislation, regulates the sale, use, transportation, storage and disposal of

pesticides.

The Ontario Water Resources Act prohibits the discharges of any substance that may

impair the quality of any water and Section 34 of the same act requires a person to obtain

a water taking permit if they are taking more than 50,000 litres of water per day from any

watercourse.

Water quantity protection involves managing water withdrawals and maintaining the

recharge that replenishes ground water and sustains ground water discharge to surface

water. In determining whether water is being over-used, or the sustainability of future

supplies, it is necessary to determine how much water must remain in the environment.

Environmental water needs should be defined as a regime of water flows, levels and

quality that is required to sustain a healthy ecosystem. The regime of water flows and

levels that is required to sustain a healthy ecosystem and the tolerance of the ecosystem to

changes should be determined based on hydrology, water quality, geomorphology,

connectivity, and biology.

The science for determining environmental water needs is in its infancy and evolving

rapidly. Building upon existing pilot projects for defining ecological water needs,

research should be undertaken to evaluate methodologies for determining the regime of

water flows, levels and quality required to sustain a healthy ecosystem and for

determining the tolerance of the ecosystem to changes in the hydrologic regime.

Options for managing water taking (i.e. demand management) include managing new and

expanding water taking, implementing water efficiency and water conservation programs

and practices, and maintaining drought contingency plans.

The Clean Water Act received Royal Assent on October 19, 2006 and was enacted on

July 3, 2007. The Act ensures that communities are able to identify potential risks to

their supply of drinking water, and take action to reduce or eliminate these risks.

9

Municipalities, conservation authorities, landowners, farmers, industry, community

groups and the public would all work together to meet common goals.

The legislation establishes source protection areas and requires that a source protection

plan be developed for each area. In areas of the province where there are conservation

authorities, the source protection area is the conservation authority area, and the

conservation authority (the “source protection authority”) has the role of facilitating the

source protection planning process for that area. Additional source protection areas

outside of conservation authority areas may be established by regulations

1.3.6 Provincial - Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural

Affairs

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) works

closely with farmers and other agencies to enhance the protection of aquatic

environments. Several Best Management Practices have been developed to assist farmers

in the protection of fish habitat and water quality. OMAFRA has legislative

responsibilities for the protection of the environment within the Drainage Act and the

Nutrient Management Act.

The Drainage Act is a legislative tool that allows landowners to petition their

municipalities to resolve drainage problems. The municipality administers the legislative

process used to develop drainage works and assesses project cost to landowners within

the drainage system’s watershed. The process ensures public involvement through

consultative meetings and an appeal procedure.

DFO recognizes the important contribution of agriculture to Ontario’s economy and the

contribution that fish habitat in agricultural drains makes towards sustainable fisheries. A

Class Authorization system was developed to strike a balance between the need to protect

fish habitat and the need to provide drainage to agricultural lands. The system

streamlines the process of reviewing the effects of drain maintenance activities on fish

habitat under the Fisheries Act.

The Nutrient Management Act, 2002, (hereafter referred to as the Nutrient

Management Act ) was developed by the OMOE and OMAFRA, as part of the

government's Clean Water Program. The Act provides a framework for setting clear,

consistent standards and environmental protection guidelines for nutrient

management on farms, municipalities and other generators of materials containing

nutrients. It builds on the existing system by giving current best management

practices the force of law, and creating comprehensive, enforceable, province-wide

standards to regulate the management of all land-applied materials containing

nutrients. The Act contains amendments to the Environmental Protection Act, the

Highway Traffic Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act, and

consequential amendments to the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998


10

to ensure consistency and give higher recognition to the standards. The Act was

passed in June 2002. It came into force on July 1, 2003

What farms are covered by the Nutrient Management Act and Regulation?

Currently the Regulation is limited to new farms, and farms that are expanding to become

large operations. It applies to:

Operations that are placing new barns on a separate property where farm

animals will generate more than 5 nutrient units*;

Large livestock operations where there are enough farm animals present to

generate 300 nutrient units or more; and

Existing large livestock facilities that are expanding and will move into the

large category (at or over 300 nutrient units).

(*A nutrient unit is the amount of manure that gives the fertilizer replacement

value of the lower of 43 kg of nitrogen or 55 kilograms of phosphate. For

example, one beef cow may constitute one nutrient unit, while 8 goats could equal

one nutrient unit. A large livestock operation, then, could have more than 300

beef cows or more than 2400 goats to be subject to this regulation, depending on

the relevant calculations made under the Nutrient Management Protocol.)

By September 30, 2003 all new and expanding livestock farms must complete a

nutrient management strategy or plan. On July 1, 2005 these regulations will

apply to all existing operations of 300 nutrient units or more (not just new and

expanding operations). The provincial government decided to postpone extending

this regulation to smaller farms until 2008 at the earliest. Whether they will be

subject to this Regulation depends now on the advice of the Provincial Advisory

Committee on Nutrient Management, the availability of funding and the decisions

of the current government.

1.3.7 Provincial - Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (OMMAH) identifies and

protects provincial interests and promotes sound infrastructure planning, environmental

protection, economic development and safe communities. To achieve this OMMAH is

responsible for several statutes which legislate acceptable land-use direction in Ontario

including the Planning Act, Green Belt Act, 2005, and the Oak Ridges Moraine

Conservation Act.

The Planning Act establishes the foundation for land use planning in Ontario and

describes how land uses may be controlled, and who may control them. Specifically, the

Act:

11

promotes sustainable economic development in a healthy natural environment

within a provincial policy framework

provides for a land use planning system led by provincial policy

integrates matters of provincial interest into provincial and municipal planning

decisions by requiring all decision-makers to have regard to the Provincial Policy

Statement

provides for planning processes that are fair by making them open, accessible,

timely and efficient

encourages co-operation and coordination among various interests

recognizes the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal

councils in planning

To promote provincial interests, such as protecting farmland, natural resources and the

environment, the provincial government has released a Provincial Policy Statement under

the authority of Section 3 of the Planning Act. It provides direction on matters of

provincial interest related to land use planning and development, and promotes the

provincial “policy-led” planning system.

The new Provincial Policy Statement came into effect on March 1, 2005. This coincides

with the effective date of Section 2 of the Strong Communities (Planning Amendment)

Act, 2004, which requires that planning decisions on applications that are subject to the

new PPS “shall be consistent with” the new policies.

The Greenbelt Act, 2005, came into effect on February 24, 2005. It enables the

Lieutenant Governor in Council to make a regulation creating a Greenbelt Area in the

Golden Horseshoe area and to establish a Greenbelt Plan by Order in Council, which

contains land use designations and policies to govern the lands within the Greenbelt Area.

The objectives of the Greenbelt Plan are:

to establish a network of countryside and open space areas which supports the Oak

Ridges Moraine and the Niagara Escarpment;

to sustain the countryside, rural and small towns and contribute to the economic

viability of farming communities;

to preserve agricultural land as a continuing commercial source of food and

employment;

to recognize the critical importance of the agriculture sector to the regional economy;

to provide protection to the land base needed to maintain, restore and improve the

ecological and hydrological functions of the Greenbelt Area;

to promote connections between lakes and the Oak Ridges Moraine and Niagara

Escarpment;

to provide open space and recreational, tourism and cultural heritage opportunities to

support the social needs of a rapidly expanding and increasingly urbanized

population;

to promote linkages between ecosystems and provincial parks or public lands;

to control urbanization of the lands to which the Greenbelt Plan applies;


12

to ensure that the development of transportation and infrastructure proceeds in an

environmentally sensitive manner;

to promote sustainable resource use;

The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, provides authority to establish the Oak

Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan to protect the ecological and hydrological integrity of

the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan governs specific land uses to protect the

ecological and hydrological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine and to ensure a

continuous natural environment for future generations, while providing compatible social

and economic opportunities. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (2001) directs

municipalities to bring their official plans into conformity with the Plan and to ensure that

the decisions they make on development applications conform to the Plan. As such, the

Plan will be implemented mainly at the municipal level. However, where municipal

official plans or zoning bylaws conflict with the provincial policy, the provincial policy

will prevail. Within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, watercourses are

included in the Hydrologically Sensitive Features category, and receive a minimum

vegetation protection buffer of 30 m from any part of the feature. Fish habitat is included

in the Key Natural Heritage Features category, also receiving a minimum vegetation

protection buffer of 30 m from any part of the feature.

The Plan’s water resource policies require municipalities to prepare watershed plans,

water budgets and water conservation plans to incorporate into their official plans within

specified time periods. Restrictions on large-scale development are imposed if this work

is not completed.

1.3.8 Provincial - Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal

The Ontario Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (PIR) is responsible for providing

a broad framework for planning and coordinating the government’s investments in public

infrastructure and for growth planning in the province. PIR has the overall responsibility

for fostering and implementing the government’s long-term plan for growth.

On June 13, Bill 136, the Places to Grow Act 2005 received Royal Assent. The act

provides a legal framework necessary for the government to designate any geographic

area of the province as a growth area and develop a growth plan in collaboration with

local officials and stakeholders to meet specific needs across the province.

The Places to Grow Act enables the government to plan for population growth, economic

expansion and the protection of the environment, agricultural lands and other valuable

resources in a co-ordinated and strategic way. The legislation is provincial in scope and

allows for growth plans in any part of Ontario.

13

A regulation was also passed identifying the Greater Golden Horseshoe as the first area in

the province for which a growth plan would be prepared under the Places to Grow Act.

The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe was finalized and released in June of

2006.

1.3.9 Conservation Authorities

Ontario’s Conservation Authorities are empowered by the Conservation Authorities Act

to undertake programs to further the conservation, restoration, development, and

management of natural resources on a watershed basis. The Conservation Authorities Act

allows regulations that:

Pertain to the use of water

Prohibit or require permission to interfere in any way with the existing channel of a

watercourse or wetland

Prohibit or require a permit to undertake development (construction, structural

alterations, grading, filling) in areas where the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic

beaches, pollution or the conservation of lands may be affected

Conservation Authorities have indirect responsibility to participate in fisheries

management through the Conservation Authorities Act, particularly Ontario Regulation

168. This regulation requires a permit from the conservation authority prior to various

works taking place (e.g. altering a watercourse, constructing any building in the

floodplain or placing fill in a regulated area). Conservation Authorities are also

responsible for watershed planning and play an important role by providing “First on the

Scene” support and by referring potential occurrences to primary agency(ies).

1.3.10 Municipal Level

At the municipal level, fish habitat receives protection indirectly through Official Plan

designation of green space or open space, Zoning By-law, stormwater management, site

plan and subdivision approval, and through development setbacks and by not permitting

land uses that are incompatible with natural heritage objectives.

The Durham Region Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan regulate land use in

the Wilmot Creek watershed under the authority of the Planning Act. An official plan

sets out local, or regional council's policies on how land in a community should be used.

It is prepared with input from citizens and helps to ensure that future planning and

development will meet the specific needs of the community. The new Provincial Policy

Statement (PPS) requires that planning decisions (Official Plans) “shall be consistent

with” the new provincial directives.


14

An official plan deals mainly with issues such as:

where new housing, industry, offices and shops will go

what services like roads, watermains, sewers, parks and schools will be needed

when and in what order parts of your community will grow

The Durham Region Official Plan was adopted by Regional Council in 1991 and

approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in 1993. The plan includes a

Regional Structure that generally consists of urban areas, agricultural areas, a major open

space system and rural settlements. The Durham Region Official Plan also identifies

environmentally sensitive areas (ESA).

Currently, fish habitat is primarily protected through the major open space and

environmental policies which require that development applications in proximity to an

ESA undertake an environmental impact study. It should be noted, however, that the

Region is currently completing their Official Plan Review process which, amongst other

items, will bring the plan into conformity with the Greenbelt Plan and significantly

strengthen the environmental policies. Included in the amendment will be a schedule

designating a Greenbelt natural heritage system and key natural heritage and hydrologic

features.

Consistent with the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the

amendment to the Durham Region Official Plan includes a policy which states that, with

some limited exceptions, development and site alteration is not permitted in key natural

heritage and/or hydrologic features, including any associated vegetation protection zone.

Within urban areas and rural settlements, the vegetation protection zone shall be

determined through an environmental impact study. Outside of these areas, an

environmental impact study will be required for any development or site alteration within

120 metres of a key natural heritage or hydrologic feature to identify the vegetation

protection zone. The vegetation protection zone for wetlands, seepage areas and springs,

fish habitat, permanent and intermittent streams, lakes and significant woodlands will be

a minimum of 30 metres.

Municipalities also work closely with their local Conservation Authorities, through

watershed planning, the development of watershed level fisheries management plans, the

plan review process, and through support of Authority policies and programs.

1.4 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

The Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Plan is an important tool for ensuring the

future protection and maintenance of the fisheries and fish habitat of the creek, however,

benefits to the fishery will only come with the effective implementation of the plan.

Implementing the actions will require a concerted effort between the stakeholders

including federal, provincial and municipal governments, non-governmental

organizations, angling clubs, farmers, land owners and private citizens.

15

To be successful, a committed and enthusiastic Implementation Committee needs to be

established and should include some members that served on the Technical Steering

Committee and Community Advisory Council, as well as other interested stakeholders.

The Implementation Committee will be tasked with coordinating the implementation of

the management strategies and recommendations made in this plan. This will include

developing partnerships, securing resources to complete work, and providing technical

and scientific expertise to implementation teams and individuals. It is important that the

implementation of management actions be monitored to evaluate the success of the FMP

so that the plan can be modified accordingly when scheduled for review.

Only through effective implementation will we protect, maintain and enhance this

important resource.

17

Chapter 2 Introduction

The 97km2 Wilmot Creek watershed contains approximately 173 kilometres of

watercourses including Wilmot, Foster, Hunter, Stalker and Orono creeks and their many

smaller unnamed tributaries. The watershed is situated along the north shore of Lake

Ontario (at a latitude of approximately 43o 54’ N and a longitude of approximately 78

o

36’ W) east of Toronto but within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). It is in the

jurisdiction of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority and provincial fisheries

management zone seventeen (formerly fishing division six) of the Aurora District

OMNR.

The watershed is in the Municipality of Clarington (former Clarke and Darlington

Townships), which is part of the Regional Municipality of Durham. Urban and rural

settlements in this area include Newcastle, Orono, Kirby, and Leskard (Fig. 2.1).

Population and housing statistics for the Municipality of Clarington indicate that the area

will see significant urban development in the coming years. Ward 4 of the Municipality

of Clarington (former Clarke Township), which encompasses the majority of the Wilmot

Creek watershed, has a population of 13,773 people (2006) and is expected to increase by

43% (to 19,700) by 2016. Most of this growth will occur in Newcastle Village

(Municipality of Clarington, Personal Communications, 2007).

Delineation of Fisheries Management Zones

The delineation of fisheries management units within a watershed is often necessary to

facilitate the effective management of areas with common attributes. The rationale and

methodology for the delineation must make strong management sense based on

watershed characteristics such as distinct fish communities, subwatersheds, riverine

habitat categories, unique geology, physiography or any combination of these or other

attributes.

In order to facilitate local stakeholder involvement and the effective implementation of

management strategies, the Wilmot Creek watershed was subdivided into smaller

management units (Fig. 2.2). Seven fisheries management zones (FMZ) were delineated

based on the presence of distinct fish communities, due in part to surficial geology and

the presence of barriers to fish migration. Zone delineation between creek systems in the

watershed was based on an enhanced flow direction grid. The delineation process and

subsequent spatial analysis of attributes within the watershed were performed using

Geographic Information System (GIS) software.

Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics

18

Figure 2.1. Wilmot Creek watershed and its location in relation to major waterbodies,

regional and local municipalities, and the Greater Toronto Area.

19

Figure 2.2. Wilmot Creek watershed delineated into seven fisheries management zones


20

2.0 WILMOT CREEK WATERSHED

Watershed Characteristics

The following sections are intended to provide the reader with a brief summary of the

characteristics of the Wilmot Creek watershed and fisheries management zones. Many of

the topics and concepts discussed here are examined in greater detail in the appendices in

an attempt to create linkages and lead the reader through the interactions of this dynamic

creek system.

Geology and Physiography

The Oak Ridges Moraine is the prominent geological landform in the Wilmot Creek

watershed, separating the streams flowing into Lake Ontario from those flowing into

Georgian Bay, Lake Simcoe and the Trent River. Beginning on the moraine, the

headwaters of Wilmot Creek flow south over the Halton Till and Newmarket Till Plains,

and over glacial deposits left from the Lake Iroquois shoreline and Lake Iroquois Plain

before emptying into Lake Ontario. The diverse physiography in the watershed allows

for cold-water and cool-water habitats in Wilmot Creek and its tributaries and warm-

water habitat in Foster Creek and the lower reaches of Wilmot Creek.

Additional information on the physiography, geology and historical anthropogenic

influences on the watershed and its fisheries are available in The Wilmot Creek Study:

Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Fish Communities in the Wilmot Basin (DesJardins

and Stanfield, 2005).

Water Quality

The major vectors for impaired water quality in a stream include overland runoff (e.g.

rainwater from an impervious parking lot), point source pollution (e.g. sewage and

stormwater outfalls) and atmospheric deposition (e.g. acid rain). Land use activities have

direct implications on local watercourses (See Water Quality and Modeling the

Impacts of Land-use on Aquatic Habitats in Lake Ontario Streams in Appendices).

Urban runoff from impervious surfaces can carry toxic pollutants into neighbouring

streams. Alternatively, land cover like that of forested table lands or vegetated riparian

zones act as a buffer and help to mitigate the effect of land uses. In addition to the above,

there are a number of stressors that affect water quality including livestock access,

leachate from landfill sites, fertilizers and pesticides, excessive erosion from agricultural

land and unvegetated stream banks or streams that are not connected with the floodplain.

There is a lack of available water quality data for the entire Wilmot Creek watershed.

The need for better understanding of water quality and sources of pollution is recognized

as an important step to managing the fisheries in Wilmot Creek and recommendation to

improve our understanding are addressed in tables of Chapter 3.

21

Stream Order

Ordering streams based on the method developed by Strahler (1964) is a common

practice for grouping watercourses based on similar characteristics (e.g. stream size and

flow). Based on this method, single, unbranched tributaries are classified as first order

streams. A second order stream starts at the confluence of two first order streams and

ends at its confluence with another second order stream, forming a third order stream, and

so on.

With increasing stream order comes increasing stream size, flow, habitat complexity, in-

stream productivity and fish species diversity. Typically, first to third order streams are

headwaters with high gradient and erosion potential. Fourth to sixth order streams are

wider with riffle and pool areas, greater depositional substrate (e.g. sand), and the power

to move large woody material.

Stream order was determined for the Wilmot Creek watershed (Fig. 2.3) using 1:10,000

Ontario Base Map (OBM) data. A summary of stream order can be seen in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Summary of Strahler stream order in the Wilmot Creek watershed.

Stream

Order

Number of

Streams

Total Stream

Length (km)

Proportion of

Total Stream Length

First 90 73.4 42.5

Second 22 50.3 29.1

Third 6 28.4 16.5

Fourth 2 11.9 6.9

Fifth 1 8.6 5.0

TOTAL 121 172.7 100

Stream Slope

Stream slope is a major factor in controlling stream morphology including the rate of

erosion and deposition of substrate in a watercourse. Watercourses with steep slopes are

typically straighter with high velocities and erosion potential than those with low slopes.

The resulting habitat characteristics in these streams are high ratios of riffles and larger

substrate like cobbles and boulders in reaches with high slopes and high ratios of pools

and fine substrates like sands and silts in those with low slopes. A summary and

distribution of stream characteristics by stream slope and the proportions of each of these

habitat types in the Wilmot Creek watershed can be found in Table 2.2 and Figure 2.4

respectively.


22

Table 2.2. Summary of stream morphology and substrate and the length (km) and

proportion (in parentheses) of these attributes in the Wilmot Creek watershed.

Slope

(%)

Stream

Length and

Proportion

Characteristics Substrate

0.0 – 0.3 2.03

(1.1)

typically sinuous; greater pool-to-riffle ratio sands and silts

0.3 – 1.0 83.44

(47.2)

relatively sinuous; more or less even pool-

to-riffle ratio

gravels and

cobbles

1.0 – 5.0 90.86

(51.4)

riffles out-number pools; higher water

velocities; less sinuous

large gravels,

cobbles

and boulders

> 5.0 0.43

(0.2)

riffles predominate; water velocities and

erosional forces high; typically straight

stream channel

boulders,

cobble and

hard clay

23

Figure 2.3. Strahler stream order of all watercourses within the Wilmot Creek

watershed.


24

Figure 2.4. Stream slope for all watercourses within the Wilmot Creek watershed.

25

Instream Barriers

Instream barriers can include natural barriers like beaver dams and log jams, and human-

built water control structures including culverts, weirs, and dams, which are obstructions

to fish migration. These obstructions can sometimes separate upstream fish communities

from those downstream, in some cases providing protection from competition. For

example, populations of native brook trout in the headwaters are particularly vulnerable

to interspecific competition from migratory salmonids and barriers provide a refuge for

these communities. However, while the barrier might seem beneficial in this case, the

results of long-term isolation can have detrimental effects on genetic diversity (Wofford

et al. 2004, Novinger and Rahel 2003). In addition to obstructing fish, these barriers

impede the natural passage of wood and sediment and can have an impact on water

quality and fish habitat.

There are relatively few human-built barriers to fish migration in the Wilmot Creek

watershed compared to other watersheds in the GTA. At this time there are three known

barriers (Fig. 2.5). These include the Orono Mill Pond dam in Orono Creek, which is a

barrier to all fish, and partial barriers (perched culverts, barriers to non-jumping fish) at

the CPR crossing on the mainstem of Wilmot Creek below the third concession and at the

Highway 35/115 crossing on the east branch of Orono Creek.

Figure 2.5. Instream Barriers in the Wilmot Creek watershed.


26

Land Use/Land Cover

Land use in the Wilmot Creek watershed is predominantly agricultural (Fig. 2.6). In

2002, approximately 52% of the total land use in the watershed was for agricultural

purposes, of which intensive agriculture accounted for over 43%. Other major land use

and land cover types include forest, cultural habitats, rural development and urbanized

land (Table 2.3).

Table 2.3. Proportion of land uses and land cover types in the Wilmot Creek watershed

and fisheries management zones. Land use/land cover data was derived from the 2003

GRCA Ecological Land Classification System (ELC). Note that some land cover types

(e.g. treed swamps) are included in both forest and wetland habitat groupings.

Land Use/Land Cover Watershed Fisheries Management Zones

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Agriculture 52.0 0.0 56.4 58.6 44.3 47.9 68.9 46.3

Intensive 43.5 0.0 53.2 56.6 40.3 37.6 59.9 35.3

Non-intensive 8.6 0.0 3.2 2.1 4.0 10.3 9.0 11.0

Forest 24.3 14.4 13.4 9.1 30.6 36.2 12.4 29.5

Coniferous Forest 7.5 0.0 1.8 2.8 12.1 18.6 2.3 8.0

Deciduous Forest 5.2 9.1 4.0 2.4 4.7 1.8 3.8 7.2

Mixed Forest 5.8 0.0 1.6 0.2 7.9 9.9 4.4 6.7

Coniferous Treed Swamp 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Deciduous Treed Swamp 0.3 5.3 0.6 1.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1

Mixed Treed Swamp 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1

Cultural Woodlands 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.8 1.0 3.4 0.7 0.5

Cultural Plantations 4.3 0.0 3.5 0.2 5.0 2.1 1.0 6.8

Wetland 1.5 65.1 4.1 6.2 0.3 0.4 1.8 0.5

Meadow Marsh 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0

Shallow Marsh 0.2 44.3 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2

Coniferous Treed Swamp 0.2 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2

Deciduous Treed Swamp 0.3 5.3 0.6 1.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1

Mixed Treed Swamp 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1

Thicket Swamp 0.2 15.5 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Shallow Aquatic 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0

Cultural Habitats 15.4 22.0 18.5 9.3 16.1 15.1 13.1 17.2

Meadow 7.2 22.0 11.9 6.0 6.3 6.4 8.5 6.9

Plantation 4.3 0.0 3.5 0.2 5.0 2.1 1.0 6.8

Savannah 0.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.8 0.9 0.3

Thicket 2.4 0.0 1.8 2.3 2.5 1.4 2.0 2.8

Woodland 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.8 1.0 3.4 0.7 0.5

Rural Development 3.6 0.0 2.2 4.6 7.6 4.7 4.4 2.2

Urban Development 3.5 0.0 6.7 12.0 2.6 0.1 0.0 3.5

Other 5.7 3.8 4.3 4.2 3.9 1.4 2.7 8.4

Open Beach Bar 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Aggregate Extraction 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6

Manicured Open Space 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 3.0

Road 2.6 0.0 4.3 3.3 2.4 1.4 1.7 2.8

27

Figure 2.6. Land use/land cover in the Wilmot Creek watershed. Land use/land cover

data was derived from the 2003 GRCA Ecological Land Classification System (ELC).


28

Forest Cover

Environment Canada suggests a minimum of 30% forest cover in Areas of Concern

(AOC) watersheds (Environment Canada 2004). Currently 24% of the watershed is

forested, the majority of which is located along the mainstem and headwaters of Wilmot

Creek and in the lower portions of Stalker Creek. While the Environment Canada

guideline is largely based on terrestrial species, specifically birds, it is known that more

empirical evidence on the effect of forest loss on non-bird species is needed.

Nonetheless, these guidelines are suggested for the Wilmot Creek watershed, recognizing

that forest cover plays an important role in table lands, assisting in the infiltration of

water and resulting maintenance of the hydrograph.

Forest cover in the Wilmot Creek watershed was measured using GIS and ELC data.

Naturally vegetated coniferous, deciduous and mixed forests, and treed swamp types

were included in the analysis, in addition to cultural woodlands and plantations.

Wetland Cover

It is estimated that by 1982, 33.4% of Durham Region’s wetlands had been lost, primarily

by conversion to agricultural land (Snell 1988). Currently, just 1.5% of the Wilmot

Creek watershed is comprised of wetland cover, most of which is located in the coastal

wetland in Fisheries Management Zone One.

Based on experience in the Great Lakes Basin, Environment Canada suggests that

approximately 10 percent of a watershed should be composed of wetland habitats

(Environment Canada 2004). Wetlands are recognized for their ability to store run-off

thereby minimizing peak flows and for helping to maintain base flows by aiding in

groundwater recharge. In addition to these attributes, wetlands play an important role in

improving water quality and providing essential habitat for fish and wildlife.

Riparian Habitat

Riparian habitat refers to the vegetation or cover along the banks of the stream corridor.

Ecologically, riparian vegetation helps to maintain bank stability thereby decreasing

erosion and shades the stream helping to maintain coldwater habitat. In addition, the

contribution of organic and woody material from riparian vegetation provides cover for

aquatic species and helps to maintain sediment regimes. Lastly, it provides habitat for

insects which are a food source for fish.

Riparian buffers provide greater benefits to smaller order streams (first to third order) due

to the characteristics of these watercourses, (e.g. high slope, fast-flowing water, narrow

width, etc.). As a result, Environment Canada recommends that riparian plantings be

prioritized towards lower order watercourses (Environment Canada 2004). A summary

of vegetated stream length by Strahler stream order for the Wilmot Creek watershed can

be seen in Table 2.4.

29

Table 2.4 Proportion of vegetated stream length by Strahler stream order in the Wilmot

Creek watershed. Riparian vegetation data was derived from the 2003 GRCA Ecological

Land Classification System (ELC)

Riparian Cover

Stream Order

1st 2

nd 3

rd 4

th 5

th All

Vegetated 27.3 55.6 70.5 84.8 50.3 47.8

Other 72.7 44.3 29.5 15.2 49.7 52.2

Riparian habitat was measured in the Wilmot Creek watershed using GIS and Ecological

Land Classification (ELC) data on 30 metres from each side of the watercourse.

Vegetated areas included natural forest and treed swamps habitats in addition to cultural

forests (plantations and woodlands).

It should be noted that riparian vegetation generally refers to woody vegetation and may

not take into account natural grassy vegetation which may be sufficient and possibly

preferable in some areas (e.g. on the banks of first order streams). It also should be noted

that while all analyses were performed on a 30 metre buffer of the watercourse, which is

a commonly accepted minimum width (EC 2004, OMAH 2002), it may be insufficient in

some areas (i.e. in some areas sufficient riparian habitat may include the meander belt

width plus 30 metres to account for future movement of the watercourse) (See Riparian

Vegetation in Appendices). While the 30 metre buffer is a guideline, it is based solely

on fisheries values and there is increasing scientific support to extend this guideline to 50

metres (EC 2004). Additional criteria including floodplain area, slope stability and

wildlife may result in much wider zones.

Land Disturbance Index (LDI)

Human land use has direct and indirect effects on physical, chemical, and biological

characteristics of streams. In light of future development pressures facing Southern

Ontario streams, relating ecological condition to varying levels of development is

essential to help predict and mitigate impacts ensuring that irreversible damages do not

occur. The use of models to predict the impacts of land disturbance has become a

powerful tool and is well represented in scientific literature (Kilgour and Stanfield 2006,

Stanfield and Kilgour 2006, Stanfield et al. 2006).

To quantify the relationship between land use disturbance and aquatic ecosystem health

in southern Ontario streams, Stanfield and Kilgour (2006) developed a locally derived

model called the Land Disturbance Index (or LDI) which incorporates fish, benthic

invertebrates, in-stream habitat and landscape data from sites across the north shore of

Lake Ontario, including Wilmot Creek.

The use of LDI will help to generate landscape targets to ensure the maintenance of

aquatic health within the Wilmot system. The model predicts a threshold response for

fish communities in response to increased land disturbance in which there is a presence of


30

salmonids in streams with low amounts of impervious cover and an absence of salmonids

in streams with high amounts of impervious cover (Stanfield and Kilgour 2006) (See

Modeling the Impacts of Land-use on Aquatic Habitats in Lake Ontario Streams in

Appendices). In the following sections, LDI values (thresholds) are given for each

fisheries management zone as they relate to the proportions of land use within and

upstream of each catchment.

Land Use Planning

Like all watersheds in the GTA, Wilmot Creek will see future development. The

implications of this development will be additional pressures on the coldwater fishery,

which serves as an indicator of ecosystem health. To ensure the long-term health of this

ecosystem, any future land use planning must consider appropriate fish habitat protection

measures. During the early stages of the planning process, the proponents, DFO, OMNR,

OMOE and the GRCA ensure that approved developments meet the legislative

requirements of the Planning Act, the Environmental Assessment Act, the Fisheries Act,

the Public Lands Act, the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, the Ontario Water

Resources Act and the Conservation Authorities Act.

Construction timing windows for in-water works are set by the OMNR based on periods

of fish spawning for warm and coldwater species (Table 2.5). Both warm and cold water

fish communities are present in the Wilmot Creek watershed; therefore, any project

planning must take these timing windows into account in their respective areas to ensure

there is minimal impact to the fishery (Fig. 2.7).

Table 2.5. Construction timing windows for in-water works in southern Ontario.

Habitat Category Timing Window Conditions

Cold Water July 1st to September 15

th N/A

Warm Water July 1st to March 31

st Where migratory species are present,

cold-water timing windows may apply to

ensure passage to spawning habitat is

maintained.

Presence of Species at Risk may result in

the requirement of a cold-water timing

window.

The following sections will describe in detail the attributes of each fisheries management

zone, specifically the extent and size of the zones, length of watercourses within the

zones and a summary of land use and surficial geology. Accompanying the text are

figures to display the extent and location of land use and land cover types for use in

understanding the processes at work in the watershed and identifying opportunities for

reforestation, riparian plantings, etc.

31

Figure 2.7. Thermal Regimes of Wilmot Creek watercourses and their associated

construction timing windows for in-water works.


32

Watershed Fish Community Objectives As mentioned in the Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario (Stewart et al. 1999),

to be effective, fish-community objectives must:

Reflect the most-current and complete scientific understanding of the watershed

Be responsive to the social, economic, and cultural needs of fishery stakeholders

The management recommendations and fish community objectives of the Wilmot Creek

FMP are based on current science and a multidisciplinary understanding of the watershed.

They also take into account the social, economic and cultural needs of the fishery

stakeholders which were identified through the public consultation process. Through this

process, we found that the stakeholders of Wilmot Creek greatly value the trout and

salmon fishery, specifically native brook trout and migratory naturalized rainbow trout,

although species preferences varied among individual anglers and angling clubs. All

stakeholders supported the principles of native-species rehabilitation, including

expanding the range of resident brook trout. Atlantic salmon, although extirpated and the

subject of current restoration initiatives are widely regarded as being one of the most

desirable and highly prized salmonids due to their native history in the watershed.

The following objectives will guide fisheries management recommendations in Wilmot

Creek. Objectives are described for the entire watershed, and each fisheries management

zone. Management actions and recommendations to support these fish community

objectives are summarized for the entire watershed and by fisheries management zone in

Chapter 3.

The Wilmot Creek fish community will be composed of diverse, self-sustaining native

fish species characterized by:

OBJECTIVE INDICATOR

1. Maintenance of a diverse native fish

community including both sport

and non-sport fishes

Continued presence and steady

abundance of all native fish during

monitoring and assessment

programs

2. Maintenance and/or increase of

existing brook trout abundance and

distribution into favourable habitats

Steady or increased catch rates and

presence of brook trout during


3. Reintroduction of extirpated

Atlantic salmon into their historical

range

Increased catch rates and presence

of Atlantic salmon during


programs

4. Population levels of yellow perch,

smallmouth bass, largemouth bass,

and sunfishes attractive to anglers

in the lower reaches of the system

(e.g. within the coastal wetland)

Maintenance of catch rates during

assessment programs and in creel

surveys of recreational anglers

33

5. Protection and restoration of

species at risk populations and

distribution, including Atlantic

salmon and northern brook

lamprey, and those species that are

identified as being potentially at

risk (brassy minnow, rainbow darter

and American brook lamprey)

Steady or increased catch rates for

species at risk during assessment

programs

The Wilmot Creek native fish community will be supplemented with self sustaining

naturalized salmonids characterized by:

OBJECTIVE INDICATOR

1. Maintenance and increase of

migratory salmonid abundance

including rainbow trout and

Chinook salmon


presence of naturalized salmonids

during monitoring and assessment

2.1 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ZONE ONE

Characteristics

This 0.14km2 fisheries management zone is located directly adjacent to Lake Ontario and

includes the regionally significant Newcastle Coastal Marsh (Fig. 2.8), a designated life

science Area of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSI). The fish community is dominated

by warm-water species including yellow perch (Perca flavescens) and northern pike

(Esox lucius) from Lake Ontario, however, the area is a migratory corridor and potential

staging area for adult and juvenile salmonids and will be managed accordingly. The LDI

value in this zone is considered moderate (6.5 to 8.5) and able to support coldwater

migratory species like rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

The surficial geology in zone one is composed largely of modern river deposits (84%),

with Newmarket Till (14%) and silt and clay glacial lake deposits (2%) contributing the

remainder. Land cover is dominated by wetland habitats (65%) including shallow

marsh, and thicket and deciduous swamps. The remainder of the zone is composed of

cultural meadow, deciduous forest and open beach bar. Fourteen percent of this zone is

Crown land (Samuel Wilmot Nature Area).


34

Figure 2.8. Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 1.

Fish Community Objectives

The Fisheries Management Zone 1 fish community will be composed of diverse, self-

sustaining native fish species characterized by:

OBJECTIVE INDICATOR


smallmouth bass, largemouth bass,

and sunfishes attractive to anglers

in the lower reaches of the system

(e.g. within the coastal wetland)




This zone will continue to act as an important migratory route and staging area for

salmonids and will facilitate passage to upstream spawning areas.

35

2.2 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ZONE TWO

Characteristics This 4.4km2 fisheries management zone is located upstream from the coastal marsh to the

CPR tracks below the 3rd

Concession where the culvert is a barrier to non-jumping fish

species moving upstream (Fig. 2.9). The area contains approximately 5.6 kilometres of

the mainstem of Wilmot Creek and its tributaries. These waters have moderate to good

LDI ratings which can support migratory salmonids, the species that this zone will be

managed for. Salmonid spawning does occur in this zone; however, catch from

assessment programs has typically been dominated by warm-water species like darters

and cyprinids. The zone is also an important staging, fall feeding and over-wintering

area, and a migratory route for adult and juvenile salmonids. Additional information on

the distribution and abundance of fish species in this zone can be found in the Wilmot

Creek background study (DesJardins and Stanfield, 2005).

The surficial geology in zone two is composed of silt and clay glacial lake deposits

(70%), Newmarket Till (16%) and modern river deposits (14%). This area has been

geomorphically unstable with extensive erosion and channel movement (Desjardins and

Stanfield 2005). In recent years, a plunge pool which acted as a holding area for

migrating fish located downstream of the railway bridge has become filled with material

likely originating from the meander cut that occurred immediately upstream of the

crossing. The outlet from this pool has been elevated to the point where there is no

longer a drop from the culverts to the river. It is uncertain how long this feature will last,

because the river continues to down cut into parent material, exposing clay in many areas.

Land use in this zone is predominantly agricultural (56%). Urbanized land, roads and

rural development from the village of Newcastle account for 13% of this zone. Forest

and wetland cover accounts for 13% and 4% respectively. Cultural habitats including

meadow, thicket and savannah account for 19%. Located in the area along the creek is a

strip of Crown land (Wilmot Creek Fish Area) covering approximately 9% of the zone, of

which 49% is the Newcastle Coastal Marsh ANSI extending from zone one to the CNR

tracks south of Highway 401.


The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 2 will be composed of diverse, self-


OBJECTIVE INDICATOR



range




programs


36


37


sustaining naturalized salmonid species characterized by:

OBJECTIVE INDICATOR


existing migratory salmonid

abundance


of rainbow trout and Chinook

salmon during monitoring and

assessment programs


resident brown trout abundance Increased catch rates and presence

of brown trout during monitoring

and assessment programs

2.3 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ZONE THREE

Characteristics

This management zone is the subwatershed of Foster Creek with the exception of the

outlet into the coastal marsh. It drains approximately 9.6km2 of land and contains

approximately 15.3 kilometres of watercourses (Fig. 2.10). The Foster Creek

subwatershed has LDI values that exceed the threshold at which salmonid species are

considered absent (LDI = >8.5). As a result, the fish community is dominated by warm-

water species that are more tolerant to high temperatures and other factors that are caused

by a high proportion of urbanized land and intensive agriculture, or a lack of sufficient

forest and wetland cover.

Located within the Foster Creek subwatershed is the village of Newcastle. The majority

of this area is currently zoned as medium density, urban, or future urban residential as

outlined in the Municipality of Clarington’s Official Plan. By area, the Foster Creek

catchment contains the largest proportion of urbanized land (12%) of any fisheries

management zone, and rural development contributes another 5%. While there is a large

proportion of urbanized land, the landscape is dominated by agricultural land (59%).

Land cover types in zone three include wetland (6%), forest (9%) and cultural non-forest

habitats (8%). The surficial geology in this area is composed of Newmarket Till (45%)

and glacial lake deposits including silt and sand (29%), silt and clay (24%) and sand and

gravels (2%) substrates.

The Foster Creek subwatershed will be managed for migratory salmonids in an attempt to

restore a coldwater fishery and protect the coldwater migratory area and regionally

significant coastal marsh located downstream.


38


39




OBJECTIVE INDICATOR



abundance




assessment programs

2. Increased capacity of Foster Creek

to support coldwater fish species Increased presence of coldwater

species during monitoring and

assessment programs

2.4 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ZONE FOUR

Characteristics

This 10.2km2 catchment will be managed for migratory salmonids. It encompasses

approximately 22.3 kilometres of watercourses, including the mainstem of Wilmot Creek

from the CPR tracks upstream to the upper extent of the Lake Iroquois shoreline (close

proximity to Concession Road 6/ Taunton Road). This zone also includes the mainstem

of Orono Creek from its confluence with Wilmot Creek to the full barrier dam at the

Orono Mill Pond and east branch of Orono Creek to the crossing at Highway 35/115

where the culvert is a barrier to non-jumping fish species moving upstream (Fig. 2.11).

The LDI values in this zone are good in Wilmot Creek and moderate in Orono Creek,

likely the result of the large proportion of intensive agriculture occurring upstream in the

headwaters of zones 6 and 7. The waters support fish communities dominated by cold-

water migratory species including Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and

rainbow trout. The production of these species in zone four likely exceeds all other

zones. Additional information on the distribution and abundance of fish species in this

zone can be found in the Wilmot Creek background study (DesJardins and Stanfield,

2005).

Downstream of the 4th Concession to the 3rd

Concession, the morphology of the river

varies ranging from sections with high energy regimes (immediately downstream of the

4th Concession) to highly meandering sections of river with well defined pools and stable

banks (Desjardins and Stanfield 2005). Substrates in these areas are characteristic of

their respective energy regimes with coarse substrates and an abundance of riffles in high

energy areas, to areas that consist of very shallow homogenous substrate (fine gravels and

sands) in low energy areas. Downstream of the 3rd Concession to the CPR bridge, the

river flows through a stretch where riparian vegetation is mostly meadow interspersed

with narrow bands of forest, particularly on the west bank.


40


41

The surficial geology in this zone is comprised of glacial lake deposits including silt,

clay, sand and gravel (72%), modern river deposits (24%) and Newmarket Till (4%).

Like all other management zones in the watershed, land use is predominantly agricultural

(44%). Other major land uses and land cover types include forest (31%), rural

development (8%) and cultural meadow, savannah and thicket habitats (10%). Located

in this zone north of Concession Road 4 are the Orono Crown Lands (18%).




OBJECTIVE INDICATOR



range




programs



OBJECTIVE INDICATOR



abundance




assessment programs





2.5 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ZONE FIVE

Characteristics This zone is being managed for migratory salmonids. The waters of this 8.7km2

catchment include the lower portions of the Hunter Creek and Stalker Creek tributaries,

approximately 16.6 kilometres of watercourse that contain moderate and good LDI values

respectively. The zone extends from the Wilmot-Stalker Creek confluence to the upper

extent of the Lake Iroquois shoreline (Fig. 2.12). This portion of the drainage area is

partially utilized by migratory salmonids but in diminished numbers compared to the

mainstem of Wilmot Creek. This can likely be attributed to insufficient habitat in some

reaches. As in other fisheries management zones, land use is predominantly agricultural

(48%), most of which is concentrated around Hunter Creek. This manifests itself through

higher water temperatures and lower base flows.


42


In addition to agriculture, this zone also has the highest proportion of forest (36%) in the

watershed. Other land uses and land cover types include cultural meadow, savannah and

thicket habitats (10%), and rural development (5%). The surficial geology in this area is

composed almost entirely of glacial lake deposits including silt and sand (54%), sand and

gravel (25%) and silt and clay (13%) with the remainder being evenly distributed

between Newmarket Till and modern river deposits. This is slightly different from the

geology in the mainstem of Wilmot Creek and likely contributes to the diminished use by

migratory salmonids.




OBJECTIVE INDICATOR



range




43

programs



OBJECTIVE INDICATOR



abundance




assessment programs





2.6 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ZONE SIX

Characteristics This 17.9km2 fisheries management zone contains approximately 35.3 kilometres of

watercourses, including all portions of Hunter and Stalker Creeks and their tributaries

north of the Lake Iroquois shoreline and the east branch of Orono Creek north of

Highway 35/115 where the culvert is a barrier to non-jumping fish species moving

upstream (Fig. 2.13). The LDI values in these waters range from poor to moderate in the

headwaters of Orono and Hunter Creeks and good in the headwaters of Stalker Creek.

This portion of the watershed is dominated primarily by a degraded coldwater fish

community. Rainbow trout have been sampled from the upper portions of Stalker Creek;

however, yearly access of spawning adults is questionable.

As in all other fisheries management zones, agricultural land (69%) dominates the

landscape, but in higher proportions than any other zone. The lack of forested land and

appropriate riparian buffers has resulted in increased water temperatures and decreased

base flows, attributes which make the habitat insufficient for sensitive salmonids like

brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Many opportunities exist to improve the habitat in

this zone (see Chapter 3); therefore, the area is being managed for native brook trout in an

attempt to restore the resident coldwater fishery. In addition to agriculture, land uses and

land cover types include cultural meadow and thicket habitats (11%), forest (12%), rural

development (4%) and wetland (2%).

This zone lies primarily within the Newmarket Till (65%) and Halton Till plains (19%).

The remainder of the surficial geology is composted of silt and sand glacial lake deposits

(10%) and modern river deposits (4%). It is important to note that although the

northernmost 34% of this zone lies on the Oak Ridges Moraine, the streams in this zone

do not originate from moraine sediments, but rather from the Halton and Newmarket Till.


44


The fish community of Fisheries Management Zone 6 will be composed of diverse, self-


OBJECTIVE INDICATOR









range




programs


45

2.7 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ZONE SEVEN

Characteristics

This largest fisheries management zone covers 46.3km2 and has the lowest LDI values in

the watershed which can likely be attributed to the high percentage of forested land, most

of which is concentrated around Wilmot Creek. As a result, this zone will be managed

for brook trout. Zone seven includes all waters draining into the mainstem of Wilmot

Creek (LDI = good) north of Taunton Road and all waters draining into the mainstem of

Orono Creek (LDI = moderate) north of the Orono Mill Pond dam (Fig. 2.14). The

combined length of these watercourses is approximately 77.4 kilometres. The waters are

dominated by coldwater species with brown trout (Salmo trutta) and slimy sculpin

(Cottus cognatus) dominating catches in the mainstem of Wilmot Creek and brook trout

being the dominant species in Orono Creek. Additional information on the distribution

and abundance of fish species in this zone can be found in the Wilmot Creek background

study (DesJardins and Stanfield, 2005).

The upper reaches of Wilmot Creek (upstream of Concession 8) appear to be highly

stable in terms of flow, morphology and structure (Desjardins and Stanfield 2005). Once

off the moraine however, the system runs through long stretches dominated by wood

(Concessions 4 – 7) where, in recent years, the river width has increased in response to

what is likely an inability to move the large volumes of wood and sediment. Braids are

now common in northern reaches, and substrates which were formally dominated by

gravels are now mostly sand. Gravel areas now occur only at tails of pools and

upwellings at the bottom end of log-jams.

The surficial geology in this zone is composed of Oak Ridges Moraine deposits from fine

sand to gravel (29%), Halton Till (26%), sand (10%), Newmarket Till (8%), early

postglacial (8%) and modern (5%) river deposits, glacial lake deposits of varying types

(7%), silt (4%) and sand and gravel glacial river deposits (1%). Approximately 46% of

this zone is agricultural land, much of which is concentrated around the headwaters of

Orono Creek, resulting in diminished LDI values. Other major land use and land cover

types include forest (30%), cultural meadow and thicket habitats (10%), aggregate

extraction (3%), manicured open space (3%), rural development (2%) and urbanized land

(2%). The northern most 56% of this zone lies on the Oak Ridges Moraine.




OBJECTIVE INDICATOR









range





46


47

Chapter 3

3.0 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Fisheries management needs to address both large and small scales issues within the

watershed. This involves implementing management strategies and recommendations

that are applicable to numerous management zones within the watershed and

implementing management strategies that focus on issues related to a specific

management zone or a specific site.

During the development of the Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Plan, a number of

issues were identified. The list of issues incorporates those identified through the public

consultation process, results of monitoring and fisheries assessment, and knowledge of

past, present and estimated future anthropogenic impacts in the watershed. These were

summarized and categorized into four broad areas, including:

Habitat Issues

Biodiversity Issues

Resource Use Issues

Science and Information Requirements

These issues have been further broken down into watershed issues and zone specific

issues. Watershed issues are those that are common amongst two or more fisheries

management zones, while zone specific issues are unique to a particular management

area, requiring their own recommended management actions and implementation

strategies. It is important to note that the zone specific issues are listed in addition to the

watershed issues which also must be taken into account in each zone.

The following tables outline recommended management actions and implementations to

address issues identified in the watershed and achieve the goals and objectives of the

fisheries management plan. Throughout the tables there are often various strategies and

management options that are related (i.e. numerous strategies may help to achieve the

same goals). These “links” are identified in the text where they apply. In order to keep

the tables as simple as possible, certain concepts are explained in greater detail in the

appendices. These appendices are arranged by broad issue categories similar to how they

appear in the tables.

49

Watershed Wide Issues

&

Management Recommendations


The Wilmot Creek fish community will be composed of diverse, self-sustaining native fish

species characterized by:

OBJECTIVE INDICATOR


community including sport and non-

sport fishes



monitoring and assessment programs



distribution into favorable habitats




3. Reintroduction of extirpated Atlantic

salmon into their historical range Increased catch rates and presence of

Atlantic salmon during monitoring and

assessment programs


smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and

sunfishes attractive to anglers in the

lower reaches of the system (e.g.

within the coastal wetland)




5. Protection and restoration of species at

risk populations and distribution,

including Atlantic salmon and northern

brook lamprey, and those species that

are identified as being potentially at

risk (brassy minnow, rainbow darter

and American brook lamprey)

Steady or increased catch rates for

species at risk during assessment

programs

The Wilmot Creek native fish community will be supplemented with self sustaining naturalized

salmonids characterized by:

OBJECTIVE INDICATOR

1. Maintenance and increase of migratory

salmonid abundance including rainbow

trout and Chinook salmon


presence of naturalized salmonids


Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.0: Watershed Wide Issues

Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s

1.1.1.1 Work with existing provincial

policies, legislation and programs to

protect existing forests and optimize

reforestation activities

L P P P P H

Utilize municipal Woodlot Protection By-

law. Determine optimal areas for

reforestation for each FMZ. Utilize

existing programs that facilitate

reforestation projects (Oak Ridges

Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP)

Greenbelt Plan, CFWIP, Trees Ontario,

Natural Heritage Strategy, Durham 4H

Forestry Club, GRCA Clean Water -

Healthy Land Financial Assistance

Program (CWHLFAP), etc.)

Focus restoration

around waters with

high Land

Disturbance Index

(LDI) values (see

Figure A6 in

Appendices)

1.1.1.2 Identify priority areas for

reforestation based on land

disturbance, patch conductivity,

recharge areas

P L

Priority areas include Orono, Hunter and

Foster Creek and their tributaries (See

Figure A6 in Appendices).

30% forest cover by

FMZ (Currently at

24.3% or 2,365

hectares).

1.1.1.3 Identify areas for potential

wetland creationP P

Inventory historical wetlands to identify

areas for rehabilitation. Consider

opportunities to convert off-line ponds

into wetlands

10% wetland cover

by FMZ (Currently

at 1.29% or 148

hectares)

1.2.1.1 Determine appropriate

hydrograph (peak flow and base flow)

for each of the management zones

P L L P H

Establish and conduct a base flow and

peak flow sampling approach

- Sampling approach must be structured

to accommodate work underway in other

watersheds -

E.g.. Creek systems (Wilmot, Ganaraska,

Cobourg) intensively sampled on a

rotation. -

Consider opportunities to utilize public

involvement (e.g. regular recording of

water levels from stakes in the

watercourse)

Sampling design by

2007. Field

collection to begin

2007-2008.

Hydrograph for

each zone by 2008.

1.0 HABITAT ISSUES (See Habitat sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)

TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS

PR

IOR

ITY

1.1

Insufficient

Forest/

Wetland

Cover

1.1.1 Maintain or

increase

forest/wetland cover

to satisfy FMZ

objectives

1.2

Insufficient

Water

Quantity

1.2.1 Maintain or

enhance appropriate

hydrograph to satisfy

Fish Community

Objectives

Watershed Wide Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 50


Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

1.2.1.2 Establish flow regime (peak

flow and base flow) objectives based

on the results of the hydrograph

study.

P L L

Develop zone specific objectives for the

hydrograph

Completed by

2008, into policy

2009.

1.2.1.3 Incorporate flow objectives

into regulatory frameworkP L L

GRCA will facilitate the incorporation of

the generic guidelines

2009

1.2.1.4 Develop a better

understanding of surface and

groundwater interactions and how

they are affected by groundwater

supply

P L

Continue watershed work specifically

hydrogeology modeling to determine

areas of significant recharge and

discharge, including historical wetland

information.

2008

1.2.1.5 Mitigate areas with altered

flowP L P

Develop project aimed at restoring

natural flow

2008

1.2.1.6 Support and incorporate the

results of the water budget (balance

water withdrawals with gains)

currently under development

L P

Continue work to complete water budget 2008

1.2.1.7 Assess extent of unpermitted

water takings

L P

Conduct water taking surveys.

Coordinate with known unpermitted water

takers (those taking less than 50,000

litres per day) to educate and document

extent of water extraction.

2008

1.2.1.8 Permit water extractions to

avoid adverse impacts to aquatic

species and habitats P L P

Support ongoing initiatives to permit,

monitor and enforce permitted water

extractions. Consider increased

monitoring and enforcement if necessary.

Ongoing

1.2.1.9 Promote seasonal overland

water storage outside of the floodplain

(off-line ponds) for irrigation/water

taking purposes as opposed to direct

withdrawals L P P P

Educate community on existing financial

incentive programs and conduct

workshops regarding best management

practices for water use. Work with

stewards to implement.

Ongoing

1.2

Insufficient

Water

Quantity

1.2.1 Maintain or

enhance appropriate


Fish Community

Objectives



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

1.2.1.10 Reduce overland runoff

through maintaining / increasing

recharge areas (increase

permeability). Link to Strategy 1.1.1. P P L P

Maintain or increase permeability of lands

through vegetation management/planting

(woodlot conservation, agricultural best

management practices, reforestation).

Use appropriate legislation to

acknowledge tax incentives for

conservation easements.

Ongoing

1.2.1.11 Implement BMPs for

stormwater management to reduce

peak flow L

Municipality to develop or review

operational guidelines to manage future

development in the watershed for

ensuring that site alterations support the

hydrograph objectives (Action 1.2.1.2)

Ongoing

1.2.1.12 Determine the location and

extent of tile drains in the Wilmot

catchment and assess the impact on

the hydrograph

L P

Research Ontario Ministry of Agriculture,

Food and Rural Affairs information on tile

locations

Ongoing

1.2.1.13 Secure, restore, and or

create wetlands for flow regulation

(link to Action 1.1.1.3)P L P

Compare existing to historic/ potential

wetlands. Set targets for restoration

based on differences. Create priority list

of areas for wetland restoration projects.

2008 and on

1.3 Degraded

Water Quality

1.3.1 Improve water

quality

1.3.1.1 Increase water quality

monitoring in Wilmot catchment to

identify sources of pollution and other

problem areas.

L P P P H

Develop and implement a water quality

monitoring strategy that considers the

FMZs

Study design by

2007, Sampling by

2008. Ensure that

water quality levels

meet provincial

guidelines (OMOE

1994)(See Table

A3 in Appendices)



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

1.3.1.2 Encourage nutrient

management and livestock access

initiatives on agricultural land

L L P P P

Promote stewardship activities and

programs (e.g. Community Stream

Steward Program, GRCA - CWHL

Stewardship Program).

Develop nutrient

management plans

on at least 2 farms

per year until

utilized on all farms.

Control all livestock

access in all

watercourses by

2012.


management initiatives on non-

agricultural land

L P P PDevelop strategies to ensure reduction of

nutrients

Ongoing

1.3.1.4 Promote buffer strips along

watercourses P L P H

In priority areas identified in section

1.3.1.1, advertise financial incentives and

ecological benefits of improving buffer

strips

Ongoing

1.3.1.5 Establish 40% forest/wetland

cover in the watershed (link to

Strategy 1.1.1)P L P H

Investigate the role of permanent pasture

land in maintaining the hydrograph.

Identify priority areas for restoration

By 2020

1.3.1.6 Secure, restore, and or create

wetlands in priority areas to improve

water quality

P L P

Create priority list of areas for wetland

restoration projects.

By 2010

1.3.1.7 Discourage aesthetic use of

pesticides and herbicides P P L P

Continue education programs and

explore the potential and needs for

pesticide bylaws.

Ongoing



impacts to water qualityL

Promote the construction of stormwater

ponds prior to or during land grading to

minimize site erosion and sedimentation

in streams

Ongoing

1.3.2.1 Expand the existing

temperature monitoring to ensure that

fish community targets are metP L P

Temperature loggers at key locations in

the four FMZs without loggers

Summer maximum

temperature within

1 SD colder than

predicted by 2007

1.3.2 Maintain /

enhance zone

specific thermal

regimes



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

1.3.2.2 Prevent the construction of on-

line ponds (link to Action 1.6.1.2) POngoing

1.3.2.3 Retrofit problem ponds to limit

thermal influences (e.g. bottom draws,

bypass) (link to Action 1.6.1.1)P L P

Inventory problem ponds and mitigate 2015



thermal impactsL

Promote the innovative techniques to

minimize thermal impacts (e.g. french

drains, bottom draw, perimeter tree

planting)

Ongoing

1.4.1.1 Ensure watershed approach to

addressing in-stream habitat

improvements (i.e. address the

cause not just deal with site specific

"band aid" approaches)

P P L P P

Assessment: Monitor restoration

activities establish specific measurable

targets to measure success

Ongoing

1.4.1.2 Conduct surveys to determine

where if any in-stream habitat

restoration work is required P L P

Assessment: Develop a cost effective

watershed-wide sampling approach to

help track changes in habitat. Consider

public education to facilitate involvement

in surveys.

1.4.1.3 Require mitigation measures

for all in-channel works

P L

Appropriate mitigative guidelines and

implications of failure to comply to be

incorporated into all work permits,

tenders and orders. For all in-channel

works (See Chapter 1 Section 1.3 and

Land Use Planning in Chapter 2)

1.4.1.4 Advocate natural channel

approach to watercourse alterations

(link to Action 1.4.1.3)

P P L P P

Review all watercourse alterations with

consideration for free passage of woody

material, sediment, fish, flow, etc.

Ongoing

1.3.2 Maintain /

enhance zone

specific thermal

regimes

1.4

Insufficient In-

Stream

Habitat

1.4.1 Protect and

enhance



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

1.4.1.5 Restrict or mitigate vehicular

access

L L L P

Post signage and consider the need for

limited access on Public Land, Crown

Land and Conservation Areas. Education.

Encourage the installation of water

crossings on private lands.

Post signage on

public lands in

2007.

1.4.2 Balance

sediment regime

1.4.2.1 Develop budgets for the

movement of sediment and wood P L P

Develop a sediment and wood supply

budget incorporating historic conditions.

1.4.2.2 Maintain or enhance

downstream movement or deposition

of sediment and wood

P L P

Explore the feasibility of improving

sediment and wood transport through the

Orono dam

1.4.2.3 Improve connections of the

creek with its floodplain

P L P

Determine extent of stream

entrenchment (areas where the creek is

not connected to the floodplain). Restore

floodplain connections in areas of

adverse channeling.

1.5.1.1 Encourage flood plain

connection. Healthy diverse riparian

vegetation requires sediment and

nutrient inputs provided by regular

flooding (link to Action 1.4.2.3)

L P P P

Entrenched areas need to be restored by

elevating the creek bed with the use of

large woody material or rock

Increase

percentage of wood

in areas in need of

floodplain

connection

1.5.1.2 Establish a riparian zone size

that is a minimum of the meander belt

width plus 30m in 3rd order or larger

stream segments and 30m minimum

riparian zone in 2nd order streams or

smaller (See Oak Ridges Moraine

Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and the

Greenbelt Plan). P P L P H

Evaluate the current riparian zone size by

FMZ. Adopt the incorporation of these

guidelines in Official Plan (OP).

Stewardship opportunities where

appropriate, tax incentives etc. (e.g.

Alternative land use system - Norfolk

County Stewardship - Ontario

Stewardship Council)

Achieve the

appropriate riparian

zone size where

needed.

1.5.1 Protect and

enhance

1.4

Insufficient In-

Stream

Habitat

1.4.1 Protect and

enhance

1.5

Insufficient

Riparian-

Floodplain

Habitat



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

1.6.1.1 Identify all barriers and on-line

ponds and assess for potential long

term impacts to fish, sediment and

wood movementP L P H

Use GIS to identify potential barriers and

use watershed residents to help locate

problem barriers by participating in barrier

surveys and questionnaires. Education

about the role of beaver in natural

systems (link to Action 1.3.2.3)

2007

1.6.1.2 Consider retro-fitting/removing

problematic on-line ponds and beaver

dams

P L P P

Mitigate with BMPs. Respond to public

concern and manage beaver populations

as required

Ongoing

1.6.1.3 Prevent construction of new

on-line ponds (link to Action 1.3.2.2) P L P H

As per regulatory restrictions of MNR and

Conservation Authority

Ongoing

1.6.2.1 Identify and mitigate problem

water crossings due to narrowing or

perching of the watercourse P L P

Schedule upgrades when existing

structures are scheduled for replacement

As needed

1.6.2.2 Ensure future work on stream

crossings satisfies the strategyP P L P

Through permitting and plan review of

E.A.s including in-water timing windows

(See Chapter 1 Section 1.3 and Land

Use Planning in Chapter 2)

Ongoing

2.1.1 Maintain or

enhance native

species populations

2.1.1.1 Expand knowledge of native

aquatic species distributions and

factors limiting production by FMZP L H

Assessment: Develop a regular,

reoccurring, watershed-wide sampling

approach to help track aquatic species

distribution and trends in abundance

2007

2.1.2 Reduce

competition on

native species by

naturalized and

invasive species

2.1.2.1 Explore the use of barriers to

protect populations of native species

from invasive species

P L P

Monitoring program will evaluate potential

problems with invasives. Conduct a

feasibility study for the installation of fish

migration control structures to meet

specific FMZ objectives

Ongoing

2.0 BIODIVERSITY ISSUES (See Biodiversity sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)

2.1

Restricted

Native

Species

abundance

and

distribution

1.6 In-stream

Barriers,

Water

Crossings,

and Ponds

1.6.1 Modify barriers

to ensure zone

specific strategies

are met

1.6.2 Ensure all

stream crossings

enable fish

migration, substrate

and wood transport



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

2.1.3.1 Document the presence and

distribution of aquatic species at risk P P L P

Through monitoring 2007

2.1.3.2 Expand the range of

restricted populationsP P L

Through research 2007

2.1.3.3 Support the provincial Atlantic

salmon recovery initiatives to create

conditions that will facilitate

restoration

L P P

Stock appropriate strains and life stages

of Atlantic salmon, assess survival,

improve habitat and conduct experiments

that will help meet restoration goals for

Lake Ontario.

Ongoing as

directed by the

Atlantic salmon

recovery team

2.2.1.1 Determine limiting factors to

production with consideration of lake

effects.

L P P

Through research and partnerships with

universities

Ongoing

2.2.1.2 Address limiting factors (e.g.

spawner abundance, habitat, harvest,

etc.)

L P

See Implementation for Strategies 1.4.1,

1.4.2, and 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3

2.2.1.3 Set spawner escapement

targets for each migratory species

and monitor success L P P

Develop a relationship which maximizes

adult numbers to juvenile production with

partnerships with universities and others

2.3

Naturalized

species

competition

with native

species

2.3.1 Restrict or

reduce naturalized

salmonid production

in areas designated

for native salmonid

management


protect isolated populations of native

species (e.g. above barriers

impassable for migratory salmonids) P L P

Conduct a feasibility study for the

installation of fish migration control

structures to meet specific FMZ

objectives

2.4.1.1 Monitor for the presence of

invasive species

L P P H

Assessment: Develop a watershed-wide

sampling approach to help track fish

community trends. Encourage public

involvement - promote the Invasive

Species Hotline (1-800-563-7711)

Ongoing

2.1.3 Maintain

healthy populations

of existing species at

risk and re-establish

extirpated species

2.2 Declines

in

Naturalized

Species

Abundance

2.1

Restricted

Native

Species

abundance

and

distribution

2.4.1 Prohibit

movement and or

entry of non-native

species or genetic

variants of existing

species in the

watershed

2.4 Invasive

Species

2.2.1 Maintain or

enhance naturalized

fish species (e.g.

rainbow trout and

brown trout)

populations to reflect

FMZ objectives



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY


exclude/restrict invasive species from

native populations as necessaryP L

2.4.1.3 Educate public about impacts

of invasive species introductionsL P L H

Prepare presentations about invasive

species. Discuss pond specific issues

(escapement of fish from on-line ponds).

Ongoing

2.4.1.4 Support any strategies to

prevent the interbasin transfer of

baitfishL P P

Educational signage, develop volunteer

agreements with landowners to restrict

use of interbasin baitfish, promote the

Invasive Species Hotline. Engage

enforcement staff (municipal and

provincial) to assist with compliance.

Ongoing

2.4.1.5 Restrict private stocking of

salmonids in ponds with the potential

for escapement into the systemL P P

3.1.1.1 Consider extending

boundaries of fall fishing zone for

Chinook, Coho and brown troutL P P

All efforts to enhance fishery should be

monitored to determine if strategies are

meeting desired targets, through changes

to the fishing regulations.

3.1.1.2 Promote angling for non-

salmonid species (warm and cool

water species)

L P

Utilize existing educational material within

workshops, urban fishing festivals, etc.

Ongoing

3.1.1.3 Encourage harvest of brown

trout L P

Promote the fishery to various media

sources

Ongoing

3.2.1 Optimize catch

and release

3.2.1.1 Encourage catch-release of

rainbow trout and brook trout

L P P

Through education and landowner

agreements

Ongoing

3.1 Under-

utilization

3.0 RESOURCE USE ISSUES

2.4.1 Prohibit

movement and or

entry of non-native

species or genetic


species in the

watershed

3.1.1 Optimize

harvest opportunities

for under utilized

species

2.4 Invasive

Species

3.2 Over-

harvest



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

3.2.2 Discourage

angling of recovering

species (e.g. Atlantic

salmon)

3.2.2.1 Moratorium on Atlantic salmon

harvest from Lake Ontario tributaries

L

Subject to change on advice from the

Atlantic salmon recovery team

3.2.3 Reduce

harvest rates of

rainbow trout

3.2.3.1 Evaluate the degree to which

the new fishing regulations are

contributing to the stock recruitment

relationship

L P

Develop a stock recruitment relationship

and perform historical analysis. Obtain

better creel information

3.2.4 Reduce fishing

mortality

3.2.4.1 Explore alternative angling

techniques (e.g. barbless hooks,

artificial bait, wasteful harvest of roe) L P

Landowner agreements, education and

MNR regulations and promotion

Ongoing

Use of interpretive signs in areas with

high spawner densities. Promote viewing

opportunities to various media sources.

Ongoing

Promote spawner viewing to school

groups (Orono Crown Lands –

Educational Centre)

Ongoing

L L e.g. “Yellow Fish Road” Program Ongoing

L e.g. Adopt a Stream (Ontario Streams) Ongoing

3.3.1.3 Promote stewardship

initiativesP P P P L

Develop a program or utilize existing


Steward Program, GRCA - CWHL

Stewardship Program)

Ongoing

3.4.1 Increase public

involvement

3.4.1.1 Promote community

involvement

P P P P L

Signage locations include the Samuel

Wilmot Nature Area and the Orono

Crown Lands

Ongoing

L P

3.3.1.1 Promote viewing of aquatic

environment to raise profile of aquatic

issues

P

3.3.1 Optimize

viewing and

educational

opportunities

3.3.1.2 Produce or utilize existing

educational materials

3.2 Over-

harvest

3.4

Insufficient

public

involvement

3.3

Insufficient

awareness of

aquatic

ecosystems



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

3.4.2 Develop an

implementation

committee

3.4.2.1 Establish a committee directed

by local community members and

landowners with expert input provided

by associated agencies

P L P P P L

Promote public involvement

opportunities. Task the committee with

holding regular events, projects,

workshops, etc. to engage public and

maintain interest

Initiate in 2007

3.4.3 Increase public

awareness

3.4.3.1 Keep public informed

P L P

Produce regular updates (e.g. quarterly

state of the watershed/fishery report) to

inform public of watershed issues, needs

and accomplishments of projects and

opportunities for involvement.

Ongoing

3.4.4 Encourage

communities to

"Adopt a Reach" or

FMZ

3.4.4.1 Involve community in

protection/restoration initiativesP P L

Develop an outreach program with

partners. Through public meetings,

identify key individuals to adopt

leadership roles

3.4.5.1 Utilize and promote

stewardship initiatives to facilitate

public involvement in the watershed.

P P L

E.g. Monitoring the moraine, Atlantic

salmon recovery team, OFAH,

Stewardship Ontario, OMAFRA

Ongoing

3.4.5.2 Conduct Community Stream

Steward WorkshopsL

Conduct workshops as a tool for

attracting those interested in stream

stewardship and increasing awareness

and involvement

Ongoing

3.4.6 Offer

incentives for public

involvement/action

3.4.6.1 Promote existing or newly

developed incentives through

advertisements or contests

P P P P L

E.g. Develop a "Communities In Action"

contest where communities compete for

a prize that will enhance the

neighbourhood (i.e. a new playground,

award, free trees/shrubs, free rain

barrels, etc.) by taking action in the

watershed (i.e. tree planting, garbage

clean-up, etc.). Utilize GRCA CWHLFAP

to engange residents.

3.4.5 Create

linkages with area

stewardship

initiatives

3.4

Insufficient

public

involvement



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

3.5.1.1 Develop strategy for reducing

litter P P L P

Clean-up days and signage. Develop a

partnership and schedule to clean up

access areas.

As needed

3.5.1.2 Promote ethical practices for

anglersP P L

Engage anglers to clean up after

themselves and other anglers.

As needed

3.5.1.3 Develop a river keepers

programP P L

Develop a training program and official

recognition for river keepers

3.5.1.4 Angler groups doing work for

the benefit of the landownerP P L

Promote involvement programs and

incentives (e.g. CFWIP)

Ongoing

3.5.1.5 Promote responsible public

accessL L P

Signage and education program Ongoing

3.5.2.1 Create map or signage to

inform anglers of public access areas L P

Access information provided in signage

at Samuel Wilmot Nature Area

Investigate the creation of a “Blue Ribbon

Fishery”

Explore creative resource user /

landowner agreements to increase

access to the watercourse and fishery

3.5.2.3 Activities to enhance the

fishery through more access and

alternate regulation use need to be

monitored to determine if targets are

being met. Allows for adaptive

management

L

Consider monitoring plan to track

changes in resource use and in the

fishery

4.1.1.1 Gaps include comprehensive

knowledge of flow regime and water

balance as well as rates of habitat

changeP P L

Continue progress toward the completion

of a water budget

Ongoing

L

3.5.2 Promote the

use of existing

access areas

4.0 SCIENCE AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

3.5.2.2 Explore landowner –user

agreements

PP

4.1.1 Identify and

address

4.1 Lack of

habitat

information

3.5 Lack of

Access for

Fishing

opportunities

3.5.1 Improve

landowner-angler

relationships



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

P

Work towards a cost effective yet reliable

monitoring program on all watersheds.

Aspects that need to be tracked include:

habitat, fish community, base flow, water

quality

All monitoring must establish measurable

targets on which rates and the amount of

change can be measured this includes

restoration activities so that successes

can be documented and replicated

4.1.1.3 Track habitat change

P L P L P

Assessment: Establish cost effective

sampling approach to detect species

trends on multiple watersheds

4.2.1.1 Current data will become

outdated. Continued monitoring is

essential

P L P



community trends

P L P

Example approach : Tessellated random

sampling. Standardized repeating

stations augmented with variable stations

sampled on a random rotation

All monitoring and restoration activities

must establish measurable targets on

which rates and the amount of change

can be measured, so that results can be

documented and replicated

Consider construction of a weir station to

help track migratory salmonid status

Spawning surveys

4.3 Lack of

Resource

Use

Information

4.3.1 Determine to

what extent fisheries

exploitation is

occurring in the

watershed

4.3.1.1 Document resource use in

those areas lacking information

P L P

Creel surveys on main stem of Wilmot

Creek to include questions about

resource use in the headwaters and

Foster, Orono, Hunter, and Stalker

creeks.

4.1.1 Identify and

address

4.1.1.2 In light of the need to monitor

for environmental change in not only

the Wilmot Creek watershed, an

adequate sampling approach will

need to be structured to provide

relevant information across multiple

creek systems while remaining cost

effective

4.2.1.2 New monitoring approaches

may be explored to help track trends

in migratory species

4.1 Lack of

habitat

information

4.2 Lack of

biodiversity

information

4.2.1 Identify and

address


63

Fisheries Management Zone 1 Issues

&



The Fisheries Management Zone 1 fish community will be composed of diverse, self-sustaining

native fish species characterized by:

OBJECTIVE INDICATOR



sport fishes





smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and

sunfishes attractive to anglers in the

lower reaches of the system (e.g.

within the coastal wetland)




This zone will continue to act as an important migratory route and staging area for salmonids and

will facilitate passage to upstream spawning areas.

Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.1: Zone 1 (Migratory Salmonid Management Area)

Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s

1.1.1.1 Continue participation in the

Durham Region Coastal Wetland

Monitoring Project which includes

water level documentation

L P

Assessment: Continue monitoring water

levels in Wilmot Marsh

Ongoing

1.1.1.2 Create partnerships to monitor

the natural variation in water level L P

Investigate partnerships with the Samuel

Wilmot Advisory Committee

2007 field season

1.2 Degraded

Water Quality

1.2.1 Improve water

quality

1.2.1.1 Continue participation in the

Durham Region Coastal Wetland

Monitoring ProjectL P

Assessment: Continue monitoring water

quality in Wilmot Marsh

Ongoing

1.3 Seasonal

Habitat

Functions

1.3.1 Document

seasonal

characteristics of

wetland fish habitat

1.3.1.1 Expand fish community

assessment in marsh habitats to

include seasonal sampling to

document species use (if seasonal in

nature)

L

Establish seasonal (May/June and Fall)

fish sampling protocol with multiple gear

types

2007 field season

1.4.1.1 Maintain riparian zone and

floodplain habitatP L

Impact assessment to establish

restoration opportunities

1.4.1.2 Provide low impact access

points P P L P

Develop an access plan. Build

boardwalks to increase angler access

and reduce wetland trampling

2.1.1.1 Maintain existing fish

community


species distributions L P

2.2

Naturalized

Species

2.2.1 Maintain

current migratory

routes for naturalized

salmonids

Link to 1.3.1.1

P L

1.4.1 Maintain

wetland functions

IMPLEMENTATION


STAKEHOLDER ACTIONS

PR

IOR

ITY

2.1 Native

Species


TARGET

1.1

Insufficient

Water

Quantity

1.1.1 Maintain

natural coastal

wetland hydrograph

1.4

Insufficient

Riparian-

Floodplain

Habitat

ISSUE STRATEGIES

Assessment: Conduct sampling in

wetland habitats to increase our

knowledge of wetland use by lake

species and of warm-water native

species assemblages in the lower

reaches

2.1.1 Maintain and

enhance native

species populations

unique to coastal

wetlands (including

aquatic species at

Zone 1 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 64


Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s

IMPLEMENTATIONSTAKEHOLDER ACTIONS

PR

IOR

ITY

TARGETISSUE STRATEGIES


invasive speciesP L

Assessment: Conduct sampling in

wetland habitats to increase our

knowledge of wetland use by invasive

species

2.3.1.2 Educate public about impacts

of invasive species introductions P P P L

Use of interpretive signs in marsh and

parking lot (e.g. Don't dump bait,

Invading Species Hotline)

Ongoing

3.1.1.1 Promote angling for carp

L P

Utilize existing educational material within

workshops, urban fishing festivals, etc.

Ongoing

3.1.1.2 Encourage catch-release of

pre-spawning salmonids

Through education Ongoing

3.2 Non-

Consumptive

Use

3.2.1 Optimize

viewing opportunities

3.2.1.1 Provide low impact access to

marsh areas to limit disturbance P P L P




3.3.1.1 Use of interpretive signs in

marsh and parking lot

P P L

Promote watershed health and

awareness by developing ecosystem

health activities at the Samuel Wilmot

Nature Area. Events similar to the

recurring Earth day activities

3.3.1.2 Continue to support

educational activities of the Samuel

Wilmot Nature Area Management

Advisory Committee

L

3.4.1.1 Exclude motor vehicle accessP L

Utilize signage and barriers for vehicles Ongoing

3.4.1.2 Control pedestrian access

P P L P




3.3

Insufficient

awareness of

aquatic

ecosystems

3.3.1 Optimize

educational

opportunities

3.4 Access 3.4.1 Minimize

wetland disturbance

2.3 Invasive

Species

2.3.1 Prohibit

movement and/or

introduction of non-

native species or

genetic variants of

existing species

3.1 Under-

utilization

3.1.1 Optimize


for under utilized

species




Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s

IMPLEMENTATIONSTAKEHOLDER ACTIONS

PR

IOR

ITY

TARGETISSUE STRATEGIES

4.0 SCIENCE AND INFORMATION GAPS

4.1 Lack of

information

on the use of

wetlands by

migratory

salmonids

4.1.1 Identify and

address information

gaps and develop a

research plan

4.1.1.1 Implement the research plan

P L

Develop a research plan and identify

partners (e.g. universities, Atlantic

salmon restoration project)

Initiate discussions

in 2007

L P


67


&





OBJECTIVE INDICATOR



sport fishes







assessment programs



OBJECTIVE INDICATOR

1. Maintenance and increase of existing

migratory salmonid abundance Increased catch rates and presence of

rainbow trout and Chinook salmon


programs

2. Maintenance and increase of resident

brown trout abundance Increased catch rates and presence of

brown trout during monitoring and

assessment programs


Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s




reforestation activities L P P P P



reforestation. Utilize existing programs

that facilitate reforestation projects (e.g.

Greenbelt Plan, CFWIP, Natural Heritage

Strategy, Durham 4H Forestry Club,

GRCA Clean Water Healthy Land

Financial Assisstance Program, etc.)

Focus restoration

around waters with

high Land

Disturbance Index

(LDI) values (see

Figure A6 in

Appendices)




recharge areas

P L

Available areas include the Samuel

Wilmot Nature Area, Crown Land.

Review current agricultural lease of

Crown land as possible reforestation area

30% forest cover by

FMZ (Currently at

13.4% or 59

hectares).


wetland creation P P




into wetlands

10% wetland cover

by FMZ (Currently

at 4.07% or 18

hectares)

1.2

Insufficient

Water

Quantity and

Quality -

Future urban

development

1.2.1 Maintain or

enhance appropriate

hydrograph and

water quality to

satisfy Fish

Community

Objectives

1.2.1.11 Implement BMPs for storm

water management to reduce peak

flow, maintain thermal and sediment

regimes

L





objectives (Action 1.2.1.2).

Ongoing

1.3 In-stream

Barriers,

Water

Crossings,

and Ponds

1.3.1 Ensure all

stream crossings

enable fish


and wood transport

1.3.1.1 Mitigate problem water

crossings due to narrowing or

perching of the watercourse

P L P

Upgrade water crossing (foot bridge) in

the Samuel Wilmot Nature Area (banks

are eroding at footings)


1.1

Insufficient

Forest/

Wetland

Cover

1.1.1 Maintain or

increase


ISSUE STRATEGIES TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONACTIONS

PR

IOR

ITY



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY


aquatic species distributions and

factors limiting production P L

Assessment: Conduct spawner surveys

to document the amount of spawning in

this zone and determine amount of

spawning success

2007

2.1.1.2 Determine why longnose

sucker populations have declinedP P L P





2.1.2.1 Support the provincial Atlantic

salmon recovery initiatives to create

conditions that will facilitate

restoration

L P P

This zone would be the desired location

to establish a weir to document salmonid

production and adult returns (Atlantic

salmon)

As directed by the

Atlantic salmon

recovery team


distribution of aquatic species at risk P P L P

Through monitoring, determine why

native darter distributions are restricted

2007

2.2.1.1 Determine limiting factors to

production with consideration of lake

effects.

L P P

Through research and partnerships with

universities.

Ongoing

2.2.1.2 Set spawner escapement

targets for each migratory species

and monitor success L P P

Spawner survey to rank importance of

this zone relative to other zones. This

zone would be the desired location to

establish a weir to document salmonid

production and adult returns

2.3 Invasive

Species

2.3.1 Prohibit

movement and or

entry of non-native

species or genetic


species


invasive species

P L



community trends with increased

sampling effort in lower reaches to

increase our knowledge on exotic

species entering the system from Lake

Ontario.

2007

2.2.1 Maintain or

enhance naturalized

fish species

populations


2.1

Restricted

Native

Species

abundance

and

distribution

2.1.1 Maintain or

enhance native

species populations

2.1.2 Maintain

healthy populations



extirpated species

2.2 Declines

in

Naturalized

Species

Abundance



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

P L

Assessment: If it is decided that an

assessment weir is required (for

salmonid monitoring), the weir could also

be used as a barrier and an assessment

station to document invasive species in

this zone

Consider installation of a goby barrier

perhaps at water survey of Canada

gauging station just south of Conc. 3.


3.1

Insufficient

awareness of

aquatic

ecosystems

3.1.1 Optimize

viewing and

educational

opportunities

3.1.1.1 Use of interpretive signs at

Samuel Wilmot Hatchery parking lot

P L P P

Salmonid spawning sites are found in this

zone. Educational opportunities and

viewing opportunities exist in MNR lands

north of and within the Samuel Wilmot

Nature Area

Ongoing

4.1.1.1 Work needs to be done to

address entrenchment and sediment

deprivation issues throughout this

zone.L P

This zone should be surveyed to

determine best bet scenarios for wood

placement and entrenchment mitigation.

4.1.1.2 This zone is ideal to address

production questions for all migratory

salmonids. The use of a weir would

also help document trends in adult

returns.

P L

Re-establishing a counting fence (weir) in

this zone will help determine overall

system productivity for migratory species

and help document trends in returning

adults

4.1 Lack of

information

on the use of

wetlands by

migratory

salmonids

4.1.1 Identify and

address information

gaps



exclude/restrict invasive species from

native populations as necessary



71


&





OBJECTIVE INDICATOR



sport fishes






OBJECTIVE INDICATOR





programs

2. Increased capacity of Foster Creek to

support coldwater fish species Increased presence of coldwater

species during monitoring and

assessment programs


Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s





L P P P P


law and expand area of application to

easterly lands north of Concession 3.

Determine optimal areas for







Focus restoration

around waters with

high Land

Disturbance Index

(LDI) values (see

Figure A6 in

Appendices)




recharge areas

P L

30% forest cover by

FMZ (Currently at

9.1% or 87

hectares)


wetland creation P P




into wetlands

10% wetland cover

by FMZ (Currently

at 5.72% or 59

hectares)

1.2.1.1 Implement BMPs for storm

water management to reduce peak

flow, maintain thermal and sediment

regimesL





hydrograph objectives (Action 1.2.1.2)

Ongoing

1.2.1.2 Document extent and location

of tile drains (headwaters of this zone) L P

Research Ontario Ministry of Agriculture,

Food and Rural Affairs information on tile

locations

Ongoing

1.2.2 Improve water

quality

1.2.2.1 Secure, restore, and or create

wetlands in priority areas to improve

water quality P L P

Survey Foster Creek headwater wetlands

and create priority list of areas for

wetland restoration projects.

As per the

provincial water

quality guidelines

(OMOE 1994)

ACTIONSISSUE STRATEGIES


TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATION

PR

IOR

ITY

1.1

Insufficient

Forest/

Wetland

Cover

1.1.1 Maintain or

increase


1.2.1 Maintain or

enhance appropriate

hydrograph and

water quality to

satisfy Fish

Community

Objectives

1.2

Insufficient

Water

Quantity and

Quality -

Future urban

development



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s

ACTIONSISSUE STRATEGIES TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATION

PR

IOR

ITY

1.3

Insufficient In-

Stream

Habitat

1.3.1 Protect and

enhance

1.3.1.1 Conduct surveys in this

degraded zone to determine where in-

stream habitat restoration work is

required

P P L P

Use DFO compensation dollars to

improve stream habitats and control

excessive drainage (sewers, ditches).

Foster Stewardship opportunities

1.3.1.2 Mitigate erosion issues along

Lions Club Trail in Newcastle

Conduct erosion control work

1.3.1.3 Develop strategy for reducing

litter (garbage in this zone ranges

from bicycles to couches)

P P L P

Clean-up days and signage. Develop a

partnership and schedule to clean up

access areas.

1.4

Insufficient

Riparian-

Floodplain

Habitat

1.4.1 Protect and

enhance

1.4.1.1 Encourage no-mow zones

along creek corridor to establish

buffers L P

Survey for best bet areas to begin

riparian restoration

Headwater streams

north of Concession

3

1.5 In-stream

Barriers,

Water

Crossings,

and Ponds

1.5.1 Ensure all

stream crossings

enable fish


and wood transport

1.5.1.1 Ensure future work on stream

crossings satisfies the strategy

P L P

Works are underway to improve railway

over foster creek. Ensure new water

crossings meet goals of improving fish,

sediment and wood transport.

Ongoing



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s

ACTIONSISSUE STRATEGIES TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATION

PR

IOR

ITY

2.1 Invasive

Species

2.1.1 Prohibit

movement and or

entry of non-native

species or genetic


species


invasive species

P L



community trends with increased

sampling effort in lower reaches to

increase our knowledge on exotic

species entering the system from Lake

Ontario.

2007

3.1.1.1 Gaps exist in our knowledge

of fish species distributions

particularly with aquatic invasive

species and native species

(headwater areas).

P L P

Expand sampling in this zone to better

document fish community dynamics

2007

3.1.1.2 Gaps exist in determining the

amount and locations of storm water

discharge sites

P L

Continue work toward completion of a

water budget

Ongoing


3.1 Lack of

information

on the use of

wetlands by

migratory

salmonids

and pollution

3.1.1 Identify and

address information

gaps


3.1.1.3 Gaps exist in our knowledge

of point source pollution

P

Expand water quality testing to establish

baseline values (E. coli, nutrients, other

chemicals)

Ensure that water

quality levels meet

provincial

guidelines (OMOE

1994)

L P


75


&





OBJECTIVE INDICATOR



sport fishes







assessment programs



OBJECTIVE INDICATOR





programs




assessment programs


Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s




reforestation activities L P P P P






Strategy, Durham 4H Club, GRCA Clean

Water Healthy Land Financial

Assisstance Program (CWHLFAP), etc.)

Focus restoration

around waters with

high Land

Disturbance Index

(LDI) values (see

Figure A6)




recharge areas

P L

Available areas include the Orono Crown

Lands. Forest cover in this zone

currently meets EC guidelines, however,

increased forest cover may account for

areas where meeting 30% forest cover is

30% forest cover by

FMZ (Currently at

30.6% or 313

hectares)


wetland creation P P P




into wetlands

10% wetland cover

by FMZ (Currently

at 0.26% or 3

hectares)


management and livestock access

initiatives on agricultural land

L L P P P

Promote stewardship activities and


Steward Program, CWHLFAP, etc.).

Continue to monitor elevated chloride

concentration in Orono Creek

Develop nutrient

management plans

on at least 2 farms

per year until

utilized on all farms.

Control all livestock

access in streams

by 2012.


management initiatives on non-

agricultural land

L P P P

Provide education on environmentally

friendly lawn care to residents along

lower Orono Creek (utilize CWHLFAP)

Ongoing

1.3

Insufficient

Riparian-

Floodplain

Habitat

1.3.1 Protect and

enhance






smaller

P P L P

Sections in the lower reaches of this zone

(south of Concession 4) could be planted

to increase cover and stabilize banks

Achieve the


zone size where

needed.


TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES

1.2 Degraded

Water Quality

1.2.1 Improve water

quality

ACTIONS

PR

IOR

ITY

1.1

Insufficient

Forest/

Wetland

Cover

1.1.1 Maintain or

increase




Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

1.3.1.2 Encourage no-mow zones

along creek corridor where the creek

passes through manicured open

areas.

L P

Promote buffer strips (no-mow zones) in

areas where the creeks (Orono and

Wilmot) pass through yards

Ongoing

2.1.1 Maintain or

enhance native

species populations

2.1.1.1 Determine why longnose

sucker populations have declinedP P L P





2.1.2 Maintain

healthy populations



extirpated species


distribution of aquatic species at risk

P P L P

Through monitoring, determine why

native darter distributions are restricted

2007

2.2

Naturalized

Species

2.2.1 Maintain or

enhance naturalized

fish species

populations

2.2.1.1 Determine naturalized

salmonid production

P L P

Assessment: Zone 4 is characterized with

high spawner densities and is likely one

of the most important areas for salmonid

production. Conduct spawner surveys to

track changes

3.1

Insufficient

awareness of

aquatic

ecosystems

3.1.1 Optimize

viewing and

educational

opportunities

3.1.1.1 Promote viewing of aquatic

environment to raise profile of aquatic

issuesL P P

Use of interpretive signs in Orono Crown

Lands where there is ample opportunities

to view spawning fish. Orono Crown

Lands offer great educational

opportunities including an educational

centre

Ongoing

3.2 Lack of

Access for

Fishing

opportunities

3.2.1 Promote the

use of existing

access areas

3.2.1.1 Promote the use of existing

access areas such as Orono Crown

Lands and Thurne Park

L P P

Access information provided in signage Ongoing



2.1

Restricted

Native

Species

abundance

and

distribution


79


&





OBJECTIVE INDICATOR



sport fishes







assessment programs



OBJECTIVE INDICATOR





programs




assessment programs


Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s





L P P P P H



include the eastern portion of this zone.

Determine optimal areas for




Strategy, Durham 4H Forestry, GRCA

Clean Water Healthy Land Financial

Assisstance Program, etc.)

Focus restoration

around waters with

high Land

Disturbance Index

(LDI) values (see

Figure A6 in

Appendices)




recharge areas

P L

Priority areas include degraded habitat in

Hunter Creek and it's tributaries (see

Figure A6 in Appendices)

Current forest cover

is greater than EC

recommendation of

30% (36.2% or 315

hectares), however,

restoration in this

zone will benefit

watercourses

downstream where

opportunities for

restoration are

limited.


wetland creation

P P P




into wetlands. Key wetland areas south

of 4th Concession to be maintained

10% wetland cover

by FMZ (Currently

at 0.36% or 3

hectares)

TARGETSTAKEHOLDER

PR

IOR

ITY

IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS

1.1.1 Maintain or

increase


1.1

Insufficient

Forest/

Wetland

Cover




Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s

TARGETSTAKEHOLDER

PR

IOR

ITY

IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS

1.2

Insufficient

Water

Quantity

1.2.1 Maintain or

enhance appropriate


Fish Community

Objectives




permeability). Link to Strategy 1.1.1.P P L P








Ongoing

1.2.1.2 Secure, restore, and/or create

wetlands in key locationsKey wetland areas south of 4

th

Concession to be maintained

Ongoing




the hydrograph

L P

Excessive drainage is an issue in this

zone. Tile drainage should be

documented and mitigation attempted to

reduce the drainage during rain events

Ongoing

1.3

Insufficient

Riparian-

Floodplain

Habitat

1.3.1 Protect and

enhance






smaller (See Greenbelt Plan).

P P L P

Riparian areas supporting brook trout in

lower Stalker Creek should be restored.






Achieve the


zone size where

needed

2.1

Restricted

Native

Species

abundance

and

distribution

2.1.1 Maintain or

enhance native

species populations

2.1.1.1 Enhance brook trout

population in lower Stalker Creek

through habitat improvements

(riparian plantings in cattle pasture

that currently holds brook trout). Link

to Action 1.3.1.1 P L P

Investigate potential areas for riparian

plantings (landowner contacts) and

develop partnerships to implement

2007



83


&





OBJECTIVE INDICATOR



sport fishes










Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.6: Zone 6 (Brook Trout Management Area)

Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s





L P P P P H



linclude this zone. Determine optimal

areas for reforestation. Utilize existing

programs that facilitate reforestation

projects (e.g. Oak Ridges Moraine

Conservation Plan (ORMCP) Greenbelt

Plan, CFWIP, Natural Heritage Strategy,

Durham 4H Forestry Club, GRCA Clean

Water Healthy Land Financial

Assisstance Program, etc.)

Focus restoration

around waters with

high Land

Disturbance Index

(LDI) values (see

Figure A6 in

Appendices)




recharge areas

P L

Priority areas include degraded habitat in

Orono and Hunter Creek headwater

streams (see Figure A6 in Appendices)

30% forest cover by

FMZ (Currently at

12.4% or 222

hectares)


wetland creationP P P




into wetlands

10% wetland cover

by FMZ (Currently

at 0.85% or 32

hectares)




permeability). Link to Strategy 1.1.1.P P L P








Ongoing




the hydrograph

L P

Excessive drainage is an issue in this

zone. Research Ontario Ministry of

Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

information on tile locations

Ongoing

IMPLEMENTATION


TARGETSTAKEHOLDERISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS

PR

IOR

ITY

1.1.1 Maintain or

increase


to satisfy FMZ

objectives

1.2

Insufficient

Water

Quantity

1.2.1 Maintain or

enhance appropriate


Fish Community

Objectives

1.1

Insufficient

Forest/

Wetland

Cover



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s

IMPLEMENTATION TARGETSTAKEHOLDERISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS

PR

IOR

ITY

1.3

Insufficient In-

Stream

Habitat

1.3.1 Protect and

enhance

1.3.1.1 Improve existing habitat to

support future initiatives to enhance

brook trout populations in this zone.

Ensure watershed approach to

addressing in-stream habitat

improvements (i.e. address the

cause not just deal with site specific

"band aid" approaches)

P P L P P

Approach landowners in areas where

brook trout restoration is viable and

arrange to conduct habitat improvements

if required. Monitor restoration activities

establish specific measurable targets to

measure success

1.4

Insufficient

Riparian-

Floodplain

Habitat

1.4.1 Protect and

enhance








Greenbelt Plan).

P P L P H

This zone could benefit greatly from

riparian restoration and should be

considered a priority. Plantings should

contain species that would contribute

large wood material to creek in future.






Achieve the


zone size where

needed.

2.1.1 Maintain or

enhance native

species populations

2.1.1.1 This zone is proposed as a

brook trout management area.

L P P

Expansion of brook trout in this zone

could be accomplished through adult

transfers. All attempts to rehabilitate

brook trout in this zone should be

thoroughly monitored to document

success

Ongoing

2.1.2 Reduce

competition on

native species by

naturalized species



from naturalized species

P L P

Currently not a priority, but may become

essential if restoration and expansion of

brook trout considered.

Ongoing

2.1

Restricted

Native

Species

abundance

and

distribution




Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

3.1 Over-

harvest

3.1.1 Likely a limited

fishery for brook

trout. Discourage


species

3.1.1.1 Consider restricting brook

trout harvest from rehabilitation

locations if brook trout restoration

proceeds P P P

Agreements with landowners to proceed

with restoration work should also include

agreements to limit access to fishery until

rehabilitation is complete

4.1 Lack of

information

on the use of

wetlands by

migratory

salmonids

4.1.1 Identify and

address information

gaps

4.1.1.1 Conduct surveys to determine

extent of suitable brook trout habitat

and where (if any) in-stream habitat

restoration work is requiredP L P

Conduct habitat survey. Utilize

partnerships where available.

4.1.1.2 Determine extent of brook

trout population in this zone and

evaluate restoration potential

P L P

Consider supplementing the regular

monitoring surveys with additional

sampling to capture extent.


methods for rehabilitation of brook

trout population as required.

P L P

Appropriate methods for brook trout

restoration (e.g. natural expansion after

habitat improvements, adult transfers) will

need to be evaluated




87


&





OBJECTIVE INDICATOR



sport fishes











Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s





L P P P P H



lands north of Concession 6. Determine

optimal areas for reforestation. Utilize

existing programs that facilitate

reforestation projects (e.g. Oak Ridges

Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP)





Focus restoration

around waters with

high Land

Disturbance Index

(LDI) values (see

Figure A6 in

Appendices)




recharge areas

P L

Priority areas include Orono Crown

Lands and degraded habitat in Orono

Creek headwater streams (see Figure A6

in Appendices)

30% forest cover by

FMZ (Currently at

29.5% or 1,367

hectares)


wetland creationP P




into wetlands

10% wetland cover

by FMZ (Currently

at 0.49% or 23

hectares)

1.2

Insufficient

Water

Quantity

1.2.1 Maintain or

enhance appropriate


Fish Community

Objectives


hydrograph (peak flow and base flow)

for this zone

P L L P H

Detailed assessments of flow regimes

and ground water/ surface water

interactions in this zone are key to

maintaining downstream health.

Assessments will help evaluate impacts

of potential Highway 407 development.

IMPLEMENTATION


TARGETSTAKEHOLDERISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS

PR

IOR

ITY

1.1

Insufficient

Forest/

Wetland

Cover

1.1.1 Maintain or

increase


to satisfy FMZ

objectives



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY




permeability). Link to Strategy 1.1.1.

P P L P








Ongoing

1.3.1.1 This zone is designated as a

brook trout management zone –

opportunities to improve brook trout

habitat will be explored. Ensure

watershed approach to addressing in-

stream habitat improvements (i.e.

address the cause not just deal with

site specific "band aid" approaches)

P P L P P

Approach landowners in areas where

brook trout restoration is viable and

arrange to conduct habitat improvements

if required. Monitor restoration activities

establish specific measurable targets to

measure success

1.3.1.2 Ensure stringent protection

measures are in place if Highway 407

project proceeds through this zone

L P P

Review class environmental assessment,

evaluate impacts and ensure appropriate

mitigation is identified in the plan.

Develop compensation if required.

1.3

Insufficient In-

Stream

Habitat

1.3.1 Protect and

enhance



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

1.4

Insufficient

Riparian-

Floodplain

Habitat

1.4.1 Protect and

enhance








Greenbelt Plan).

P P L P H

This zone could benefit greatly from

riparian restoration and should be

considered a priority. Plantings should

contain species that would contribute

large wood material to creek in future.






Achieve the


zone size where

needed.

1.5.1.1 Consider retrofitting Orono Mill

Pond with a bottom draw structure if

thermal impacts are detectedP L P P

Mitigate with BMPs. Respond to public

concern and manage beaver populations

as required

Ongoing

1.5.1.2 Keep Orono Dam structure in

place to maintain native species

upstream and prevent access of

migratory species.

Maintain the Orono Mill Pond dam Ongoing

2.1.1 Maintain or

enhance native

species populations

2.1.1.1 This zone is proposed as a

brook trout management area.

Evaluate extent and potential for

brook trout expansion in this zoneL P P

Expansion of brook trout in this zone

could be accomplished through adult

transfers. All attempts to rehabilitate

brook trout in this zone should be

thoroughly monitored to document

success

Ongoing

2.1.2 Reduce

competition on

native species by

naturalized and

invasive species



from naturalized and invasive species

P L P

If considered appropriate - placement of

a barrier above Taunton Road to limit

migratory species access on the

mainstem to areas designated for brook

trout restoration. Maintain the Orono Mill

Pond dam to protect upstream brook

trout.

Ongoing

1.5 In-stream

Barriers,

Water

Crossings,

and Ponds

1.5.1 Modify barriers

to ensure zone

specific strategies

are met


2.1

Restricted

Native

Species

abundance

and

distribution



Fis

heri

es a

nd

Ocean

Min

. o

f N

at.

Reso

urc

es

Min

. o

f E

nvir

on

men

t

Min

. o

f A

gri

. an

d F

oo

d

Min

. o

f M

un

. A

ff. H

ou

s.

Gan

ara

ska R

eg

ion

CA

Mu

nic

ipaliti

es

Ste

ward

s


PR

IOR

ITY

3.1 Under-

utilization

3.1.1 Optimize


for under utilized

species

3.1.1.1 Encourage harvest of brown

trout (Link to 2.1.2)

L P

Promote the exceptional brown trout

fishery to various media sources

3.2 Over-

harvest

3.2.1 Discourage


species (Likely a

limited fishery for

brook trout)

3.2.1.1 Consider restricting brook

trout harvest from rehabilitation

locations if brook trout restoration

proceeds P P P

Agreements with landowners to proceed

with restoration work should also include

agreements to limit access to fishery until

rehabilitation is complete

4.1.1.1 Determine extent of brook

trout population in this zone and

evaluate restoration potential P L P

Consider supplementing the regular

monitoring surveys with additional

sampling to capture extent.


methods for rehabilitation of brook

trout population as required.

P L P

Appropriate methods for brook trout

restoration (e.g. natural expansion after

habitat improvements, adult transfers) will

need to be evaluated

After determining

extent and

population

assessment

4.1 Lack of

information

on the use of

wetlands by

migratory

salmonids

4.1.1 Identify and

address information

gaps




93

Glossary

Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI): Areas ranked by the MNR to be either

provincially or regionally significant. There are two types of ANSIs, life science and

earth science. Life science ANSIs are significant representative segments of Ontario’s

biodiversity and natural landscapes including specific types of forests, prairies, valleys

and wetlands, their native plants and animals, and their supporting environments. Earth

science or geological ANSI’s are significant representatives of bedrock, fossil and

landforms in Ontario and includes examples of ongoing geological processes (OMNR

1999).

Base flow: The sustained flow in a channel as a result of groundwater discharge.

Best Management Practice (BMP): Structural, non-structural, and managerial

techniques recognized to be the most effective and practical means to reduce surface and

ground water contamination while still allowing the productive use of resources.

Biodiversity: Totality of the number and variability amongst living organisms, including

the variability within species (genetic diversity) between species (species diversity) and

between ecosystems (ecosystem diversity)

Confluence: The point at which two streams converge.

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): A federal

agency that determines the national status of wild species, subspecies, varieties and

nationally significant populations that are considered to be at risk in Canada.

Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO): A provincial

agency that determines the provincial status of wild species, subspecies, varieties

and provincially significant populations that are considered to be at risk in Ontario.

Discharge: The volume of water that passes through a given point per unit time,

commonly referred to as flow.

Ecological Land Classification: The Canadian classification of lands from an ecological

perspective; an approach that attempts to identify ecologically similar areas (Lee et al.

1998).

Endangered: Any indigenous species facing imminent extirpation or extinction from a

specified area.

Entrenchment: Areas where the creek is not connected with the floodplain.

Glossary

94

Evapotranspiration: Loss of water from the land surface through both transpiration by

plants and evaporation.

Extinct: A species that no longer exists in the world.

Extirpated: Any indigenous species no longer existing in the wild in a particular

location but existing elsewhere.

Floodplain: Lowland areas adjacent to lakes, wetlands, or rivers, consisting of alluvial

sediments, that are susceptible to inundation by water during a flood.

Fluvial Geomorphology: The study of the processes and interactions that shape streams

and rivers including size, shape and form of watercourses that are produced through

interactions among climate, watershed area, geology, topography, vegetation, and land

use.

Groundwater: Water beneath the Earth’s surface, stored by aquifers or running through

the soil, fractured rock or sand.

Hydrograph: A graphical representation of a hydrological measurement (e.g. water

level, groundwater discharge or velocity) over time.

Invasive species: Alien species (species that have been moved from an area to which

they were native to areas where they did not naturally live and evolve, either intentionally

or unintentionally) whose introduction and spread generally threatens the natural

environment, in particular native species, and the economy.

Land Disturbance Index (LDI): A model which predicts a threshold response of fish

communities in streams along the north shore of Lake Ontario in response to increased

land disturbance (e.g. urban and agricultural land uses).

Marsh: A wetland with mineral or peat substrate inundated by nutrient-rich water and

characterized by emergent vegetation (Lee et al. 1998).

Meadow Marsh: An area at the wetland-terrestrial interface, which is seasonally

inundated with water and usually dominated by grasses or forbs (Lee et al. 1998).

Naturalized: An introduced species which is now self-sustaining.

Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM): A moraine extending from the Niagara Escarpment to the

Trent River that was developed as glaciers retreated across the landscape and melt waters

resulted in gravel and sand deposits.

95

Official Plan (OP): A municipal document prepared under the Planning Act intended to

guide the physical development of a municipality, while having regard to relevant social,

economic, and environmental matters.

Offline pond: A pond that is situated outside the direct line of the watercourse; however,

one or more pipes or channels may join the stream and the pond.

Online pond: A pond that is directly in the line of flow of the stream course. Water from

the stream flows in at one end of the pond and flows out at the other end.

Peak flow: The period of time when the discharge of a stream is at its highest at a given

location.

Recharge: Process by which water is added to the zone of saturation to replenish an

aquifer.

Riparian: Terrestrial areas bordering aquatic zones showing an influence of water that is

not normally found in adjacent uplands.

Savannah: A treed community with 11 to 35% cover in coniferous or deciduous trees

(Lee et al. 1998).

Shallow marsh: Vegetation communities with a water table that rarely drops below the

substrate surface and vegetation composed primarily of broad-leaved or narrow-leaved

emergent species (Lee et al. 1998).

Species at Risk (SAR): Species that are at risk of extinction, extirpation or

endangerment globally or within a jurisdiction or region.

Stream order: A classification system that numbers the tributaries of a river beginning

with headwater tributaries and increasing the order number as lower order tributaries join

the mainstream. Any single, unbranched tributary is considered a first order stream. Two

first order streams join to form a second order stream, two second order streams join to

form a third order stream, etc.

Stream slope: The change in gradient of the stream bed between two points, which can

be used to infer characteristics of that watercourse.

Surficial geology: The study of surface materials, their formation and distribution.

Thicket: A terrestrial vegetation type that is characterized by <10% tree cover and >25%

tall shrub cover (Lee et al. 1998).

Thicket swamp: A wetland vegetation type that is characterized by <10% tree cover and

>25% tall shrub cover (Lee et al. 1998).

Glossary

96

Water balance: The accounting of water input and output and change in storage of the

various components of the hydrologic cycle.

Water budget: A summation of input, output, and net changes to a particular water

resources system over a fixed period of time.

Watershed: The entire physical area characterized by all direct runoff being conveyed to

the same outlet (stream system), commonly referred to as a basin, subwatershed, drainage

basin, catchment, and catch basin.

Wetland: An area of land that is saturated with water long enough to promote hydric

soils or aquatic processes as indicated by poorly drained soils, hydrophytic vegetation and

various kinds of biological activity that are adapted to wet environments. This includes

shallow waters generally <2m deep (Lee et al. 1998).

Woodland: A treed community with 35 to 60% cover of coniferous or deciduous trees

(Lee et al. 1998).

97

References

Allen, J.D. 2004. Landscapes and Riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream

ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics. 35: 257-284

Allen, J.D., D.L. Erickson, and J. Fay. 1997. The influence of catchment land use on

stream integrity across multiple spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 37:149-161.

Allen, J.D. 1994. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman

and Hall, New York, USA.

Allen, T.F., Starr TB. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity.

Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press

Arnold, C. L., and C. J. Gibbons. 1996. Impervious surface coverage: the emergence of a

key environmental indicator. Journal of American Planning 62:243–258.

Auble, G.T., J.M. Freidman, and M.L. Scott. 1994. Relating riparian vegetation to present

and future streamflows. Ecological Applications 4: 544-554.

Bagley, M.J., S.E. Franson, S.A. Christ, E.R. Waits, G.P. Toth. 2002. Genetic Diversity

as an Indicator of Ecosystem Condition and Sustainability: Utility for Regional

Assessments of Stream Condition in the Eastern United States. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH.

Benke, A.C., and C.E. Cushing, eds. 2004. Rivers of North America. San Diego, CA:

Academic/ Elsevier.

Bilby, R.E., and P.A. Bisson. 1998. Function and Distribution of Large Woody Debris.

In: River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion.

Naiman, R.J. and R.E. Bilby Eds. 13:324-346.

Bogan, A.E. 1993. Freshwater bivalve extinctions (Mollusca: Unionida): a search for

causes. American Zoologist 33: 599-609.

Booth, D.B. 1990. Stream-channel incision following drainage-basin urbanization. Water

Resources Bulletin 26:407-417.

Bren, L.J. 1992. Tree invasion of an intermittent wetland in relation to changes in the

flooding frequency of the River Murray, Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology 17:

395-408.

Bryant, M.D. 1983. The role and management of woody debris in west coast salmonid

nursery streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3: 322-330.

References

98

Byron, E.R., and Goldman, C.R., 1989, Land-use and water quality in tributary streams

of Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada: Journal of Environmental Quality, v. 18, p. 84-

88.

Buchanan, D.V., P.S. Tate, and J.R. Moring. 1976. Acute Toxicities of Spruce and

Hemlock Bark Extracts to Some Estuarine Organisms in Southeastern Alaska. Journal of

the Fisheries Research Board Canada 33:1188-1192.

Busch, D.E., and S.D. Smith. 1995. Mechanisms associated with decline of woody

species in riparian ecosystems of Southwestern US. Ecological Monographs 65: 347-370.

Buttle, J.M. 1996. Hydrological and geomorphological responses to headwater

reforestation: the Ganaraska River basin, southern Ontario. In Watershed

Management Symposium, National Water Research Institute, Burlington, 6-8 Dec

1995.

Chein, N. 1985. Changes in river regime after the construction of upstream reservoirs.

Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 10: 143-159.

Coates, David. 2004. Protected Areas and Inland Aquatic Ecosystems. Secretariat of the

Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD). Biodiversity Issues for Consideration in the

Planning, Establishment and Management of Protected Area Sites and Networks. CBD

Technical Series No. 15. SCBD, Montreal Quebec. p58-62.

Connor, W.H., J.G. Grosselink, and R.T. Parrondo. 1981. Comparison of the vegetation

of three Louisiana swamp sites with different flooding regimes. American Journal of

Botany 68: 320-331.

Copp, G.H. 1989. The habitat diversity and fish reproductive function of floodplain

ecosystems. Environmental Biology of Fishes 26: 1-27.

Crispen, V., R. House, and D. Roberts. 1993. Change in instream habitat, large woody

debris, and salmon habitat after the restructuring of a coastal Oregon stream. North

American Journal of Fisheries Management 13: 96-102.

Cushman, R.M. 1985. Review of ecological effects of rapidly varying flows downstream

of hydroelectric facilities. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5: 330-

339.

Daniels, R.B. 1960. Entrenchment of the willow drainage ditch, Harrison County, Iowa.

American Journal of Science 258: 161-176.

Desjardins, Marc, and Les Stanfield. 2005. The Wilmot Creek Study: Spatial and

Temporal Analysis of Fish Communities in the Wilmot Basin. Report Prepared for the

Wilmot Creek Fisheries Plan Steering Committee. 272p.

99

Duncan, R.P. 1993. Flood disturbance and the coexistence of species in a lowland

podocarp forest, south Westland, New Zealand. Journal of Ecology 81: 403-416.

Dolloff, C.A. 1986. Effects of stream cleaning on juvenile Coho salmon and dolly varden

in southeast Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 743-755.

Dunne, T., and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. San

Francisco:W.H. Freeman and Co.

Elliott, S.T. 1986. Reduction of a dolly varden population and macrobenthos after

removal of logging debris. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 115: 392-400.

Environment Canada. 2004. How Much Habitat is Enough? A Framework for Guiding

Habitat Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Canadian Wildlife Service. 80p.

Online September 2006.

Available: http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/factsheets/pdf/fs-howmuchhabitat-e.pdf

Environment Canada. 1995. Canadian Biodiversity Strategy: Canada’s Response to the

Convention on Biological Diversity, 1995. Biodiversity Convention Office, Environment

Canada. Hull, Quebec, Canada. 80p. Online September 2006. Available:

www.agr.gc.ca/policy/environment/pdfs/biodiv/cbs_e.pdf

Fausch, K.D., and K.R. Bestgen. 1997. Ecology of fishes indigenous to the central and

southwestern Great Plains. Pages 131-166 in Knopf FL, Samson FB, eds. Ecology and

Conservation of Great Plains Vertebrates. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Fausch, K.D., and T.G. Northcote. 1992. Large Woody Debris and Salmonid Habitat in

a Small Coastal British Columbia Stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Science 49:682-693.

Fenner, P., W.W. Brady, and D.R. Patten. 1985. Effects of regulated water flows on

regeneration of Fremont cottonwood. Journal of Range Management 38: 135-138.

Fetherston, K.L., R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby, 1995. Large Woody Debris, Physical

Process, and Riparian Forest Succession in Montane River Networks of the Pacific

Northwest. Geomorphology 13:133-144.

Frissel CA, Liss WJ, Warren CE, Hurley MD. 1986. A hierarchical framework for stream

habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental.

Management. 12:199-214.

Gianessi, L.P., H.M. Peskin, P. Crosson, and C. Puffer. 1986. Nonpoint source pollution

controls: are cropland controls the answer? Resources for the Future, Washington DC.

http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/factsheets/pdf/fs-howmuchhabitat-e.pdf

http://www.agr.gc.ca/policy/environment/pdfs/biodiv/cbs_e.pdf

References

100

Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1999. Fish Community Objectives for Lake Ontario.

Online September 2006. Available: http://www.glfc.org/pubs/SpecialPubs/Sp99_1.pdf

Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 1997. A Joint Strategic Plan for Management of

Great Lakes Fisheries. Ann Arbor, MI. (Supersedes 1994 version.) Online September

2006. Available: http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/jsp97.htm

Gregory, S., K.L. Boyer, and A.M. Gurnell, Eds. 2003. The ecology and management of

wood in world rivers American Fisheries Society Symposium 37 Bethesda, MD.

Gucinski, H., R.T. Lackey, and B.C. Spence. 1990. Global Climate Change: Policy

Implications for Fisheries. Fisheries. 15:33-38.

Gurin, D. 2003. Understanding Sprawl: A Citizen’s Guide. The David Suzuki

Foundation. Vancouver, BC, Canada. Western Printers and Lithographers. 22pp.

Hammer, T.R. 1972. Stream channel enlargement due to urbanization. Water Resources

Research 8: 1530-1540.

Harding, J. S., R. G. Young, J. W. Hayes, K. A. Shearer, and J. D. Stark. 1999. Changes

in agricultural intensity and river health along a river continuum.

Freshwater Biology 42:345–357.

Harms, W.R., H.T. Schreuder, D.D. Hook, C.L. Brown, and F.W. Shropshire. 1980. The

effects of flooding on the swamp forest in Lake Oklawaha, Florida. Ecology 61: 1412-

1421.

Harr, R.D., and F.M. McCorison. 1979. Initial effects of clearcut logging on size and

timing of peak flows in a small watershed in western Oregon. Water Resources Research

15: 90-94.

Hecky, R.E., R.E.H. Smith, D.R. Barton, S.J. Guildford, W.D. Taylor, M.N. Charlton,

and T. Howell. 2004. The nearshore phosphorus shunt: a consequence of ecosystem

engineering by dreissenids in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries

and Aquatic Sciences. 61: 1285–1293.

Henley, W.F., M.A. Patterson, R.J. Neves, and A.D. Lemly. 2000. Effects of

sedimentation and turbidity on lotic food webs: a concise review for natural resource

managers. Reviews in Fisheries Science 8: 125-139.

Hewlett, J.D. 1982. Principles of Forest Hydrology. Athens, Georgia. University of

Georgia Press.

Hoover, M.D. 1944. Effect of removal of forest vegetation on water yields. American

Geophysical Union Transactions 25: 969-977.

http://www.glfc.org/pubs/SpecialPubs/Sp99_1.pdf

http://www.glfc.org/fishmgmt/jsp97.htm

101

Hornbeck, J.W. 1975. Streamflow response to forest cutting and revegetation. Water

Resources Bulletin 11: 1257-1260.

Horton, J.S. 1977. The development and perturbation of the permanent tamarisk type in

the phreatophyte zone of the Southwest. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report

nr RM-43: 124-127.

House, R.A., and P.L. Boehne. 1986. Effects of instream structure on salmonid habitat

and populations in Tobe Creek, Oregon. North American Journal of Fisheries

Management 6:38-46.

Jackson, C.R., C.A. Strum, and J.M. Ward. 2001. Timber Harvest impacts on small

stream channels in the coast ranges of Washington. Journal of the American Water

Resources Association 37(6):1533-1549.

Johnson, W.C. 1994. Woodland expansion in the Platte River, Nebraska: patterns and

causes. Ecological Monographs 64: 45-84.

Jones, J.A., and D.A. Post. 2004. Seasonal and succesional streamflow response to forest

cutting and regrowth in the northwest and eastern United States. Water Resources

Research 40: 1-19.

Jones, J. B., and C. C. Clark. 1987. Impact of watershed urbanization on stream insect

communities. Water Resources Bulletin 23:1047–1055.

Jones, K.B., A.C. Neale, M.S. Nash, R.D. Van Remortel, J.D. Wickham, K.H. Riitters,

and R.V. O’Neil. 2001. Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from

landscape metrics: a multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic

Region. Landscape Ecology 16:301-312.

Kerr, S. J. 2000. Brook trout stocking: An annotated bibliography and literature review

with an emphasis on Ontario waters. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 177p.

Kilgour, B. W., and D. R. Barton. 1999. Associations between stream fish and benthos

across environmental gradients in southern Ontario, Canada. Freshwater Biology 41:553–

566.

Kilgour, B.W., and L.W. Stanfield. 2006. Hindcasting Reference Conditions in Streams.

Pages 623-640 in R.M. Hughes, L. Wang, and P.W. Seelbach, editors. Landscape

influences on stream habitats and biological assemblages. American Fisheries Society,

Symposium 48, Bethesda, Maryland.

References

102

Klein, R.D. 1979. Urbanization and stream water quality impairment. Water Resources

Bulletin. 15:948–63

Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes: A New Perspective. Edward Arnold,

London 383pp.

Knox, J.C. 1987. Historical valley floor sedimentation in the Upper Mississippi Valley.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77(2):224-244.

Koenig, Brenda. 2005. Watershed-based Fisheries Management Plan Guideline.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. XXpp.

Kondolf, G.M., and R.R. Curry. 1986. Channel erosion along the Carmel River,

Monterey County, California. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 11:307-319.

Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray.

1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its

Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Southcentral Science Section,

Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.

Leopold, L.B. 1968. Hydrology for urban land planning: a guidebook on the hydrologic

effects of land use. Reston (Va): US Geological Survey. Circular nr 554.

Lestelle, L.C. 1978. The effects of forest debris removal on a population of resident

cutthroat trout in a small, headwater stream. Masters thesis. University of Washington,

Seattle, Washington, USA

Lisle, T.E. 1995. Effects of coarse woody debris and its removal on a channel affected by

the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens, Washington. Water Resources Research

31:1791-1808.

Lyons, J., S.W. Trimble, and L.K. Paine. 2000. Grass versus trees: managing riparian

areas to benefit streams of central North America. Journal of the American Water

Resources Association 36: 919- 930.

MacDonald, L.H., A. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring Guidelines to

Evaluate the Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and

Alaska. US Environmental Protection Agency Technical Report EPA/910/9-91-001.

Seattle, Washington, USA.

May, C.W., R.R. Horner, J.R. Karr, B.W. Mat, and E.B. Welch. 1997. Effects of

urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion. Watershed

Protection Techniques. 2:485–94

103

McGuinness, J.K., and L.L. Harrold. 1971. Reforestation influences on small watershed

streamflow. Water Resources Research 7: 845-852.

McLaughlin, R.L., L. Porto, D.L.G. Noakes, J.R. Baylis, L.M. Carl, H.R. Dodd, J.D.

Goldstein, D.B. Hayes, and R.G. Randall. 2006. Effects of Low-Head Barriers on

Stream Fishes: Taxonomic Affiliations and Morphological Correlates of Sensitive

Species. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 63:766-779.

McMahon, T.E., and G.F. Hartman. 1989. Influence of cover complexity and current

velocity on winter habitat use by juvenile Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 46: 1551-1557.

Meade, R.H., T.R. Yuzyk, and T.J. Day. 1990. Movement and storage of sediment in the

rivers of the United States and Canada. In Wolman MG, and Riggs HC, eds. The Geology

of North America, v 0-1: Surface Water Hydrology. Geological Society of America,

Boulder, CO, pp 255-280.

Meador, M.R., J.F. Coales and H. Zappia. 2005. Fish Assemblage Responses to Urban

Intensity Gradients in Contrasting Metropolitan Areas: Birmingham, Alabama and

Boston, Massachusetts. American Fisheries Society Symposium 47:409–423.

Meffe, G.K. 1984. Effects of abiotic disturbance on coexistence of predator and prey fish

species. Ecology 65: 1525-1534.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005a. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:

Volume 1 - Current State and Trends. Findings of the Responses Working Group

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series. Island Press. Hasman, R., R. Scholes, and

N. Ash. 815pp.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005b. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:

Volume 3 - Policy Responses. Findings of the Responses Working Group Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment Series. Island Press. Chopra, K., R. Leemans, P. Kumar, and H.

Simons editors. 515pp.

Montgomery, D.R., and J.M. Buffington. 1997. Channel-reach morphology in mountain

drainage basins. Geological Association of America Bulletin 109(5): 596-611.

Montgomery, W.L., S.D. McCormick, R.J. Naiman, F.G. Whoriskey, and G.A. Black.

1983. Spring migratory synchrony of salmonid, catostomid, and cyprinid fishes in Rivière

á la Truite, Québec. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61: 2495-2502.

Moyle, P.B. 1986. Fish introductions into North America: patterns and ecological impact.

Pages 27-43 in Mooney H.A., Drake J.A., eds. Ecology of biological invasions of North

America and Hawaii. New York: Springer-Verlag.

References

104

Municipality of Clarington. 2005. Municipality of Clarington Development Changes

Background Study.

Municipality of Clarington. 2003. Municipality of Clarington Official Plan.

Næsje, T., B. Jonsson, and J. Skurdal. 1995. Spring flood: a primary cue for hatching of

river spawning Coregoninae. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:

2190-2196.

Naiman, R.J., K.L. Fetherston, S.J. McKay, and J. Chen. 1998. Riparian Forests. In:

River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Naiman,

R.J. and R.E. Bilby Eds. 12:289-323.

Nalbone, J. Date Unknown. Regional Aquaculture and Concepts of Environmental

Sustainability. Great Lakes United Fact Sheet. 11p.

Nilsson, C. 1982. Effects of stream regulation on riparian vegetation. Pages 93-106 in

Lillehammer A., Saltveit S.J., eds. Regulated Rivers. New York: Columbia University

Press.

Novacek, M.J., and E.E. Cleland. 2000. The Current Biodiversity Extinction Event:

Senarios for Mitigation and Recovery. National Academy of Sciences Colloquium, “The

Future of Evolution” held March 16-20, 2000. 6pp.

Novinger, Douglas C., and Rahel, Frank J. 2003. Isolation Management with Artificial

Barriers as a Conservation Strategy for Cutthroat Trout in Headwater Streams.

Conservation Biology 17 (3): 772-781.

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. 2006. Invading Species Awareness

Program. Online September 2006. Available:

http://www.invadingspecies.com/indexen.cfm

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2005a. Protecting What Sustains Us: Ontario’s

Biodiversity Strategy. Government of Ontario. 44pp. Online September 2006.

Available:http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr/pubs/biodiversity/OBS_english.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2005b. Our Sustainable Future - Ministry of

Natural Resources - Strategic Directions. Government of Ontario. 21pp. Online

September 2006.

Available: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/pubs/general/StrategicDirections.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2002. Natural Channel Systems, Adaptive

Management of Stream Corridors in Ontario. Toronto. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

http://www.invadingspecies.com/indexen.cfm

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr/pubs/biodiversity/OBS_english.pdf

http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/pubs/general/StrategicDirections.pdf

105

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for

Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 127 pp.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1992. Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries - SPOF

II- An Aquatic Ecosystem Approach to Managing Fisheries. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1989. Lindsay District fisheries management

plan 1989-2000. 87p.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2002. Reporting Spills and Environmental

Emergencies. Online September 2006. Available:http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/spills.htm

Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1994. Water Management Policies Guidelines

Provincial Water Quality Objectives of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. 32p.

Online September 2006. Available:http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/3303e.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. Greenbelt Plan, 2005. 57p.

Online September 2006. Available:

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/Library/1/1701401_greenbelt_pla

n_final.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2002. Oak Ridges Moraine

Conservation Plan. 82pp. Online September 2006.

Available:http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/oakridgesmoraine/ormp

lannov12001-e.pdf

Ourso, R.T., and S.A. Frenzel. 2003. Identification of linear and threshold responses in

streams along a gradient of urbanization in Anchorage, Alaska. Hydrobiologia 501: 117-

131.

Paul, M.J., and J.L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of

Ecology and Systematics. 32:333–65

Petts, G.E. 1985. Timescale for ecological concern in regulated rivers. Pages 257-266 in

Craig JF, Kemper JB, Eds, Regulated streams: advances in ecology. New York:

Plenum Press.

Petts, G.E. 1984. Impounded rivers: perspectives for ecological management. New York:

John Wiley & Sons.

Perkins, D.J., B.N. Carlsen, M. Fredstrom, R.H. Miller, C.M. Rofer, G.T. Ruggerone,

And C.S. Zimmerman. 1984. The effects of ground-water pumping on natural spring

communities in Owens Valley. Pages 515-527 in Warner, R.E., Hendrix, K.M., eds.

California riparian systems: ecology, conservation, and productive management.

Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/spills.htm

http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/envision/gp/3303e.pdf

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/Library/1/1701401_greenbelt_plan_final.pdf

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/Library/1/1701401_greenbelt_plan_final.pdf

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/oakridgesmoraine/ormplannov12001-e.pdf

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attachments/oakridgesmoraine/ormplannov12001-e.pdf

References

106

Poff, N.L., and J.V. Ward. 1989. Implications of streamflow variability and predictability

for lotic community structure: a regional analysis of streamflow patterns. Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 1805-1818.

Power, M.E., A. Sun, M. Parker, W.E. Dietrich, and J.T. Wootton. 1995. Hydraulic food

chain models: an approach to the study of food web dynamics in large rivers. Bioscience

45:159-167.

Prestegaard, K.L. 1988. Morphological controls on sediment delivery pathways. Pages

533-540 in Walling DE, ed. Sediment Budgets. Wallingford (UK): IAHS Press.

International Association of Hydrological Sciences publication nr 174.

Prestegaard, K.L., A.M. Matherne, B. Shane, K. Houghton, M. O’Connell, and N. Katyl.

1994. Spatial variations in the magnitude of the 1993 floods, Raccoon River Basin, Iowa.

Geomorphology 10: 169-182.

Price, K., and D.S. Leigh. 2006. Morphological and sedimentological responses of

streams to human impact in the southern Blue Ridge Mountains, USA. Geomorphology

78:142-160.

Quinn, J.M. 2000. Effects of pastoral development. In New Zealand Stream

Invertebrates: Ecology and Implications for management. Ed. Collier KJ, Winterbourn

MJ, Christchurch, NZ, Caxton, pp. 208-229.

Regional Municipality of Durham. 2006. Durham Region Official Plan Review –

Recommended directions for population, employment and urban land. Durham Region

Planning Department, 2006

Richards, C., L.B. Johnson, and G.E. Host. 1996. Landscape-scale influences on stream

habitats and biota. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 295-311.

Richardson, A.H. 1944. A report on the Ganaraska watershed; A study in land use with

plans for rehabilitation of the area in the post-war period. Ontario Department of

Planning and Development.

Robertson, L. 1997. Water operations on the Pecos River, New Mexico and the Pecos

Bluntnose Shiner, a federally-listed minnow. U.S. Conference on Irrigation and

Drainage Symposium 1996, pp. 407-421.

Rood, S.B., J.M. Mahoney, D.E. Reid, and L. Zilm. 1995. Instream flows and the decline

of riparian cottonwoods along the St. Mary River, Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany

73: 1250-1260.

107

Roy, A.H., A.D. Rosemond, M.J. Paul, D.S. Leigh, and J.B. Wallace JB. 2003. Stream

macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanisation (Georgia, USA). Freshwater

Biology. 48:329–46

Saunders, D.L., J.J. Meeuwig and A.C.J. Vincent. 2002. Freshwater Protected Areas:

Strategies for Conservation. Conservation Biology. 1:30-41.

Scheideggar, I.J., and M.B. Bain. 1995. Larval Fish in natural and regulated rivers:

assemblage composition and microhabitat use. Copia 1995: 125-135.

Schneider, W.J., and G.R. Ayer. 1961. Effect of reforestation on streamflow in central

New York. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1602. (Washington DC: U.S.

Geological Survey).

Schulz, R., and M. Liess. 1999. A field study of the effects of agriculturally derived

insecticide input on stream macroinvertebrate dynamics. Aquatic Toxicology 46:155-176.

Schumm, S.A. 1977. The Fluvial System. New York, New York, USA

Scott, M.L., G.T. Auble, and J.M. Freidman. 1997. Flood dependency of cottonwood

establishment along the Missouri River, Montana, USA. Ecological Applications

7: 677-690.

Sear, D.A. 1995. Morphological and sedimentological changes in a gravel-bed river

following 12 years of flow regulation for hydro-power. Regulated Rivers: Research

and Management 10: 247-264.

Sedell, J.R., J.E. Yuska, and R.W. Speaker. 1984. Habitats and salmonid distribution in

pristine, sediment-rich, river valley systems: South Fork Hoh and Queets River, Olympic

National Park. In Meehan WR, Merrel TR, .Jr., Hanley TA, eds. Fish and wildlife

relationships in old-growth forests. American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists,

Juneau, Alaska, USA.

Shankman, D., and D.L. Drake. 1990. Channel migration and regeneration of bald

cypress in western Tennessee. Physical Geography 11:343-352.

Shirohammadi, A., K.S. Yoon, and W.L. Magette. 1996. Water quality in a mixed land

use watershed- piedmont region. Journal of Environmental Science and Health

A31(2): 429-450.

Sioli, H. 1975. Tropical rivers as expressions of their terrestrial environments. Pages 275

-288 in F.B. Golley and E. Medina, eds. Tropical ecological systems: Trends in terrestrial

and aquatic research. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

References

108

Skinner, J.A., K.A. Lewis, K.S. Bardon, P. Tucker, J.A. Catt, and B.J. Chambers. 1997.

An overview of the environmental impact of agriculture in the U.K. Journal of

Environmental Management 50:111-128.

Slaymaker, O. 2000. Assessment of the geomorphic impacts of forestry in British

Columbia. Ambio 29(7): 381-387.

Snell, E.A. 1988. Recent Wetland Loss Trends in Southern Ontario. pp. 183-197, in

Wetlands: inertia or momentum. Proceedings of a conference held in Toronto, Ontario.

M.J. Bardecki and N. Patterson. (Eds.).

Sparks, R.E. 1995. Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains.

Bioscience 45:168-182.

Sparks, R.E. 1992. Risks of altering the hydrologic regime of large rivers. Pages 119-152

in Cairns J., Niederlehner B.R., Orvos D.R., eds. Predicting ecosystem risk. Vol.XX.

Advances in modern environmental toxicology. Princeton (NJ): Princeton Scientific

Publishing Co.

Stanfield, L.W., and B.W. Kilgour. 2006. Effects of percent impervious cover on fish and

benthos assemblages and instream habitats in Lake Ontario tributaries. American

Fisheries Society Symposium 48: 577-599, Bethesda MD.

Stanfield, L.W., S.F. Gibson, and J.A. Borwick. 2006. Using a landscape approach to

identify the distribution and density patterns of salmonids in Lake Ontario tributaries.

American Fisheries Society Symposium 48: 601-621, Bethesda MD.

Stanford, J.A., J.V. Ward, W.J. Liss, C.A. Frissell, R.N. Williams, J.A. Lichatowich, and

C.C. Coutant. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated

Rivers: Research & Management 12: 391-414.

Stepenuck, K.F., R.L. Crunkilton, and L.Z. Wang. 2002. Impacts of urban land use on

macroinvertebrate communities in southeastern Wisconsin streams. Journal of the

American Water Resources Association.38:1041–51

Stevens, L.E., J.C. Schmidt, and B.T. Brown. 1995. Flow regulation, geomorphology,

and Colorado River marsh development in the Grand Canyon Arizona. Ecological

Applications 5: 1025-1039.

Strahler, A.N, 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel

networks; section 4-2, in Handbook of Applied Hydrology, Ed. Ven te Chow, McGraw-

Hill, New York.

109

Stromberg, J.C., T.A. Tress, S.D. Wilkins, and S. Clark. 1992. Response of velvet

mesquite to groundwater decline. Journal of Arid Environments 23: 45-58.

Sutherland, A.B., J.L. Meyer, and E.P. Gardiner. 2002. Effects of land cover on sediment

regime and fish assemblage structure in four southern Appalachian streams. Freshwater

Biology 47: 1791-1805.

Swank, W.T. 1988. Stream chemistry responses to disturbance. In Swank WT and

Crossley, D.A., Jr. Eds. Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. Springer-Verlag.

New York, pp. 339-357.

Taylor, D.W. 1982. Eastern Sierra riparian vegetation: ecological effects of stream

diversion. Mono Basin Research Group Contribution nr 6, Report to Inyo National

Forest.

Travnichek, V.H., M.B. Bain, and M.J. Maceina. 1995. Recovery of a warmwater fish

assemblage after the initiation of a minimum-flow release downstream from a

hydroelectric dam. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 101: 442-452.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. The Quality of Our Nation’s Water: A

Summary of the 1988 Water Quality Inventory. EPA Report 440/4-90-005, US

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Valantin, S., J.G. Wasson, and M. Philippe. 1995. Effects of hydropower peaking on

epilithon and invertebrate community trophic structure. Regulated Rivers: Research &

Management 10: 105-119.

Verry, E.S., J.R. Lewis, and K.N. Brooks. 1983. Aspen clearcutting increases snowmelt

and storm flow peaks in north central Minnesota. Water Resources Bulletin 19: 425-437.

Viessman, W., and G.L. Lewis. eds. 2003. Introduction to Hydrology. Prentice hall

Publishers.

Walker, L.C. 1991. The Southern Forest. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas,

322pp.

Walser, C.A., and H.L. Bart. 1999. Influence of agriculture on in-stream habitat and fish

community structure in Piedmont watersheds of the Chattahoochee River System.

Ecology of Freshwater Fish 8: 237-246.

Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Rasmussen, P. Kanehl, P. Seelbach, T. Simon, M. Wiley, E.

Baker, S. Niemela, and M. Stewart. 2003. Influences of landscape- and reach-scale

habitat on stream fish communities in the Northern Lakes and Forest ecoregion. Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 60:491-505.

References

110

Wang L., J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl. 2002. Effects of watershed best management practices

on habitat and fish in Wisconsin streams. Journal of the American Water Resources

Association. 38:663–80

Wang, L., J. Lyons, and P. Kanehl. 2001. Impacts of urbanization on stream habitat and

fish across multiple spatial scales. Environmental Management 28: 255-266.

Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, R. Bannerman, and E. Emmons. 2000. Watershed

urbanization and changes in fish communities in south eastern Wisconsin streams.

Journal of the American Water Resources Association 36: 1173-1189.

Wang, L., J. Lyons, P. Kanehl, and R. Gatti. 1997. Influences of watershed land use on

habitat quality and biotic integrity in Wisconsin streams. Fisheries 22:6-12.

Ward, B.R., and P.A. Slaney. 1979. Evaluation of in-stream enhancement structures on

the production of juvenile steelhead trout and Coho salmon in the Keogh River: Progress

1977 and 1978. Fisheries Technical Circular 45. British Columbia Fish and Wildlife

Branch Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Williams, J.G. 1996. Lost in space: minimum confidence intervals for idealized

PHABSIM studies. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125: 458-465.

Williams, G.P., and M.G. Wolman. 1984. Downstream effects of dams on alluvial rivers.

Reston (Va): US Geological Survey. Professional Paper nr 1286.

Wittenberg, R., and M.J.W. Cock. 2001. Invasive alien species. How to address one of

the greatest threats to biodiversity: A toolkit of best prevention and management

practices. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, 215pp.

Wofford, John E.B., Gresswell, Robert E. and Michael A. Banks. 2004. Influence of

Barriers to Movement on Within-watershed Genetic Variation of Coastal Cutthroat Trout.

Ecological Applications. 15 (2): 628-637.

Wolman, M.G. 1967. A cycle of sedimentation and erosion in urban river channels.

Geografiska Annaler 49A(2-4): 385-395.

Wood, P.J., and P.D. Armitage. 1997. Biological Effects of fine sediment in the lotic

environment. Environmental Management 21: 203-217.

Wootton, J.T., M.S. Parker, and M.E. Power. 1996. Effects of disturbance on river food

webs. Science 273: 1558-1561.

Yoder, C.O., R.J. Miltner, and D. White. 1999. Assessing the status of aquatic life

designated uses in urban and suburban watersheds. Pages16–28 in A. Everson, editor.

National conference on retrofit opportunities for water resource protection in urban

111

environments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report EPA/625/R-99/002,

Washington, D.C.

Ziemer, R.R. and T.E. Lisle. 1998. Hydrology. In River Ecology and Management:

Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. R.J. Naiman and Robert E. Bilby

(editors). Springer-Verlag, New York Chapter 3, pp. 43–68.

113

Legislation All links were accessed and working in September of 2006.

FEDERAL

Fisheries Act, R.S.C. 1985

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-14/index.html

Navigable Waters Protection Act ( R.S., 1985, c. N-22 )

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-22/index.html

PROVINCIAL

Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90a08_e.htm

Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90c27_e.htm

Drainage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.17

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90d17_e.htm

Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.18

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90e18_e.htm

Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, S.O. 1993, c. 28


Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19


Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 41

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/97f41_e.htm

Greenbelt Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 1

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/05g01_e.htm

Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.3

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90l03_e.htm

Nutrient Management Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 4

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/02n04_e.htm

Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 31

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-14/index.html

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-22/index.html



http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90c27_e.htm

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90d17_e.htm






http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/97f41_e.htm



http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90l03_e.htm

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/02n04_e.htm

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/01o31_e.htm

Legislation

114


Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 3


Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40


Pesticides Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.11

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90p11_e.htm

Places to Grow Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 13


Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13


Public Lands Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.43















115

Appendices

This series of appendices were created to provide the reader with background information

on the physical and biological processes at work in stream and river environments. It is

hoped that this information will establish linkages between the issues identified through

public consultation and the implementation strategies prescribed in the tables provided in

Chapter 3. As one proceeds through this section it will become apparent that many of the

identified stressors will manifest similar effects and as such the reader will be referred

back to sections where these processes are described.

It may seem at times as though some of the topics discussed in this document have little

to do directly with fisheries management; however, stream environments are

complicated, dynamic entities influenced by events at multiple scales. Early studies

focussed mostly on processes at small spatial scales, often with stream reaches of a few

hundred meters and their immediate surroundings; less consideration was given to the

importance of larger spatial units. Our current understanding of rivers increasingly

incorporates a conceptual framework of spatially nested controlling factors in which

climate, geology, and topography at large scales influence processes that shape channels

at intermediate scales and thereby create and maintain habitat important to organisms at

smaller scales (Allen and Starr 1982, Frissell et al. 1986). For example, human activities

that affect water and sediment supply are likely to result in a complex cascade of changes

that ultimately manifest in altered and possibly degraded stream habitat which in turn

change fish abundance, distribution, size structure, and biodiversity (Allen 2004).

Rivers are sentinels and have been compared to our circulatory system (Sioli 1975). The

study of rivers, like that of blood, can not only indicate the health of rivers themselves but

also that of the landscape.

Appendices

116

Habitat

Water Quantity

Stream flow is a crucial variable to understand when managing watersheds and associated

ecosystems for it supplies the primary medium and energy source for the movement of

water, sediments, woody material, organic material, nutrients, and thermal energy and as

such is a primary force shaping aquatic and riparian habitats. Changes in stream flow are

frequently linked to changes in watershed characteristics that ultimately alter the

dynamics of water storage and transfer and hence the hydrologic cycle (Fig. A1).

The hydrologic (water) cycle is powered by solar energy. This energy regulates

evaporation and transpiration (collectively termed evapotranspiration), transferring water

from the surface on the land, plant tissue, and water bodies (e.g. Lake Ontario) into the

atmosphere.

Figure A1. Schematic of the hydrologic cycle (taken from the Illinois State Geological

Survey).

117

Precipitation as rain or snow, transfers water back to the land surface; a significant

proportion of which immediately returns to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration.

Water that remains after evapotranspiration, drains to stream networks as surface runoff

or as groundwater discharge. Land and water use can have serious impacts on all

components of the water cycle with direct implications for aquatic health and the

provision of adequate and reliable supplies of clean water for public consumption.

Therefore, the understanding of the hydrologic cycle and watershed hydrology is an

important step in undertaking a comprehensive water management plan and as such a

vital element of our conservation works in the Wilmot Creek watershed.

To conceptualize and model the movement of water through a watershed, a

comprehensive understanding of inputs, outputs, and storage capacity is required. This is

done through the creation of water balances and budgets. A water balance is the

accounting of water input and output and change in storage of the various components of

the hydrologic cycle. A water budget is a summation of input, output, and net changes

to a particular water resources system over a fixed period of time. Using this approach

managers can determine the amount of water available (e.g. for human use) at any one

time in much the same manner, as one manages business finances. See the section on

Mitigation, Strategies and Alternatives for more discussion on water budgets and water

balances.

Stream Flow

The amount of water flowing in surface watercourses at any one time is small in terms of

a watershed’s total water budget, but it is of considerable importance to those concerned

with water resource development, supply, and management. A knowledge of the quantity

and quality of stream flow is a requisite for municipal, industrial, agricultural water

supply projects as well as for flood control, reservoir design and operation, hydroelectric

power generation, water-based recreation, engineering of structures (e.g. roads), water

and waste water treatment, and fish and wildlife management (Viessman and Lewis

2003). Elements of stream flow of interest include velocity, volume, discharge, and stage

height (water level elevation). This information is frequently portrayed using stream flow

hydrographs, which characterize stream behaviour through time at any one point in the

catchment (e.g. at a gauging station) (Fig. A2). Hydrograph analysis serves as the most

widely used method of analyzing surface runoff.

Hydrograph Components

The rising portion (rising limb) of the hydrograph is known as the concentration curve.

The region in the vicinity of the peak is known as the crest segment and the falling

portion (falling limb) is the recession portion of the hydrograph. The gap between the

time or peak rainfall and peak discharge (highest river level) is called lag time.

Appendices

118

Figure A3. Stream flow hydrograph that shows pre- and post- development discharge

Figure A2. An example of a hydrograph representing a hypothetical streams

response

to a flood event

119

In some drainage basins, discharge and river levels rise very quickly after a storm and are

described as having a "flashy" response to precipitation. This can cause frequent, and

occasionally serious, flooding. Following a storm in these basins, both discharge and

river levels fall almost as rapidly, and after dry spells, become very low. In stream

reaches with a high ground water component, the system will seem to maintain a more

even flow. See Figure A3 for a hypothetical hydrograph depicting pre and post

development stream flow conditions.

Some of the factors affecting the responsiveness of a stream and hence the shape of the

hydrograph include:

1) Relief – steeper slopes reduce infiltration rates and promote surface run-off.

2) Soil Type – permeable (sand-gravel) allow more infiltration (e.g. Oak Ridges

Moraine) whereas impermeable soils such as clay tills allow only low rates of

infiltration resulting in higher rates of surface runoff.

3) Vegetation Type and Amount – types and amounts of vegetation will affect

transpiration rates (deciduous trees transpire more moisture than coniferous species),

and infiltration rates (more extensive root systems allow for a greater rate of

infiltration thus reducing run-off).

4) Land Use (Urbanization) – increases in impermeable road surfaces, sloping roofs,

guttering and underground drainage systems transfer water very quickly to rivers

which contributes to the increase responsiveness of river systems.

5) Land Use (Agriculture) – drainage improvements including tile drains and ditching

increases the speed of water transfer. Down slope ploughing as opposed to contour

ploughing funnels water to creek systems. Ploughing on wet land compresses the

subsoil creating a "plough pan" which can lead to decreased water holding,

infiltration and increased run-off/erosion.

6) River Use – building and operating dams to create reservoirs acts to slow down the

rate of discharge at peak times as water is held back to protect the low lying land

downstream.

7) River Use – water extraction (industry and agriculture) is more prevalent during low

flow periods and as such will impact base flow hydrograph.

8) Drainage Density – in locations with more streams per unit area a steeper hydrograph

will result due to a faster rate of response.

9) Nature of Precipitation (Rainfall Intensity) – the greater the rate of rainfall per unit of

time (millimetres per hour) the lower the infiltration rate, resulting in higher amounts

of overland flow and a faster stream response.

Appendices

120

10) Nature of Precipitation (Snowfall) – Snow pack produces less run-off initially but a

sharp rise in temperature may result in a quick thaw and flooding (especially where

the ground underneath the snow is frozen and thus the melted snow will reach the

river rapidly via overland flow).

11) Season/Time of Year – During summer months evapotranspiration rates are higher

reducing the amount of water that will likely reach the stream network.

Fluvial Geomorphology

The size, shape and form of watercourses are produced through interactions among

climate, watershed area, geology, topography, vegetation, and land use. The study of

these interactions and the processes, which shape streams and rivers, is called fluvial

geomorphology. These processes work at various spatial and temporal scales to shape

the physical characteristics of streams (i.e. width/depth, channel geometry, frequency and

shape of pools, riffles, steps, point bars, meanders, floodplains and terraces). It is

necessary to understand the scales at which the processes are operating because different

spatial and temporal scales drive different processes. Annual precipitation patterns

dictate the discharge regime at the watershed level, whereas stream cross-sectional area

controls the extent of habitat available to fishes at the site level.

Figure A4. Three levels of geomorphic investigation (From Duffins Creek State of The

Watershed Report – Geomorphology).

121

Cause and effect relationships operating over a variety of scales have led

geomorphologists to consider three fundamental levels of influence when conducting

stream assessments. These are watershed, stream reach or valley segment, and the site or

cross-section level (see Figure A4.). These influences are nested in that site level stream

changes can reflect changes at the site, reach, and / or watershed level.

The ecoregion (e.g. Lake Ontario ecoregion) exerts influence on terrestrial and aquatic

species through its climate and geological characteristics. Climate and geology exert the

principal controls on the function and form of watersheds. Climate controls the amount

of water delivered and how and when it is delivered. The geology exerts control on the

system by dictating how water moves through and across it as well as affecting the

resistance and supply of sediment (Schumm 1977).

At the reach or valley segment scale, factors that influence the shape of the channel

include the valley slope, size of floodplain, riparian structure, vegetation composition,

channel material (size) and bank properties (material and stability). Also at operation at

this level would be current and historic land use (e.g. the presence of dams - man-made

and natural) for land use modifies the movement of water and sediment. These

influences regulate the amount of water and sediment delivered to the watercourse. The

reach adjusts to changes in the delivery of water and sediment through slope adjustments.

Slope changes slowly under natural conditions, maintaining a dynamic equilibrium.

Valley or reach features in turn influence site level features such as bed form geometry,

meander length, sinuosity, width / depth ratio, and riffle and pool dimensions.

Fundamentally from ecoregion to riffle pool sequence, the two processes at work are

energy potential and energy dissipation. The amount of water and its velocity are energy

inputs. As water moves downhill it possesses a certain amount of energy. Energy is

dissipated through friction with the surrounding geology and vegetation (roughness).

This interaction determines the shape of the channel and the amounts of erosion and the

amount of sediment transported. There exists a balance between the movement of water

and the transport of sediment that is critical for the stability of the channel. When flow

and sediment amounts are out of balance major changes of site and reach level channel

characteristics will follow. The forces of flow and sediment are so influential to channel

stability and ultimately fish habitat that they will be discussed in greater detail. See

sections on The Natural Flow Regime and The Sediment Regime. It is hoped that

these sections will provide context to discussions on the influence of land use on stream

environments.

Appendices

122

The Natural Flow Regime

Stream flow quantity and timing are critical components of the ecological integrity of

river systems and can be considered as “master variables” for they are correlated with

many physiochemical characteristics of rivers such as water temperature, channel

geomorphology, habitat diversity (Power et al. 1995). Historically, stream flow was

managed for specific environmental targets such as water quality and the maintenance of

minimum flows. However, the maintenance of the dynamic nature of river systems has

now become paramount for the conservation of native species and the maintenance of

ecological integrity.

The natural flow of a river can change within hours, days, or years depending on the

geographic setting of the watershed. This is because fluctuations in stream flow show

regional patterns that are driven largely by climate, geology, topography, and vegetative

cover. Variability in the intensity, timing, and duration of precipitation (rain or snow) and

the effects of terrain, geology and soil type, soil moisture, topography (slope), and plant

transpiration patterns on the hydrological cycle create local and regional flow patterns.

These drivers dictate not only the supply of water but also the pathways with which it

reaches the stream channel. For example, one would expect the flow regime of a stream

predominantly influenced by ground water to differ for one influenced by snowmelt. The

characteristics of these regional influences shape five critical components of the flow

regime: magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and the rate of change (flashiness)

(Poff and Ward 1989).

It is important to understand the natural variability of flow for it shapes the structure of

physical habitats and hence important ecological processes within river systems. Flows

organize and define the physical structure of river ecosystems through the movement of

water, sediment, material, and nutrients along the channel and between channel and

floodplain areas. Physical structure includes the amount size and diversity

(heterogeneity) of sediment types (fines vs. cobbles), channel and floodplain morphology

(slope, shape and structure, width and depth, distribution of riffle and pool habitats), and

other geomorphic variables (e.g. bankfull width/depth, entrenchment). These features

develop as materials (sediments and wood) are moved and deposited by flow. Therefore

the presence and abundance of these structures depends not only on flow but also with the

availability of material to move.

It is important to note that a wide range of flows is required to shape and maintain the

various habitats. Flows that shape channel habitats may be different than those required

to shape floodplain habitats. For example many channel habitats (riffles, point bars, and

pools) are formed and maintained by what is termed as bankfull flows. These discharges

are flows that can move significant amounts of bank and streambed material and occur

frequently enough (every several years) to continually change the channel. The

maintenance of floodplain habitats on the other hand may require less frequent larger

flows. The result is the consistent maintenance of a mosaic of habitat types (ephemeral to

persistent) created by the natural variability in stream flows.

123

This habitat diversity has lead to the proliferation of species evolved to exploit not only

specific habitats within the mosaic but also a wide array of habitat types. For example,

many riverine fish species require different habitat types through their development

(Sparks 1995). Furthermore, variation in flow adjusts ecosystem productivity and food

web structure ensuring that various species benefit in different years. From an ecological

perspective, the maintenance of stream flow variability promotes biological diversity.

Human Alterations to the Flow Regime and Effects

A human alteration of natural hydrologic processes interferes with the equilibrium

between the movement of water and the movement of material (i.e. large wood material)

and sediment (Dunne and Leopold 1978). This disruption alters gross and fine scale

geomorphic processes that create and maintain aquatic and riparian species. Often it can

take in the order of centuries for a new equilibrium to develop and in some instances an

equilibrium may never be attained (Petts 1985).

Dams like the Orono Mill Pond Dam on Orono Creek are the most obvious modifiers of

river flow. They tend to pass only the finer sediments and as such they cause sediment

depletion in receiving waters and result in the coarsening of the streambed and excessive

erosion in downstream stream reaches. In the case of Wilmot Creek, however, it is land

use activities such as livestock grazing, agriculture and urbanization (including

improperly design road crossings) that are the primary cause of flow alteration.

Converting natural land cover (forests and grasslands) to agricultural and urban lands

generally decreases soil infiltration of precipitation resulting in increased overland flow,

channel incision, and headwater erosion. See Table A1for an abbreviated list of land use

modifiers and effects on the flow regime.

Ecological Response to Altered Flow Regimes

Modification of natural flow regimes dramatically affects both aquatic and riparian

species. Frequently the ecological response is river specific. The ecological effects of

flow modification will depend on the degree of change relative to the nature regime and

on how specific geomorphologic and ecological processes change with the alteration.

Therefore, the same human activity on different river systems may yield different degrees

of change. However because most human impacts alter one or many of the five critical

components of flow (magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and the rate of change

(flashiness)) and many studies have documented the geomorphic and ecological results,

generalities can be made on the likely impacts of altered flow (see Table A2).

Appendices

124

Table A1. Physical responses to an altered flow regime - taken from Poff et al. 1997

Sources of

alteration

Hydrologic

change(s)

Geomorphic

response(s)

Reference(s)

Dam Capture sediment moving downstream

Downstream channel erosion and incision

Chein 1985, Petts 1984,1985, Williams and Wolman 1984

Bed armouring (coarsening) Chein 1985

Dam, diversion Reduce magnitude and frequency of high flows

Deposition of fines in gravel Sear 1995,Stevens et al. 1995

Channel stabilization and

narrowing

Johnson 1994, Williams and

Wolman 1984 Reduced formation of point

bars, secondary channels,

oxbows, and changes in

channel planiform (shape

sinuosity slope)

Chein 1985, Copp 1989,

Fenner et al. 1985

Urbanization, tiling, drainage Increase magnitude and frequency of high flows

Bank erosion and channel widening

Hammer 1972

Downward incision and

floodplain disconnection

Prestegaard 1988

Reduced infiltration into soil Reduced base flows Leopold 1968

Levees and channelization Reduced over bank flows Channel restriction causing

down cutting

Daniels 1960, Prestegaard et

al. 1994 Floodplain deposition and

erosion prevented

Sparks 1992

Reduced channel migration and formation of secondary

channels

Shankman and Drake 1990

Ground water pumping Lowered water table levels Stream bank erosion and channel down cutting after

loss of vegetation stability

Kondolf and Curry 1986

Table A2. Ecological responses to alterations in components of the natural flow regime –

taken from Poff et al. 1997

Flow component Alteration Ecological response Reference(s) Magnitude and Frequency Increased variation Wash out and/or stranding Cushman 1985, Petts 1984

Loss of sensitive species Travnichek et al. 1995 Increased algal scour and wash

out of organic matter

Petts 1984

Life cycle disruptions Scheidegger and Bain 1995 Flow stabilization Altered energy flow Valentin et al 1995

Invasion and establishment of

exotic species leading to local extinction of native species

and altered fish communities

Moyle 1986, Meffe 1984,

Bush and Smith 1995, Stanford et al. 1996

Reduced water an nutrients to floodplain species causing:

Seedling desiccation

Ineffective seed dispersal

Loss of scoured habitat and secondary channels

needed for plant

establishment

Nillson 1982, Duncan 1993, Scott et al. 1997, Rood et al.

1995, Shankman and Drake

1990

Encroachment of vegetation

into channels

Nilsson 1982, Johnson 1994

Timing Loss of seasonal flow peaks Disrupts cue for: fish spawning, Egg hatching,

migration

Fausch and Bestgen 1997, Montgomery et al 1983,Næsje

et al. 1995, Williams 1996

Loss of fish access to backwaters

Wooton et al. 1996

Reduction or elimination of

riparian recruitment

Fenner et al. 1985

Invasion of exotic riparian

species

Horton 1977

125

Table A2. Continued.

Flow component Alteration Ecological response Reference(s) Duration Prolonged low flows Concentration of aquatic

organisms

Cushman 1985, Petts 1984

Reduction or elimination of

plant cover

Taylor 1982

Diminished plants species diversity

Taylor 1982

Physiological stress leading to

reduced plant growth rate, morphological change, or

mortality

Perkins et al. 1984, Rood et al.

1995, Stromberg et al. 1992, Kondolf and Curry 1986

Prolonged bas flow “spikes” Downstream loss of floating eggs

Roberton 1997

Altered Inundation duration Altered plant cover types Auble et al. 1994

Prolonged inundation Change in vegetation functional type

Bren 1992, Connor et al. 1981

Tree mortality Harms et al. 1980

Loss of riffle habitat for aquatic species

Bogan 1993

Rate of change Rapid changes in river stage Wash-out and stranding of

aquatic species

Cushman 1985, Petts 1984

Accelerated flood recession Failure of seedling

establishment

Rood et al. 1995

The Sediment Regime

Just as important as the flow regime, the movement and storage of sediment within a

channel controls the shape and form of a watercourse. The sediment regime describes the

delivery and transport of sediment. In stable channels there is a strong relationship and

balance between flows and sediment. This balance is very sensitive and any changes in

the sediment regime will result in channel adjustment.

Aspects of sediment dynamics that need to be understood include, source or production

of sediment, means of delivery, properties of the sediment (size, shape, geology), volume

of sediment transported, and the mode of transport (suspended load, bed load). The

sediment load that is carried by the channel is derived from either upland terrestrial areas

or from the channel itself.

Upland sources of sediment result from surface flow from bluffs or gullies and from

agricultural fields. Urban areas provide sediment through increased run-off carrying sand

from roads and parking lots. Other major sources include sediment from construction

sites, housing developments, and road improvements. Sediment production from within

the channel results from erosion of bank and bed materials. Generally the production of

sediment from upland sources is greater than from in-channel sources. In natural stream

systems, sediment is produced in the upper third of the watershed, transported through the

middle third, and deposited in the lower third of the watershed.

When the amounts of sediment delivered to the stream differ from the capacity of the

channel and flow required to move said sediment the channel adjusts to accommodate the

Appendices

126

changing sediment regime. For example, if a mast wasting of a hill of roadside occurs

along a small headwater tributary, the flow will not be able to move the large debris load.

The channel will aggrade (accumulate with sediment) resulting in a wide and shallow

channel. Alternatively, if a given sediment load is removed (trapped behind a dam or

improperly designed culvert) the reach down downstream will be sediment starved

resulting in excessive bank and bed scour often leading to stream widening and or stream

down cutting. Management targets will be developed based on monitoring programs

designed to determine how the sediment regime relates to the flow regime. It may not be

a matter of achieving the sediment regime that would naturally be found, but achieving a

sediment regime that balances with the current perhaps altered flow regime.

Natural Channel Design

A natural stream system should exhibit two key characteristics: Physically, from a

geomorphological standpoint, the stream system will be dynamically stable. It will

exhibit self-regulatory mechanisms that are stable over time and adjust to accommodate

changes in water yields and sediment loads. Biologically, the stream and valley system

will be self-sustaining and self-regulating. It will exhibit healthy ecological functions,

manifested by productive vegetative communities in the valley and healthy aquatic and

terrestrial communities supported by diverse habitats (OMNR 1994).

Where stream reaches exhibit the above criteria it is the intention of this document to

stress preventative management options to maintain ecological health. This can be

accomplished through implementing best management practices and good planning

(official plans, zoning by-laws), and through the promotion of community ownership and

stewardship. Management strategies may include the development of appropriate

setbacks to prevent future degradation.

For those stream reaches that are not stable, it is the intent of this document to promote

natural channel theory toward restoration activities and toward the design and

reconstruction of new channels that are severely altered. The design and reconstruction

of new channels following a natural channel design will ensure that stream channels and

their associated floodplain riparian systems are designed to be naturally functional, stable,

healthy, productive, and sustainable.

Forest Cover, Agriculture and Urbanization: The Influence of Land Use

on Rivers

The Wilmot watershed, as with other watersheds on the Oak Ridges Moraine, was

extensively forested prior to European settlement. With human settlement came

extensive stream degradation. Deforestation and poor farming practices resulted in

pronounced wind and water erosion, gulleying of headwater streams, water loss from

creek systems and severe flooding (Richardson 1944). Richardson predicted that

reforestation would decrease flood flows and increase summer low flows and reduce soil

127

erosion. These predictions were founded on the hydrologic effects of basin-wide forest

cover. Reforestation and the implementation of agricultural best management practices

have gone a long way towards the restoration of Oak Ridge Moraine streams.

In today’s age, urban expansion is the largest threat to the health of streams originating

on the Oak Ridges Moraine. With the expanding growth of the GTA, Wilmot Creek will

see significant development pressure. Within the Municipality of Clarington, population

has increased from 51,160 to 72,600 between 1991 and 2001 and is expected that the

population will more than double to 177,750 by 2031 (Statistics Canada Census,

Regional Municipality of Durham 2006).

Although the dominant land use has changed within the basin, for the most part, the mode

of degradation has not. This is largely due to the overwhelming influence of altered

watershed hydrology and sedimentation rates.

Hydrology

One of the most pronounced influences exerted by basin vegetation on stream health is its

influence on the routing of water through the hydrologic cycle. Generally speaking, once

precipitation falls to the ground, it will either be lost through evaporation or transpiration

(water loss from plants during photosynthesis) or move downhill to streams as either

surface run-off, or as ground water following soil infiltration (Allen 1995). Human

alteration of naturally forested areas generally results in decreased infiltration of

precipitation and increased surface run-off and thus impacts both peak stream flow and

low flow. However studies of the effects of changes in forest cover on the extent of peak

and low flows are inconclusive (Hewett 1982). See the section on The Natural Flow

Regime for more discussion on the importance of components of natural stream flows.

Verry et al. (1983) recorded increases in peak discharges from snowmelt and rainfall

following clear-cutting. Hornbeck (1975) noted an increase in peak discharges due to

snowmelt but not with rainfall. Hoover (1941) found that clear-cutting produced no

significant change in peak flow while Harr and McCorison (1979) observed a reduction

of peak discharge following clear-cut logging. In Blue Ridge streams of Georgia and

Tennessee, Jones and Post (2004) found elevated summer flows following deforestation,

while Price and Leigh (2006) documented reduced summer flows in basins with less

forest cover. Schneider and Ayer (1961) found no significant change in low flow

discharge following reforestation of abandoned farmland in New York State while

McGuiness and Harold (1971) found reduced low flows following reforestation in Ohio.

Closer to home, Buttle (1995) documented increased base flows and decreased peak

flows in the Ganaraska River 40 years after the creation of the Ganaraska Forest in

headwater reaches of that basin, confirming Richardson’s 1944 predictions.

The magnitude of the effects of forest cover removal or addition on stream flow remains

difficult to predict. Difficulties arise when hydrologic response is compared across

treatment basins that differ in size, flow magnitude, season, climate, stream gradient,

Appendices

128

geology, type and intensity of land use, and with the age (young vs. older forests) and

type of forest affected (deciduous vs. coniferous forests)(Ziemer and Lisle 1998).

Agricultural practices following forest removal result in additional impacts to the

hydrologic regime. Stream hydrological change in agricultural streams varies with crop

type (and hence evapotranspiration rates), soil infiltration capacity, the extent of drainage

systems, and if there is irrigation, whether from surface or groundwater sources. Storm

flows commonly increase in magnitude and frequency, especially where drainage ditches

and tile drains are used to enhance run-off. Stream base flows often decline owing to

decreased infiltration and the export of stream water where irrigation is used (Richards et

al. 1996).

Impacts to the hydrologic regime are most pronounced in urban settings. The removal of

forest cover, compaction of soils, creation of impervious surfaces (surfaces impenetrable

to water, e.g. pavement) coupled with storm water conveyance systems, and the alteration

of drainage networks cause larger and more frequent stream peak flows. This flashiness

in the flow regime alters channel dynamics and in-stream habitat through increased

erosion and displacement of stream sediments. These changes induce a geomorphic

response commonly resulting in enlarged unstable channels. Many studies have reported

channel widening or incision as a result of urbanization (Hammer 1972, Booth 1990).

Increased impervious surface area also tends to prevent water infiltration resulting in

reduced base flows. Reduced summer stream flows occupying enlarged channels result

in shallower warmer stream habitats. Reduced base flows resulting from urbanization

were correlated with degraded warm water fish communities in southeastern Wisconsin

streams (Wang et al. 1997, 2000, 2001).

Sediment Yields

Naturally occurring forests with health understory vegetation stabilize sediments. The

removal of the forest canopy for timber harvest or agricultural purposes exposes

sediments to increased surface run-off. Along with changes in stream flow, increased

sediment production is one of the most serious consequences of forest removal. A

common result is intensified hillslope erosion and increased sediment input to streams

(Knighton 1998, Slaymaker 2000) particularly during flood events (Wolman 1967, Knox

1987, Meade et al. 1990). Increased sediment input due to disturbance of protective

vegetation is accelerated by road construction and poor management practices resulting in

larger and more frequent debris flows in steep basins (Walker 1991, Slaymaker 2000,

Jackson et al. 2001, Price and Leigh 2006). Although increased sediment yield is well

documented at flood events, increases in stream turbidity during base flow conditions

have also been reported even at moderate levels of disturbance (Price and Leigh 2006).

The U.S. EPA (1990) has identified increased sediment loading due to human activity as

a paramount problem affecting surface waters.

Some of the impacts from excessive sedimentation include: alteration of instream habitat

by channel aggradation (bed elevation due to sediment build up), channel widening, bed

129

fining, and pool filling, all of which tends to reduce habitat complexity and channel depth

(Montgomery and Buffington 1998, Wood and Armitage 1997). Wang and Lyons (2003)

found that channel widening and depth reductions promoted warming, resulting in

increased water temperatures. Sediment accumulation fills interstitial areas (as found in

gravel and cobble habitats) and as such is harmful to crevice dwelling invertebrates and

gravel spawning fishes (Sutherland et al. 2002). Henley et al., (2000) documented losses

of suitable substrates required for periphyton and biofilm production, altering food

quality and associated food-webs. The overall tendency is towards a reduction in the

amounts of diverse habitats and species.

Obviously, different rates and amounts of sediment are produced by different land uses.

Not surprisingly, agriculture is one of the most significant land uses with regards to

sediment yield because it occupies the largest fraction of land area in many developed

watersheds (Allen 2004). Benke and Cussing (2004) report that six major drainage

basins in the United States all have more than 40% of their area in agriculture: the Lower

Mississippi, Upper Mississippi, Southern Plains, Ohio, Missouri, and the Colorado,

representing a significant proportion of the continental United States. It is estimated that

46% of sediment in stream habitats is derived through agricultural sources in American

waterways (Gianessi et al 1986). As with timber harvest, sediment accumulation from

agriculture homogenizes stream habitats. Amounts of stream channel sediments

increased with increasing agriculture land use resulting in uniform channel habitats,

decreased water depth and declines in fish diversity from Piedmont Region streams in

Georgia (Walser and Bart 1999).

Increased sediment loads are a symptom of urban development as well, although the

pathway of sediment loading is likely different from that documented in agricultural

settings. Apart from direct inputs occurring during construction, most sediment is

derived from in-stream sources such as bank and bed scour resulting from excessive

stream flows, illustrating the importance of hydrology in the urban environment (Booth

1990) Allen et al. (1997) found lower rates of sedimentation in urban environments when

compared to agricultural watersheds from southeastern Michigan. However, high

external sources of sedimentation have been documented when development occurs on

steep or unstable slopes. Byron and Goldman (1989) found a strong correlation between

annual average total suspended solids concentrations and the proportion of development

on slopes greater than 9%.

Water Quality

In addition to sediment inputs, many other water quality parameters have been associated

with basin vegetation change and land use. The concentrations of many chemical

constituents are affected both directly and indirectly by land use (Dunne and Leopold

1976, Jackson et al. 2001). Swank (1988) demonstrated increases in stream nitrate

concentration with removal of forest cover. Phosphorous compounds tend to enter the

stream bound to sediment during run-off events (Dunne and Leopold 1976,

Shirmohamma et al 1996). When examining the effects of forest clearance on the health

Appendices

130

of headwater streams in the upper Little Tennessee River basin, Price and Leigh (2006)

demonstrated that modest decreases in forest cover (18 to 22%) can result in significant

degradation of stream water quality. Comparisons between lightly impacted streams (>

90% forest cover) and moderately impacted streams (70 – 80% forest cover) revealed

elevated levels of total suspended and dissolved solids, organic solids, nitrate, and

temperature, and declines in dissolved oxygen in those basins with less forest cover.

Agricultural run-off is a major source of pollutants to aquatic habitats. The proportion of

agriculture within a catchment and forest in the riparian zone explained 65 – 84% of the

variation in yields of nitrogen, dissolved phosphorous, and suspended solids for 78

watersheds across five states in the Mid Atlantic region (Jones et al. 2001). The

combined effects of increased nutrient loading, light penetration, and water temperature

resulting from agriculture and forest clearing (particularly riparian forests) drastically

alter food-chain dynamics, resulting in increased algal production, and altered

invertebrate and fish communities. Food webs become driven by autochthonous (within

the stream) energy sources rather than by allochthonous (outside the stream) ones (Quinn

2000). Insecticide and herbicide run-off has also been implicated in the loss of aquatic

biota from agricultural watersheds (Skinner 1997, Schulz and Liess 1999). The influence

of agricultural use of insecticides and herbicides on stream biota may be understated in

landscape studies as they are seldomly measured (Allen 2004).

Major changes in aquatic habitats associated with urban streams have also been linked to

excess nutrient and pollutant loading and increased water temperature resulting from loss

of riparian vegetation and warming of surface run-off on exposed surfaces. The effects of

the multitude of chemicals released into urban watersheds are rarely detected in

landscape level studies of the impacts of urbanization. However, when examining the

influence of urbanization on streams in the vicinity of Anchorage Alaska, Ourso and

Frenzel (2003) found that declines in intolerant invertebrate taxa were more highly

correlated with stream and sediment chemistry than they were with channel and in-stream

habitat variables, suggesting the importance of contaminants.

Regardless of the land use involved with the delivery of contaminants, their effects on

aquatic organisms is well documented and include: increased deformities; increased

mortality rates and impacts to abundance, drift, and emergence of invertebrates;

depressed growth, reproduction, condition and survival among fishes; endocrine system

disruption; and physical avoidance (Allen 2004).

Forest removal from the stream margins (riparian zone), whether it be from timber

harvest or agriculture, has more direct impacts on stream health. Along with sediment

and hydrologic effects, water temperatures tend to increase during summer months

resulting from the loss of shade (Quinn 2000). Bank stability may decrease making them

more susceptible to erosion during high flows (Lyons et al. 2000). Large wood is no

longer available for recruitment into the stream channel reducing the complexity of

habitat (Gregory et al. 2003). See the section on the role of Large Woody Material for

more discussion on this topic.

131

The diversity of fish species within a watershed is a good indicator of ecosystem health

(see Biodiversity). For example, each fish species exhibits a different tolerance to water

quality parameters and has specific optimal environmental requirements. Therefore, the

composition of the fish community in a particular area will indicate the general health of

that ecosystem. To facilitate the protection of aquatic life, federal and provincial tools

have been created which establish benchmarks for various water quality parameters

including the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CWQG) and Provincial Water

Quality Objectives (PWQO) respectively (Table A3). These guidelines and objectives

provide science-based acceptable levels for the most sensitive species of aquatic plants

and animals (i.e. indicator species) found in Canadian waters.

Table A3. Summary of Provincial and Federal Water Quality Guidelines and Objectives.

Water Quality

Parameter

Objective/

Guideline

Sources Effects of Elevated Levels on

Aquatic Life Phosphorous

0.03 mg/L Fertilizers, sanitary

sewage, and erosion from stream banks, construction

sites, and agriculture

Stimulates algae growth and can lead to

eutrophication, oxygen depletion (when the algae decomposes) and decreased aesthetics.

Ammonia

0.02mg/L Fertilizers, sanitary sewage, and erosion from

stream banks, construction

sites, and agriculture

Nitrogen compounds including ammonia, nitrite (NO2) and nitrate can be lethal to fish in low

concentrations (as in the case of ammonia and

nitrite), or like phosphorous can stimulate algae growth (as in the case of nitrate).

Nitrite

0.6 mg/L

Nitrate

2.9 mg/L

Suspended Sediment Not exceeding 25mg/L

Erosion from streambanks, construction sites, and

agriculture.

Degraded fish habitat and spawning areas, abrasion of fish gills, decreased water clarity and aesthetics.

Chlorides None Road salting, industrial waste, sanitary sewage

Potentially toxic

Dissolved Oxygen Dependent on life

stage

5-6mg/L for

warm-water biota

6.5-9.5 mg/L for cold-water biota

Organic loading Increased stress, potentially lethal

Temperature (critical

in summer months)

Species specific Influenced by

groundwater, riparian

vegetation and land use

Increased stress, potentially lethal to fish and

benthic invertebrates, promotes eutrophication, and

influences other water quality parameters (e.g.

dissolved oxygen, ammonia).

E. coli 100 counts per 100mL

Faecal matter Health risk

Riparian Vegetation

The riparian zone refers to the biotic community directly adjacent to waterbodies

including streams, rivers, lakes, ponds and wetlands that serve as an interface between

terrestrial and aquatic environments. This area strongly influences both in-stream

environments (especially lower order streams) and adjacent ecological systems. As a

result, Environment Canada recommends that at least 75% of the stream length should be

naturally vegetated in Area of Concern (AOC) watersheds (EC 2004).

Appendices

132

Riparian vegetation assists in the maintenance of the physical stream environment. The

contribution of large woody material to the stream system from riparian vegetation

strongly influences the patterns of water and sediment transport (see section on Large

Woody Material). Root systems help to maintain stream bank stability and capture and

holds particles that would otherwise flow directly into the stream from surface runoff

(Nainam et al. 1998).

In addition to the physical impacts, riparian vegetation helps to maintain healthy water

quality. The removal of riparian vegetation can result in alteration to hydrologic regimes,

sediment regimes, solar radiation, nutrient and organic inputs, and in-stream habitat, all

of which can indirectly impact water quality (e.g. temperature, pH, turbidity, oxygen

concentration, pollutants) (MacDonald et al. 1991).

Determining sufficient riparian zone size has been a problem for resource managers. The

delineation of riparian zones is difficult given their variable physical composition,

function and community structure. The spatial extent of riparian vegetation is a function

of valley morphology, hydrology, soil, and disturbances related to the variable stream

environment including flooding, erosion and sediment deposition, and physical abrasion

(Naiman et al. 1998).

Currently, there is a commonly accepted minimum guideline for the maintenance of a

30m naturally vegetated riparian buffer for the protection of coldwater streams (EC 2004,

OMAH 2002). However, there has been increasing scientific support to extend this

guideline further (EC 2004). Ideally, the guideline would recognize that the dynamics of

riparian zones vary longitudinally and laterally throughout the drainage network as a

function of valley morphology, physical processes, vegetative legacies, and life history

strategies, thereby promoting riparian health throughout the watershed. In the Wilmot

Fisheries Management Plan we are proposing that at a minimum the riparian zone should

be of sufficient size to allow for the recruitment of mature trees to the stream to promote

the input of large woody material.

Large Woody Material

The contribution of large wood from riparian vegetation can influence the

geomorphology of watercourses by manipulating the patterns of flow and sediment

transport, and facilitate the creation and maintenance of diverse in-stream habitats.

Typically, large wood is deposited into streams as a result of bank cutting, windthrow and

stem depression and is removed by leaching, microbial decomposition, fragmentation or

downstream transport (Bilby and Bisson 1998). However, downstream transport is often

interrupted by accumulation above human-built barriers (See section on In-stream

Barriers and Water Crossings).

The ecological roles of large woody material include the contribution of particulate

organic matter (leaves, needles, branches) that serve as a seasonal food source for aquatic

133

invertebrates, which serve as a food source for larger fish. Large wood also provides

nursery habitat for additional riparian vegetation (an adaptation of riparian vegetation to

the high energy, erosive stream environment). The erosional and depositional

environments in and around woody material greatly influences channel meandering and

bank stability, and provide a substrate for early successional plant species to grow.

Further, the contribution of large wood dictates the colonization, composition and spatial

distribution of floodplain vegetation and, in some cases, the formation of landmasses

(Fetherston et al. 1995). If undisturbed, the accumulation of wood and sediment and

subsequent colonization of vegetation can coalesce into floodplain habitat.

Large wood plays an important role in the creation of fish habitat, especially in lower

order streams, by altering channel width and depth, and forming and maintaining gravel

bars and waterfalls (Bilby and Bisson 1998). Woody material is also a primary

determinant in the creation of pools, a preferred habitat for many salmonids. Large

woody material influences pool size and frequency. The deepest pools tend to be

associated with large roughness elements like large woody material. Average pool depth

decreased following the experimental removal of large woody material from several

streams following the eruption of Mt. St. Helens (Lisle 1995). Fausch and Northcote

(1992) found that streams lacking large woody material were shallower and less sinuous

than those with higher amounts of large woody material.

Fish populations are typically larger in streams with plenty of large woody material.

Standing stocks of juvenile Coho salmon and cutthroat trout were five times higher in

stream reaches with large amounts of wood than from reaches with little wood in British

Columbia streams (Fausch and Northcote 1992). When examining winter populations of

juvenile Coho salmon populations from 54 streams in Southeast Alaska, Murphy et al.

(1985) found that the average Coho salmon density in streams with wood volume less

than 50m3 per 30m stream length was only 25% of the average density in streams with

greater wood volumes. Declines in fish abundance have been documented following

wood removal from channels throughout the Pacific Northwest (Lestelle 1978, Bryant

1983, Dolloff 1986, Elliot 1986).

Deliberate additions of large woody material to streams resulted in increased abundance

of juvenile salmonids in Oregon and British Colombia streams (Ward and Slaney 1979,

House and Boehne 1986). The addition of woody material to coastal Oregon streams led

to the increased survival of juvenile Coho salmon resulting in larger adult returns

(Crispen et al. 1993). Sedell et al. (1984) found that more fish were attracted to complex

wood structures than to single logs. In Kloiya creek, British Columbia, 99% of Coho fry

and 85% of steelhead parr were associated with root wads placed in mid-channel habitats

where cover was previously lacking. McMahon and Hartman (1989) determined that

woody cover was not only important for promoting pool habitats, but also that it served

as important refuge habitat during periods of high flows.

Large woody material has also been known to affect water quality. The turbulence

created by the water flowing around wood facilitates oxygenation of water from the

Appendices

134

atmosphere; however, reduced oxygen levels have also been attributed to slow flowing

streams above logjams (Bilby and Bisson 1998). The type of tree species can also affect

water quality as some species leach toxic compounds in low concentrations and can

reduce the pH (Buchanan et al. 1976).

As mentioned earlier, large woody material greatly impacts the geomorphology of

streams through altering the patterns of flow and sediment. As such it can be used as a

tool to alter undesirable trends in stream geomorphology. The addition of woody

material to stream reaches that are sediment starved and entrenched (e.g. lower reaches of

Wilmot Creek) would promote sediment storage, thereby elevating the stream bed in

currently degrading (stream segments that are down cutting) channel habitats. In

entrenched stream segments this would also serve to allow the stream access to its

floodplain.

Modelling the Impacts of Land-use on Aquatic Habitats in Lake

Ontario Streams

Human land use has direct and indirect effects on physical, chemical, and biological

characteristics of streams. In light of future development pressures facing southern

Ontario streams, relating ecological condition to varying levels of development is

essential to help predict and mitigate impacts and helping to ensure that irreversible

damages do not occur. The use of models to predict the impacts of land disturbance has

become a powerful tool and is well represented in scientific literature.

A variety of land use descriptors have been used to relate disturbance to ecological

condition such as catchment population density (Jones and Clark 1987), amount of

agriculture (Harding et al 1999), and land use / land cover (Kilgour and Barton 1999).

Many of these studies focus on particular disturbances and fail to integrate various types

of development activities.

One metric that has emerged from the scientific literature as a useful environmental

indicator is the percentage of impervious surface coverage (PIC) within a watershed

(Arnold and Gibbons 1996). Leopold (1968) recognized that conversion of forests to

agriculture and urban landscapes resulted in increased impervious surfaces leading to

reduced infiltration of precipitation into soils and increased overland flow. Leopold

found that streams in disturbed catchments respond faster to storm events (flashy), had

lower base flows, were wider and shallower, and were warmer and more polluted than

undisturbed streams. These conclusions have been substantiated through multiple studies

across different scales (size watersheds) and geographic regions. However the degree of

ecosystem response to percent impervious cover has varied.

Declines in fish species diversity and indices of biotic integrity (IBI) were documented

when impervious area reached 8 %-12% in Wisconsin Watersheds (Stepenuck et al.

2002, Wang et al. 2000), 8%-15% in Delaware catchments (Paul and Meyer 2001), >

12% in Maryland (Klein 1979), and 15% in Georgia streams (Roy et al. 2003).

135

Responses at thresholds as low as 5 –8% impervious area have been reported for benthic

macroinvertebrates (May et al. 1997) while geomorphic response has been documented at

only 4% percent impervious cover (Leopold 1978). Stanfield and Kilgour (2006) believe

that the range in threshold values can be attributed to differences in stream resilience

between ecoregions and/or how response variables are measured and imperviousness is

estimated.

To quantify the relationship between land use disturbance and aquatic ecosystem health

in southern Ontario streams, Stanfield and Kilgour (2006) developed a locally derived

model incorporating fish benthic invertebrates, in-stream habitat and landscape data from

sites across the north shore of Lake Ontario. This model incorporates data from the

Wilmot watershed and as such will be used to help generate landscape targets to ensure

the maintenance of aquatic health within the Wilmot system.

Results from the Lake Ontario modelling agree with those reported for other watersheds.

Landscape measures (surficial geology (influencing base flow), catchment size, slope,

and land use disturbance (measured as percent impervious cover (PIC)) accounted for

significant variability in the responses of fish and benthos communities, in-stream

temperature, and some in-stream habitat measures (width:depth ratios, and percent stable

banks). When the influence of slope, surficial geology, and catchment size were

removed, land use disturbance as measured as percent impervious cover was a significant

modifier.

Land use disturbance was a significant predictor for fish community composition (Figure

5.). Sites with abundant salmonids tended to have lower PIC values, higher forest cover,

and higher base flow ratings, whereas sites lacking salmonids tended to have higher PIC

values, lower forest cover, and lower base flow ratings. Species richness (number of

species present) was highest at 5 –10% impervious area. The model predicts the presence

of salmonids in streams with low amounts of impervious cover and the absence of

salmonids in streams with high amounts of impervious cover (Stanfield and Kilgour

2006).

The model predicts a threshold response for fish communities along the north shore of

Lake Ontario in response to increased land disturbance. At disturbance levels less than

10 percent, large changes to the fish community can be expected as levels of disturbance

change. Once watershed disturbance levels cross the 10% threshold, smaller changes in

the fish community are seen. This reflects the loss of sensitive species and the

dominance of disturbance tolerant species at levels of disturbance greater than 10 percent

(Figure 5.).

Similar results were seen when benthos community composition was compared across

varying levels of disturbance. Tolerant taxa (chironomids, platyhelminths, oligocheates,

isopods etc.) were generally found at sites with higher land use disturbance and lower

base flow scores. Sensitive taxa (Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, Coleoptera) were generally

found in streams with higher forest cover, and higher base flow scores.

Appendices

136

Figure A5. Relationship between percent impervious cover (PIC) and fish community

scores from sites across the study area and site within the Wilmot watershed.

Few geomorphic variables were associated with land use disturbance apart from

width:depth ratio and percent stable banks. This likely reflects an insufficient number of

sites with stable geomorphic conditions. A lengthy stabilization period is required for

streams to re-establish a geomorphic equilibrium following disturbance (hundreds to

thousands of years – depending on the degree of disturbance). Considering that much of

the study area was deforested in the 1800s and received serious in-stream modifications,

current stream morphologies probably reflect historic disturbances.

Overall, Stanfield and Kilgour (2006) found that biological and physical conditions were

influenced by the combined effects of agriculture and urbanization and that there is value

in developing an overall metric for land disturbance such as percent impervious cover or

a land use disturbance index. The use of a land disturbance index is an improvement

over simplistic targets such as the 30 percent land cover as forest proposed by

Environment Canada (2006) – How Much Habitat is Enough. Results from the

modelling indicate that working to achieve a single target such as 30 % forest cover tends

to overlook the benefits of other non-forested land uses such as grasslands and prairies. It

also assumes that achieving this forest target is enough to improve a catchment regardless

of the other land uses present (e.g. 30% forest and 70% urban). Therefore the Wilmot

Fisheries Management Plan will be promoting targets based on lowering land use

disturbance values which can involve plans to increase forest cover.

-5

-3

-1

1

3

0 5 10 15 20

Trout and

Sculpins

Minnows and Darters

Tolerant to Disturbance

Intolerant to Disturbance

% Imperviousness (Land disturbance Index) Lake Ontario Tributaries Wilmot Creek

Fis

h C

om

mu

nity I

ndex

137

When examining the Stanfield and Kilgour model, Wilmot creek ranks well in relation to

many other Lake Ontario tributaries (Figure 5.). All stream segments, apart from the

lower sections of Foster Creek, are below their 10 % threshold. Many sites within the

catchment, however, are close to the 10 % disturbance threshold. Therefore it will be

important to monitor land use activities to ensure that the valuable fisheries resources of

this watershed are not lost. As such, the use of the Stanfield and Kigour model will aid

with the implementation of the Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Plan through the

establishment of zone specific targets to support fisheries management goals.

For example, Stanfield et al. (2006) found that their model was useful for determining

species specific thresholds. Their 10% PIC threshold was refined following species

specific distribution and abundance modelling. Rainbow trout were absent from stream

reaches where catchment disturbance was greater than 8.9% while brook trout were

absent from stream reaches with disturbance levels greater than 6.58 %. These species

related thresholds could then be used to help establish zone specific targets.

Fisheries Management Zones 6 and 7 are designated as brook trout management zones.

These areas will need to have relatively low land use disturbance scores to achieve the

goal of self-sustaining brook trout populations. Using the land disturbance modelling

(Figure 6.) to identify catchments in need of stewardship, we can see that sections of

Orono and Hunter Creeks are in need of landscape improvements to improve their LDI

scores. It is important to note that improving the scores in these creeks will have a net

benefit to the condition of the lower mainstem of Wilmot Creek (below the confluence of

Orono and Stalker Creeks).

It also should be noted that the data used to estimate land use disturbance in the Stanfield

and Kilgour model is based on 1996 provincial land cover information. New mapping

layers with improved resolution are being developed through provincial initiatives such

as SOLRIS (Southern Ontario Land Resource Information System) which use medium

resolution satellite imagery. Stanfield and Kilgour are currently re-analyzing fish and

benthic data with the new land cover data. As new improved data sets are generated it is

likely that the thresholds identified will change. However, the exact thresholds are not

as important as the relationship that exists between land disturbance and aquatic

health. If efforts are made to reduce the levels of disturbance on the landscape

eventually aquatic communities will respond regardless of the exact percentages.

Appendices

138

Land Use Improvements

Healthy

Restore

In Trouble

Fisheries Management Zones

Figure A6. A break down of stream segments in need of improvement from a landscape perspective.

Streams are scores based on their LDI rank. Good streams (blue) have LDI values of 6.5 or

less. Streams in need of improvements have LDI values between 6.5 and 8.9. Streams with

segments very close to 10 % threshold or exceeding the threshold are marked in red.

Area of Land Use

Improvements

139

Habitat Mitigation Strategies

Several mitigation strategies are listed in the issues / implementation tables provided in

Chapter 3. The following discussion will elaborate on how the suggested actions will

improve watershed function and fish habitat in the Wilmot Creek drainage area.

Riparian and Tableland Planting

To improve stream health, many areas in the watershed are in need of riparian and

tableland plantings. Riparian forests are important as a nutrient source providing food

resources to stream dwelling invertebrates. They shade stream habitats and help to filter

out excess nutrients. When these trees mature and fall into the stream, they will promote

the formation of pool habitats and help trap sediments.

Tableland or upland plantings will promote infiltration of rainwater and snow melt and

reduce excess delivery of surface runoff and sediment to stream habitats. Increased

groundwater recharge will allow for reliable and stable delivery of groundwater to stream

environments and help maintain summer baseflows.

Riparian zone and adjacent tablelands that are sparsely planted will be mapped. They

will be a priority for restoration and financial incentive programs to help improve stream

water quality in the Wilmot watershed.

Stormwater Management

As discussed earlier, urban development, whether it is residential, commercial or

industrial greatly impacts the quantity and quality of water bound for stream systems.

During the mid to late 1980s, the Great Lakes Basin experienced rapid urban growth.

Stormwater runoff associated with this growth is a major contributor to the degradation of

water quality and the destruction of fish habitat. In response to these environmental

concerns, a variety of stormwater management technologies have been developed to

mitigate the impacts of urbanization on the natural environment.

A wide variety of structural and non-structural best management practices are used in the

design of storm water management strategies in order to achieve the desired level of

control. Traditionally, best management practices are often engineering structures, costly

to construct and maintain and are designed for mitigation purposes. Each form of control

is designed to treat storm water before entering the receiving watercourse, through a

settling or infiltration process, and through the attenuation and reduction of flow volumes

and velocities.

Early stormwater management practices prior to the 1980s were designed to provide

water quantity control for a particular development area (e.g. subdivision) and generally

consisted of large dry ponds. Since then, the focus of the design of these structures has

shifted from site specific control to watershed or subwatershed control and from strictly

Appendices

140

water volume control to also address water quality and erosion issues. These ponds are

called end-of-pipe facilities since they are located at the end of the storm drain system.

Currently, the design criteria of these end-of-pipe structures are usually based on sub

watershed plans and the sensitivity of the receiving watercourse. Through the Wilmot

Creek Fisheries Management Plan the community can advocate for strenuous stormwater

controls on all new developments to ensure that the sensitive coldwater fish communities

are not jeopardized.

Today many types of storm water ponds are in use depending on the control required.

Wet ponds are the most common types of end-of-pipe facility. They incorporate a

permanent pool component used to settle out sediments and as such they can provide

water quality, quantity and erosion control. Wetlands also incorporate a shallow

permanent pool component for the settling of particulate and the incorporation of wetland

plants facilitates nutrient removal. These systems provide water quantity, quality, and

erosion control. They require a larger area for appropriate operation than wet ponds.

Dry ponds are typically used for water quantity control only. Because they do not have a

permanent pool component, dry ponds require less land area for construction. They do

not prevent the resuspension of sediments.

These structures are implemented under new development scenarios; however, often in

older communities, pre-existing stormwater removal systems are still in use. These

include drainpipes, which dump untreated storm flows directly to watercourses. To limit

the impacts of these systems, controls will need to be in place further up the drainage

network. This can be done through the use of Lot Level (Source) controls including the

use of rain barrels, infiltration trenches, parking lot and rooftop storage, and backyard

ponds. Creating extra storage at the source will limit the amount of runoff reaching

watercourses during large rain events. These retention methods can also reduce

household water use by providing rainwater for irrigating lawns and gardens.

Although stormwater ponds are incorporated into new developments, they are often not

constructed until the later stages of development resulting in increased sedimentation in

streams. Often, temporary mitigation, like the use of sediment fences to control erosion

from site grading is insufficient. Construction of stormwater ponds or temporary roughed

in ponds designed to the degree of development or phase (e.g. prior to or during site

grading) will ensure minimal impacts from erosion and sedimentation. In addition to

mitigating for sedimentation, incorporating innovative techniques (e.g. French drains,

bottom draw, planting trees for shade) into design will minimize thermal impacts. Lastly,

it is important to monitor these best management practices to determine their

effectiveness.

Tile Drains / Water Storage Ponds

Tile drains are used in the agricultural sector as a means of removing unwanted surface

water from farm fields. These systems rapidly convey water to watercourses and as such

result in hydrologically flashy stream environments. Working with farmers to design

141

efficient drains that allow for a gradual release of storm runoff will help stabilize flows as

well as bank and bed sediments. A first step in the Wilmot FMP will entail mapping of

existing drains, determining the location of problem drains, and providing financial

incentives to help implement retrofits.

Promoting the use of storage ponds to hold farm runoff is a mitigation measure that

would operate in a similar manner as urban stormwater ponds. Storage ponds would help

settle out nutrients and control high discharge as well as allowing for gradual recharge of

the shallow aquifer. These structures could also be used in dry periods to provide water

for irrigation and or watering holes for livestock.

Water Takings (Improve Our Understanding)

Information on water withdrawals from surface and groundwater sources is essential

when creating water budgets. MOE Permit To Take Water (PTTW) data and water well

records indicate that both surface and groundwater are used for public, commercial,

agricultural, industrial, and domestic purposes. Groundwater is the major source of water

supply for rural residents. Domestic and agricultural uses are usually obtained from dug,

bored, and drilled wells, although irrigation and stock watering from surface sources such

as streams is common. Water users that take more than 50,000 litres/day are required to

obtain a PTTW, with the exception of agricultural livestock uses. Individual domestic

households and other common residential users are not required to obtain a PTTW. The

Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority has received the PTTW database from MOE.

However, initial analysis has found some limitations.

The database contains information on permitted takings only and does not address

non-permitted takings, legal or illegal.

The database does not contain information on the amount of water actually used and

there is currently little enforcement or follow up of PTTW holders.

There is no detailed information about when water consumption occurs for each

permitted use.

The location of many permits is unknown due to errors in the database.

To ensure that there is enough water to meet ecological needs, better information on

water use is required. Due to the limitations, database filters are necessary and actual

water use should be estimated by multiplying coefficients of specific purposes for

different seasons as recommended by the “Scientific Process for Lifting Ontario’s Permit

To Take Water Moratorium”. Alternatively, fieldwork can be used to accurately define

water use.

Another step toward the wise use of surface and groundwater is to promote the use of

irrigation best management practices. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and

Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) offers a series of best management practices (BMP’s)

including information on water management.

Appendices

142

Restoring Floodplain Connections (Woody Material – Floodplain Terracing)

As mentioned earlier in the hydrology and natural flow regime sections, the ability of a

stream to flood and inundate its floodplain is important for maintaining biological and

physical stream processes. A management target for larger portions of Wilmot Creek is

to restore floodplain connections.

Promoting floodplain connections will improve stream health by reducing the erosive

power of storm flows, promoting sediment delivery to the floodplain thereby removing

excess sediments and nutrients from the stream, and by holding back storm flows thereby

reducing the flood height downstream. The addition of structures such as large woody

material will trap sediments and raise the bed of the stream. Perhaps in conjunction with

stream bank terracing, flood flows can be re-directed back to riparian areas. This will

reduce the amount of stream power on channel habitats and will reduce further channel

incision. Regular floodplain inundation will also promote a diverse and health riparian

plant community. Water from ponded flood plain habitats will recharge shallow aquifers

and be released back to the stream environment slowly thereby enhancing summer

baseflows.

Increasing flood-inundated areas may be used in conjunction with wetland re-creation.

Wetland habitats will also help contain flood flows, provide nutrient and sediment sinks,

and promote watershed recharge.

Barriers/ Culverts / Online Ponds

Dams and improperly installed culverts can act as barriers to not only fish movement but

also for the passage of sediment and woody material. One of the goals of the Wilmot

Creek Fisheries Management Plan is to encourage the maintenance and/or improvement

of stream function. Resulting action items are designed to promote natural stream

processes. This includes the identification and remediation of barriers that impede the

movement of sediment, woody material, and fish. Project partners are currently working

toward improving our knowledge of potential barriers within the Wilmot watershed. To

aid with this process the implementation team will be drafting barrier surveys for

distribution to landowners. This will help create a barrier inventory. Problem barriers

will be prioritized for remediation.

It is important to note that not all dams are problematic. Beaver dams are a natural

feature of the landscape. Often these dams are perceived as being issues for fish and fish

habitat. Most, however, pose only temporary blockages. They encourage wetland

creation and can serve to increase pool habitats for fish species. However, beavers in

high population densities can pose problems. This may require managing beaver

populations where populations are perceivably high. Problem dams can be removed

when DFO mitigation measures are followed and regulatory approvals are met.

Educational information regarding the role of beavers in natural systems will be produced

as a deliverable of the Wilmot Creek FMP.

143

Dams can be beneficial for fisheries management if they can prevent the intrusion of non-

desired species. The Orono mill pond dam currently serves as a barrier to migratory

salmonids (rainbow trout and Pacific salmon). It is proposed that this barrier remain in

place to promote healthy brook trout communities upstream by limiting potential

competition. The construction of additional barriers may be considered to prevent the

spread of exotic species such as round gobies.

Sea lamprey control barriers have been installed on neighbouring watersheds to prevent

the entry of adult sea lamprey. While effective for preventing the entry of spawning

lamprey, the use of these barriers has also caused migration problems for native non-

jumping species (e.g. suckers, minnows, and darters). There is currently no lamprey

barrier in place on Wilmot creek. Sea lamprey populations are controlled on Wilmot

Creek through the use of a larval lampricide 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM).

While designed for killing larval sea lamprey, the use of the toxin has been known to

result in the destruction of other fish species. A trade-off exists between the use of

chemical control and mechanical control. If chemical control of sea lamprey becomes

contentious, the installation of a barrier could be considered. The installation of a

lamprey barrier may also prove to be effective for the prevention of entry of other exotic

species (e.g. round gobies).

On-Line-Ponds are ponds built within the stream often by constructing a dam or weir to

hold water back. These structures interfere with the movement of sediment, wood, and

fish and as such alter natural stream processes. The formation of ponds also alters stream

thermal properties by causing stream temperature to rise. The Wilmot Creek FMP will be

promoting the removal or retrofitting of pre-existing on-line ponds. Retrofitting can

entail the installation of fish passage structures and bottom draw outlets. Bottom draw

pond outlet structures will release only the deeper cold water rather than spillways that

release warmer surface water. Existing regulatory restrictions of the MNR and

conservation authority will be used to prevent the construction of new on-line ponds.

Environmental Farm Plans - Nutrient Management – Best Management Practices

Environmental Farm Plans (EFP) are assessments voluntarily prepared by farm families

to increase their environmental awareness in up to 23 different areas on their farm.

Through the EFP local workshop process, farmers will highlight their farm’s

environmental strengths, identify areas of environmental concern, and set realistic action

plans with time tables to improve environmental conditions. Drafting an environmental

farm plan is the first step towards implementing improvement projects. Environmental

cost-share programs are available to assist in implementing Best Management Practices

(BMPs). For example, farms located on the Oak Ridges Moraine that have an

environmental farm plan in place can receive up to 90% of the cost of implementation in

financial aid, while farms located within the Green Belt can receive up to 75% of the cost

of implementation in financial aid.

Appendices

144

Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) are practical and affordable approaches

that aid in conserving soil, water, and other natural resources found in rural settings.

Some examples of BMPs that can improve environmental conditions are: stream buffer

establishment, fencing out livestock to improve riparian conditions, improved stream

crossings for livestock and equipment, erosion control structures, alternate watering

systems (gravity fed, solar, wind power pumps), pond construction for water storage,

improved manure storage facilities, invasive plant species control, shelterbelt

establishment, and wetland restoration.

Stewardship and conservation groups can provide details on the appropriate cost sharing

opportunities that may be best suited for your farm as well as providing local expertise to

aid with project completion. These groups include Durham Land Stewardship Council,

Community Stream Steward Program (OFAH) and the Ganaraska Region Conservation

Authority (GRCA). The GRCA is providing additional funding through its Clean Water

Healthy Land Financial Assistance Program.

Nutrient management planning involves the careful attention to meeting crop nutrient

needs and using cost-effective and environmentally responsible management practices.

Implementing nutrient management strategies can help achieve optimal crop yields and

product quality, help manage input costs, and help protect soil and water resources.

Crops grow properly when they receive nutrients in the correct amounts and at the

appropriate times. Important steps such as soil and fertilizer testing can help farmers

determine what they need to achieve maximum benefits. Improper allocation of nutrients

can result in poor crop responses. Nutrients are both an essential input and a major cost

for crop production. Optimizing nutrient application to meet crop and soil requirements

will help avoid the overuse of nutrient supplements thereby reducing farm expenditures.

Finally, excess nutrient application can jeopardize soil and water quality.

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) offers a series

of best management practices (BMPs) including information on nutrient management

planning. Their handbook will help in the development of an effective nutrient

management plan.

145

Biodiversity Biodiversity, or biological diversity, refers to the number and variability amongst living

organisms, including the variability within species (genetic diversity), between species

(species diversity), and between ecosystems (ecosystem diversity) (OMNR 2005). A

guiding principle of the fisheries management plan is the conservation of biodiversity by

committing to healthy ecosystems, protecting our native species, and sustaining genetic

diversity of fish in the watershed. All species in the watershed including non-sport fish

and species at risk must be considered.

Species Diversity

Species diversity is the number and variability of species within a given area. There are

currently 44 known fish species found within the Wilmot Creek watershed (Table A4).

Of these species, 9 have been introduced either intentionally (e.g. rainbow trout) or

unintentionally (e.g. sea lamprey). Of the remaining 35 species, all of which are native, 2

have been designated species at risk and another 3 species are considered potentially at

risk and are candidates for further assessment (Table A5).

Genetic Diversity

Genetic diversity allows for adaptability in species, existing both within and among

populations, and enables them to survive changes in the environment. It is shaped by

mutation, migration of individuals between populations, natural selection (loss of

“weaker” individuals from a population), and genetic drift (changes in gene frequency

associated with the abundance of spawning adults). These forces enable a species to

become uniquely adapted to its environment. Studies have shown that any changes in the

environment can result in a change in genetic diversity (Bagley et al. 2002)(see

Influences on Biodiversity).

Ecosystem Diversity

Ecosystem diversity refers to the interaction between the communities of plants and

animals and their non-living environment. The scale of ecosystems can range from a

small stream reaches to the biosphere (Environment Canada 1995). Historical land

clearing in the Wilmot Creek watershed resulted in the degradation of suitable spawning

habitat. Spawning habitat has since improved following reforestation in later years and

possibly the scouring of the creek bed from flooding caused by Hurricane Hazel

(Desjardins and Stanfield 2005). However, Wilmot Creek fish habitat continues to

receive pressures from urban development and other land uses.

Appendices

146

Table A4. List of fish species historically and currently present in the Wilmot Creek

watershed, including migratory species. Common Name Scientific Name Origin Thermal Last Observed

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Introduced Cold 1978

American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix Native Cold 2002

American eel Anguilla rostrata Native Cool 1992

Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Native† Cold 2000

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Native Cool 2006

Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus Native Cold 2002

Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus Native Warm 2002

Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni Native Cool 1978

Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans Native Cool 1999

Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis fontinalis Native Cold 2002

Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Native Warm 1991

Brown trout Salmo trutta Introduced Cold 2002

Central mudminnow Umbra limi Native Cool 1993

Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Introduced Cold 2002

Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Introduced Cold 2002

Common carp Cyprinus carpio Introduced Warm 1978

Common shiner Notropis cornutus Native Cool 2002

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Native Cool 2002

Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides Native Cool 1978

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas Native Warm 1999

Iowa darter Etheostoma exile Native Cool 1993

Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum Native Cool 2002

Logperch Percina caprodes Native Warm 1992

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae Native Cool 2002

Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus Native Cold 1997

Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi Native Cold 2002

Northern brook lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor Native Cool 1999

Northern pike Exox lucius Native Cool 1991

Northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos Native Cool 2002

Pink salmon Oncorhynchus gorbuscha Introduced Cold na

Pumkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Native Warm 2002

Rainbow darter Etheostoma caeruleum Native Cool 2002

Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax Introduced Cold 1978

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Introduced Cold 2002

Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris Native Cool 1999

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus Introduced Cool 2002

Slimy sculpin Cottus cognatus Native Cold 2002

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu Native Warm 1997

Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius Native Cool 1992

Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Native Cool 1978

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum vitreum Native Cool 1992

White bass Morone chrysops Native Warm 1978

White sucker Catostomus commersoni Native Cool 2002

Yellow perch Perca flavescens Native Cool 1999

† - Atlantic Salmon were native before their extirpation and have been subsequently reintroduced

147

Importance of Biodiversity

All living organisms depend on biodiversity for survival. Biodiversity is responsible for

the air we breathe, the clean water we drink and the food we eat. In addition to our

physical need for biodiversity, the importance can be expressed economically. This is

especially true in Canada where our biological resources provide the foundation for

forestry, farming, fishing, and recreational industries amongst others. Any loss of

biodiversity means that the ecological, economic, social, cultural and intrinsic values will

be compromised.

Inland water ecosystems, like Wilmot Creek and the other tributaries of Lake Ontario, are

likely the most threatened of all ecosystem types, largely as a result of habitat degradation

and unsustainable exploitation (Coates 2004). The cumulative impact of environmental

stressors such as these has resulted in the dramatic loss of biodiversity in North American

freshwater ecosystems with 4% of freshwater animals going extinct every 10 years

(Nalbone, date unknown).

Influences on Biodiversity

Land Use

Human land use, including urbanization and cultivation, has direct and indirect effects on

physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of watersheds, most notably the loss,

degradation or fragmentation of fish habitat. Urbanization is the largest threat facing the

health of streams on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Current estimates predict that the

population in the Municipality of Clarington will expand from its current 80,000 people

to 177,750 in the next 25 years, 43% of which will be concentrated in the Wilmot Creek

watershed around the village of Newcastle (Statistics Canada Census, Regional

Municipality of Durham 2006; Clarington 2005).

One result of urbanization is habitat degradation stemming from altered hydrology and

sediment regimes (see Ecological Response of Altered Flow Regimes and Forest

Cover, and Agriculture and Urbanization: The Influence of Land Use on Rivers).

The removal of vegetation and increased impervious cover associated with urbanization

is manifested through higher stream temperatures, higher peak flows, and lower base

flows, making urban stream reaches inhospitable for sensitive coldwater species, thus

decreasing species diversity (see Modelling the Impacts of Land-use on Aquatic

Habitats in Lake Ontario Streams). This is apparent in the Wilmot Creek watershed in

the urbanized Foster Creek and Orono Creek tributaries (Fig. A5).

The construction of instream barriers in and around urban areas can result in the

fragmentation of fish habitat biodiversity. This partitioning of fish communities resulting

from barriers to fish migration (e.g. dams, weirs, perched culverts) affects productivity

(limited access to spawning and rearing habitats) and genetic diversity (Wofford et al.

2004, Novinger and Rahel 2003). In addition to passage of fish, barriers of insufficient

Appendices

148

size create log and sediment jams, excluding these materials from downstream reaches

(see Large Woody Material). This large wood is an important function in stream

morphology, playing roles in the formation of fish habitat. Studies have shown that

removal of large wood often results in declines in fish abundance (Lestelle 1978, Bryant

1983, Dolloff 1986, Elliot 1986).

The dominant land use in the Wilmot Creek watershed is intensive agriculture which can

significantly alter fish habitat, and thus biodiversity. Some of these alterations include

pollution from agricultural runoff (see Water Quality), decreased water quantity through

extraction during critical summer months (see Water Quantity), and decreased habitat

and species diversity from erosion of cultivated soils and subsequent sediment

accumulation in streams (Walser and Bart 1999)(see Sediment Yields).

Pollution

Aquatic contaminants have been linked to occurrences of disease (e.g. cancer), increased

deformities and mortality rates, behavioural abnormalities, and interferences with natural

hormone production resulting in reproductive, growth and developmental abnormalities

in freshwater fishes (see Water Quality; Allen 2004, OMOE 1994).

Fish Stocking

Fish stocking is an effective fisheries management tool for species rehabilitation. While

there has been emphasis on stocking non-native salmonids for recreational opportunities

(e.g. Chinook salmon and rainbow trout), attempts have been made to stock for native

species rehabilitation including recent efforts to reintroduce the extirpated Atlantic

salmon into Lake Ontario.

The Samuel Wilmot fish hatchery located on Wilmot Creek is credited as having been the

first station to rear a variety of salmonids, including brook trout and Atlantic salmon

(Kerr 2000). Although Wilmot Creek hasn’t been stocked with Atlantic salmon for many

years, it is on the candidate list for the next phase of stocking by the Atlantic Salmon

Recovery Team in 2011.

Some of the potential impacts of fish stocking include competition for resources,

predation on resident biota, introduction of parasites and transmission of disease,

hybridization, impairment of natural reproduction by resident species and displacement of

resident fish species (Kerr 2000).

Species Competition

Species competition refers to the interaction between two or more species attempting to

utilize a given resource (e.g. food, habitat, etc.). Two sources of competition, introduced

species and naturalized species, are identified briefly below.

149

Introduced Species

Introduced species are species that have been moved from an area in which they were

native to areas where they did not naturally live and evolve, either intentionally or

unintentionally. Introduced species that have been identified in the Wilmot Creek

watershed include rainbow trout, brown trout, Chinook salmon, Coho salmon,

rainbow smelt and common carp (Table 5.1). Of these, Chinook salmon, rainbow and

brown trout are very popular species for the angling community and as a result are

stocked into Lake Ontario by the OMNR.

Many exotic species have been introduced into Lake Ontario and will continue to be

introduced over the coming years. Given the relative absence of in-stream barriers in

Wilmot Creek, many of these species have the potential to become established in the

system. The establishment of alien species and subsequent competition for resources

(e.g. food and habitat) is often to the detriment of native species resulting in their

displacement and/or extirpation (Saunders et. al 2002). Controlling and preventing

invasive or nuisance species is a guiding principle in the fisheries management plan.

Naturalized species

Naturalized species are introduced species that have become established (e.g. brown

trout). The impacts of naturalized species on genetic diversity can result from

hybridization or through interspecific competition. With interspecific competition,

introduced (or naturalized) species compete for a given resource. This can result in

suppressed native species populations which can indirectly affect genetic diversity

through genetic drift or inbreeding.

Consumptive Use

Consumptive use refers to the harvesting of a resource including harvest of fish from

angling and baitfish harvesting, as well as the harvesting of water. The term over-harvest

refers to the unsustainable harvest of a resource (i.e. harvested at a rate higher than the

natural reproductive capacity). Over-harvesting can result in diminished spawner

escapement (see Spawner Escapement), impacting future production (see Stock

Recruitment) and genetic diversity, and possibly species diversity as in the case of

Atlantic salmon.

Stock Recruitment

Stock-recruitment is a relationship between the spawning stock size (parental

biomass) and the subsequent recruitment level. This relationship is used to

determine sustainable harvest regimes and the level of harvest that would result in

a collapse in the fishery (over-harvest). Knowledge of the stock-recruitment

relationship is essential to fisheries management (ensuring that there is sufficient

escapement to maintain future production and biodiversity).

Appendices

150

Spawner Escapement

Spawner escapement refers to the number of salmon to survive (escape from) the

fishery and return to spawn in the river to which they were born. Healthy

escapement (i.e. optimal number of spawners) ensures that future production will

be sustainable and genetic diversity will be maintained.

Historical over-harvest of Atlantic salmon in the Wilmot Creek watershed, combined

with land clearing, resulted in the reduced abundance of this species (Desjardins and

Stanfield 2005). This along with the cumulative impacts of these and other

environmental stressors in Lake Ontario tributaries resulted in the eventual extirpation of

Atlantic salmon from Lake Ontario.

Climate Change

Climate change is the result of the cumulative impacts of many stressors, most commonly

the burning of fossil fuels resulting in greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. carbon dioxide and

methane) into the atmosphere, and the conversion of land cover (e.g. forest, grassland and

wetlands) into various land uses (e.g. urban development or agriculture). The changing

climate, specifically global warming and increased occurrence of extreme weather events,

will have dramatic effects on fisheries. Studies have predicted that the warming of

surface waters will result in the northern retreat and expansion of coldwater and

warmwater fish distribution respectively, and a decrease or relocation of spawning and

nursery habitat (Gucinski et al. 1990). In addition to the changing distribution of species

adapting to this altered climate, there is a potential for increased disease outbreaks

(Novacek and Cleland 2000). Other variables expected to impact fisheries include

changes in the hydrologic and nutrient cycles.

Loss of Biodiversity

Species at Risk

A Species at Risk (SAR) is a native plant or animal that is threatened by or vulnerable to

extirpation (no longer found within its natural range but still exists elsewhere) or

extinction. Designation of species of significance is governed federally by the

Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and provincially

by the Committee of the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO).

As of December, 2005, Ontario had 177 species at risk, of which 31 are fishes. Of these

fish species, 2 are known to be naturally occurring in the Wilmot Creek watershed (Table

A5). Another 3 species are considered to be potentially at risk by COSEWIC and are

candidate species for further assessment.

151

Table A5. Species at risk and their status in the Wilmot Creek watershed (* Potentially

at risk – further assessment needed).

Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC Status COSSARO Status

Northern brook

lamprey

Ichthyomyzon fossor Special Concern Special Concern

Atlantic salmon Salmo salar Extirpated Extirpated

Brassy minnow* Hybognathus

hankinsoni

Group 2,

Intermediate

Priority

Rainbow darter* Etheostoma

caeruleum

Group 2,

Intermediate

Priority

American brook

lamprey*

Lampetra appendix Group 3, Mid

Priority

Mitigating for Loss of Biodiversity

To mitigate for the loss of biodiversity, first, we must understand that our environment

has a threshold at which it can no longer tolerate the impacts of human activity. The goal

then is to minimize our impact and live sustainably, where our needs do not exceed the

natural productive capacity of our environment. The Canadian Biodiversity Strategy and

Ontario Biodiversity Strategy recognize this need for an ecological approach to managing

our resources and utilizing our biological resources in a sustainable manner as essential

components of conserving biodiversity (OMNR 2005a, EC 1995).

Threats to biodiversity began with the exponential growth of human populations starting

in the 20th

century (Novacek and Cleland 2000). Like many of the concepts discussed in

these appendices, the threats to biodiversity, including pollution, over-harvesting, climate

change, disruption to biogeochemical cycles, introduced or invasive species, habitat loss

and fragmentation through land use, and disruption of community structure in habitats,

are often overlapping (See Influences on Biodiversity). Some of these threats are listed

below with mitigation measures associated with each respective threat.

Pollution

In areas where water quality parameters meet the provincial objectives, the policy states

that “…water quality shall be maintained at or above the objectives” (OMOE 1994, see

Table A3 for objectives). Alternatively, in areas where water quality does not meet the

objectives, the policy states that water quality “…shall not be degraded further and all

practical measures shall be taken to upgrade the water quality to the objectives”.

In areas that do not meet the provincial water quality objectives, mitigation measures for

the prevention of contaminants should focus on prevention rather than treatment, which is

a guiding principal for the management of pollutants in the provincial government

(OMOE 1994). This includes encouraging practices that reduce or eliminate the use of

Appendices

152

contaminants, energy, water and other resources. In addition, it stresses the importance

of finding alternative, sustainable processes, using best management practices and water

conservation. Lastly, monitoring is essential to identify changes in water quality and

ensure that mitigation measures are achieving their desired goals.

Over-Harvest

The unsustainable harvest of fish populations often results in reduced reproductive

capacity and subsequent declines in populations (see Spawner Escapement). This can

be mitigated by understanding the relationships between spawning stocks and subsequent

recruitment levels (see Stock Recruitment) or incorporating multiple species into

fisheries models which tend to focus only on commercially or recreationally important

species, often top-level predators, without sufficient recognition of other species in the

food web, selective harvest (for example, the slot sizes or practice of catch-and-release

methods), increased regulation and enforcement of illegal harvest.

Climate Change

Although worthy of mention in the FMP, climate change is a multifaceted issue with

many implications, therefore, mitigation measures are beyond the scope of this document.

Invasive Species

Invasive species have been identified as one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, posing

direct impacts to native species (see Species Competition) and habitat (Hecky et al.

2004). The most effective mitigation strategies for invasive species include prevention,

early detection and response, control (chemical, mechanical or biological) and eradication

if feasible, and sufficient economic resources and multi-agency and public support (MEA

2005b). Of these strategies, emphasis should be placed on prevention and early

intervention which have proven to be most effective and cost efficient (Wittenberg and

Cock 2001). These preventative measures include education, public awareness and

increased efforts to control and regulate vectors of introduction.

Land Use

Landscape influences on aquatic ecosystems is a growing concern in fisheries

management (see Modelling the Impacts of Land-use on Aquatic Habitats in Lake

Ontario Streams). The largest threat to biodiversity is habitat loss; therefore, mitigation

measures to protect and maintain existing habitat and enhance degraded habitat is key to

maintaining biological diversity. Utilizing existing land use planning tools by integrating

biodiversity into planning processes, land acquisition, stewardship and incentive-based

programs and regulations can be applied to protect biodiversity.

Containing urban sprawl and minimizing the loss of prime agricultural lands to

development is a major component of minimizing our impact on watersheds (Novacek

153

and Cleland 2000). Roughly two-thirds of the GTA is urban land, 42% of which is

classified as farmland (Gurin 2003). Nearly all urban development occurs in these

agricultural areas, even though only 5% of Canada’s land mass is considered prime

agricultural land. When this land is converted from farmland to urban or suburban land

uses, there can be dramatic changes on hydrology (see Water Quantity).

While some agricultural practices pose a significant stress on neighbouring watercourses,

other practices have minimal impacts. By promoting synergistic relationships between

agriculture and local conservation of biodiversity through the practice of organic farming,

maintenance and protection of field margins, riparian zones and other buffer habitats

(MEA 2005a), impacts from agriculture can be kept to a minimum. For example,

practices like sustainable agricultural intensification minimizes the total area needed for

production, thus maximizing area for biodiversity conservation.

Lastly, the preservation of natural heritage systems (e.g. forests, wetlands, etc.),

especially in already urbanized watersheds, is essential to biodiversity conservation. This

includes creating or protecting biodiversity “hot spots” (high priority sites for

conservation based on habitat quality and species richness) and identifying and protecting

natural corridors or linkages that maintain habitat continuity and essential ecosystem

functions.

wilmot creek fmp chapter 2 outline€¦ · in 2000, the lindsay district fisheries management plan...

Documents