Wilmot Creek FMP Chapter 2 OUTLINE€¦ · In 2000, the Lindsay District Fisheries Management Plan...
Transcript of 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
Characteristics …………………………………………………………….. 35
Fish Community Objectives ……………………………………………… 35
2.3 Fisheries Management Zone 3 – Foster Creek Subwatershed…….….…… 37
Characteristics …………………………………………………………….. 37
Fish Community Objectives ……………………………………………… 39
2.4 Fisheries Management Zone 4 – Wilmot and Orono Creeks………..……. 39
Characteristics …………………………………………………………….. 39
Fish Community Objectives ……………………………………………… 41
2.5 Fisheries Management Zone 5 – Hunter and Stalker Creeks……….….…. 41
Characteristics …………………………………………………………….. 41
Fish Community Objectives ……………………………………………… 42
2.6 Fisheries Management Zone 6 – Hunter and Stalker Creek Headwaters ... 43
Characteristics …………………………………………………………….. 43
Fish Community Objectives ……………………………………………… 44
2.7 Fisheries Management Zone 7 – Wilmot and Orono Creek Headwaters.… 45
Characteristics …………………………………………………………….. 45
Fish Community Objectives ……………………………………………… 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
3.5 Fisheries Management Zone 4 – Issues and Management Options…….…….... 75
3.6 Fisheries Management Zone 5 – Issues and Management Options…….……… 79
3.7 Fisheries Management Zone 6 – Issues and Management Options…….…….... 83
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
Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Plan
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 2.12 – Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 5……………..……….. 42
Figure 2.13 – Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 6……………..……….. 44
Figure 2.14 – Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 7……………..……….. 46
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 3.4 – Zone 4 – Management Options and Implementation……….………… 76
Table 3.5 – Zone 5 – Management Options and Implementation……….………… 80
Table 3.6 – Zone 6 – Management Options and Implementation……….………… 84
Table 3.7 – Zone 7 – Management Options and Implementation……….………… 88
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.
Chapter 1 - Introduction
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
Chapter 1 - Introduction
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.
Chapter 1 - Introduction
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
Chapter 1 - Introduction
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;
Chapter 1 - Introduction
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.
Chapter 1 - Introduction
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
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
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.
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
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.
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
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.
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
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).
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
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
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
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.
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
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
monitoring and assessment
3. Reintroduction of extirpated
Atlantic salmon into their historical
range
Increased catch rates and presence
of Atlantic salmon during
monitoring and assessment
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
Steady or increased catch rates and
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).
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
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
1. 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
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.
Fish Community Objectives
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 2 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining native fish species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Reintroduction of extirpated
Atlantic salmon into their historical
range
Increased catch rates and presence
of Atlantic salmon during
monitoring and assessment
programs
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
36
Figure 2.9. Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 2.
37
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 2 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining naturalized salmonid species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance and increase of
existing migratory salmonid
abundance
Increased catch rates and presence
of rainbow trout and Chinook
salmon during monitoring and
assessment programs
2. Maintenance and increase of
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.
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
38
Figure 2.10. Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 3.
39
Fish Community Objectives
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 3 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining naturalized salmonid species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance and increase of
existing migratory salmonid
abundance
Increased catch rates and presence
of rainbow trout and Chinook
salmon during monitoring and
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.
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
40
Figure 2.11. Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 4.
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%).
Fish Community Objectives
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 4 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining native fish species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Reintroduction of extirpated
Atlantic salmon into their historical
range
Increased catch rates and presence
of Atlantic salmon during
monitoring and assessment
programs
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 4 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining naturalized salmonid species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance and increase of
existing migratory salmonid
abundance
Increased catch rates and presence
of rainbow trout and Chinook
salmon during monitoring and
assessment programs
2. Maintenance and increase of
resident brown trout abundance Increased catch rates and presence
of brown trout during monitoring
and 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.
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
42
Figure 2.12. Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 5.
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.
Fish Community Objectives
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 5 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining native fish species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Reintroduction of extirpated
Atlantic salmon into their historical
range
Increased catch rates and presence
of Atlantic salmon during
monitoring and assessment
43
programs
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 5 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining naturalized salmonid species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance and increase of
existing migratory salmonid
abundance
Increased catch rates and presence
of rainbow trout and Chinook
salmon during monitoring and
assessment programs
2. Maintenance and increase of
resident brown trout abundance Increased catch rates and presence
of brown trout during monitoring
and 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.
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
44
Fish Community Objectives
The fish community of Fisheries Management Zone 6 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining native fish species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. 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
monitoring and assessment
2. Reintroduction of extirpated
Atlantic salmon into their historical
range
Increased catch rates and presence
of Atlantic salmon during
monitoring and assessment
programs
Figure 2.13. Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 6.
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.
Fish Community Objectives
The fish community of Fisheries Management Zone 7 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining native fish species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. 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
monitoring and assessment
2. Reintroduction of extirpated
Atlantic salmon into their historical
range
Increased catch rates and presence
of Atlantic salmon during
monitoring and assessment
Chapter 2 – Watershed Characteristics
46
Figure 2.14. Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Zone 7.
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
Fish Community Objectives
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 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 favorable habitats
Steady or increased catch rates and
presence of brook trout during
monitoring and assessment
3. Reintroduction of extirpated Atlantic
salmon into their historical range Increased catch rates and presence of
Atlantic salmon during monitoring and
assessment 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
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
Steady or increased catch rates and
presence of naturalized salmonids
during monitoring and assessment
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
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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
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
hydrograph to satisfy
Fish Community
Objectives
Watershed Wide Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 51
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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
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)
Watershed Wide Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 52
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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
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.
1.3.1.3 Encourage nutrient
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
1.3.1.8 Implement BMPs for
stormwater management to reduce
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
Watershed Wide Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 53
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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
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
1.3.2.4 Implement BMPs for
stormwater management to reduce
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
Watershed Wide Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 54
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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
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
Watershed Wide Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 55
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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
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
Watershed Wide Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 56
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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
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
2.3.1.1 Explore the use of barriers to
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
Watershed Wide Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 57
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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
PR
IOR
ITY
2.4.1.2 Explore the use of barriers to
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
variants of existing
species in the
watershed
3.1.1 Optimize
harvest opportunities
for under utilized
species
2.4 Invasive
Species
3.2 Over-
harvest
Watershed Wide Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 58
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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
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
programs (e.g. Community Stream
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
Watershed Wide Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 59
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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
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
Watershed Wide Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 60
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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
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
Watershed Wide Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 61
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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
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
Assessment: Develop a watershed-wide
sampling approach to help track fish
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
Watershed Wide Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 62
63
Fisheries Management Zone 1 Issues
&
Management Recommendations
Fish Community Objectives
The Fisheries Management Zone 1 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 sport and non-
sport fishes
Continued presence and steady
abundance of all native fish during
monitoring and assessment programs
2. 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
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
2.1.1.2 Expand knowledge of native
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
2.0 BIODIVERSITY ISSUES (See Biodiversity sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
STAKEHOLDER ACTIONS
PR
IOR
ITY
2.1 Native
Species
1.0 HABITAT ISSUES (See Habitat sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
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
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
IMPLEMENTATIONSTAKEHOLDER ACTIONS
PR
IOR
ITY
TARGETISSUE STRATEGIES
2.3.1.1 Monitor for the presence of
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
Develop an access plan. Build
boardwalks to increase angler access
and reduce wetland trampling
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
Develop an access plan. Build
boardwalks to increase angler access
and reduce wetland trampling
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
harvest opportunities
for under utilized
species
3.0 RESOURCE USE ISSUES
Zone 1 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 65
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
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
Zone 1 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 66
67
Fisheries Management Zone 2 Issues
&
Management Recommendations
Fish Community Objectives
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 2 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining native fish species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance of a diverse native fish
community including sport and non-
sport fishes
Continued presence and steady
abundance of all native fish during
monitoring and assessment programs
2. Reintroduction of extirpated Atlantic
salmon into their historical range Increased catch rates and presence of
Atlantic salmon during monitoring and
assessment programs
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 2 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining naturalized salmonid species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance and increase of existing
migratory salmonid abundance Increased catch rates and presence of
rainbow trout and Chinook salmon
during monitoring and assessment
programs
2. Maintenance and increase of resident
brown trout abundance Increased catch rates and presence of
brown trout during monitoring and
assessment programs
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.2: Zone 2 (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 Work with existing provincial
policies, legislation and programs to
protect existing forests and optimize
reforestation activities L P P P P
Utilize municipal Woodlot Protection By-
law. Determine optimal areas for
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)
1.1.1.2 Identify priority areas for
reforestation based on land
disturbance, patch conductivity,
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).
1.1.1.3 Identify areas for potential
wetland creation P 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 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
Municipality to develop or review
operational guidelines to manage future
development in the watershed for
ensuring that site alterations support the
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
migration, substrate
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)
1.0 HABITAT ISSUES (See Habitat sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
1.1
Insufficient
Forest/
Wetland
Cover
1.1.1 Maintain or
increase
forest/wetland cover
ISSUE STRATEGIES TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONACTIONS
PR
IOR
ITY
Zone 2 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 68
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.2: Zone 2 (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
ISSUE STRATEGIES TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONACTIONS
PR
IOR
ITY
2.1.1.1 Expand knowledge of native
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
Assessment: Develop a regular,
reoccurring, watershed-wide sampling
approach to help track aquatic species
distribution and trends in abundance
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
2.1.2.2 Document the presence and
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
variants of existing
species
2.3.1.1 Monitor for the presence of
invasive species
P L
Assessment: Develop a watershed-wide
sampling approach to help track fish
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
2.0 BIODIVERSITY ISSUES (See Biodiversity sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
2.1
Restricted
Native
Species
abundance
and
distribution
2.1.1 Maintain or
enhance native
species populations
2.1.2 Maintain
healthy populations
of existing species at
risk and re-establish
extirpated species
2.2 Declines
in
Naturalized
Species
Abundance
Zone 2 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 69
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.2: Zone 2 (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
ISSUE STRATEGIES TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONACTIONS
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.
3.0 RESOURCE USE ISSUES
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
4.0 SCIENCE AND INFORMATION GAPS
2.3.1.2 Explore the use of barriers to
exclude/restrict invasive species from
native populations as necessary
Zone 2 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 70
Wilmot Creek Fisheries Management Plan
71
Fisheries Management Zone 3 Issues
&
Management Recommendations
Fish Community Objectives
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 3 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining native fish species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance of a diverse native fish
community including sport and non-
sport fishes
Continued presence and steady
abundance of all native fish during
monitoring and assessment programs
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 3 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining naturalized salmonid species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance and increase of existing
migratory salmonid abundance Increased catch rates and presence of
rainbow trout and Chinook salmon
during monitoring and assessment
programs
2. Increased capacity of Foster Creek to
support coldwater fish species Increased presence of coldwater
species during monitoring and
assessment programs
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.3: Zone 3 (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 Work with existing provincial
policies, legislation and programs to
protect existing forests and optimize
reforestation activities
L P P P P
Utilize municipal Woodlot Protection By-
law and expand area of application to
easterly lands north of Concession 3.
Determine optimal areas for
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)
1.1.1.2 Identify priority areas for
reforestation based on land
disturbance, patch conductivity,
recharge areas
P L
30% forest cover by
FMZ (Currently at
9.1% or 87
hectares)
1.1.1.3 Identify areas for potential
wetland creation P 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 5.72% or 59
hectares)
1.2.1.1 Implement BMPs for storm
water management to reduce peak
flow, maintain thermal and sediment
regimesL
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
1.2.1.2 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
1.0 HABITAT ISSUES (See Habitat sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATION
PR
IOR
ITY
1.1
Insufficient
Forest/
Wetland
Cover
1.1.1 Maintain or
increase
forest/wetland cover
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
Zone 3 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 72
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.3: Zone 3 (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
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
migration, substrate
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
Zone 3 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 73
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.3: Zone 3 (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
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
variants of existing
species
2.1.1.1 Monitor for the presence of
invasive species
P L
Assessment: Develop a watershed-wide
sampling approach to help track fish
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
3.0 SCIENCE AND INFORMATION GAPS
3.1 Lack of
information
on the use of
wetlands by
migratory
salmonids
and pollution
3.1.1 Identify and
address information
gaps
2.0 BIODIVERSITY ISSUES (See Biodiversity sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
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
Zone 3 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 74
75
Fisheries Management Zone 4 Issues
&
Management Recommendations
Fish Community Objectives
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 4 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining native fish species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance of a diverse native fish
community including sport and non-
sport fishes
Continued presence and steady
abundance of all native fish during
monitoring and assessment programs
2. Reintroduction of extirpated Atlantic
salmon into their historical range Increased catch rates and presence of
Atlantic salmon during monitoring and
assessment programs
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 4 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining naturalized salmonid species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance and increase of existing
migratory salmonid abundance Increased catch rates and presence of
rainbow trout and Chinook salmon
during monitoring and assessment
programs
2. Maintenance and increase of resident
brown trout abundance Increased catch rates and presence of
brown trout during monitoring and
assessment programs
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.4: Zone 4 (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 Work with existing provincial
policies, legislation and programs to
protect existing forests and optimize
reforestation activities L P P P P
Utilize municipal Woodlot Protection By-
law. Determine optimal areas for
reforestation. Utilize existing programs
that facilitate reforestation projects (e.g.
Greenbelt Plan, CFWIP, Natural Heritage
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)
1.1.1.2 Identify priority areas for
reforestation based on land
disturbance, patch conductivity,
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)
1.1.1.3 Identify areas for potential
wetland creation P P 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 0.26% or 3
hectares)
1.2.1.1 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, 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.
1.2.1.2 Encourage nutrient
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
1.3.1.1 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
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
appropriate riparian
zone size where
needed.
1.0 HABITAT ISSUES (See Habitat sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
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
forest/wetland cover
Zone 4 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 76
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.4: Zone 4 (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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
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
Assessment: Develop a regular,
reoccurring, watershed-wide sampling
approach to help track aquatic species
distribution and trends in abundance
2.1.2 Maintain
healthy populations
of existing species at
risk and re-establish
extirpated species
2.1.2.1 Document the presence and
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
3.0 RESOURCE USE ISSUES
2.0 BIODIVERSITY ISSUES (See Biodiversity sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
2.1
Restricted
Native
Species
abundance
and
distribution
Zone 4 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 77
79
Fisheries Management Zone 5 Issues
&
Management Recommendations
Fish Community Objectives
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 5 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining native fish species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance of a diverse native fish
community including sport and non-
sport fishes
Continued presence and steady
abundance of all native fish during
monitoring and assessment programs
2. Reintroduction of extirpated Atlantic
salmon into their historical range Increased catch rates and presence of
Atlantic salmon during monitoring and
assessment programs
The fish communities of Fisheries Management Zone 5 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining naturalized salmonid species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance and increase of existing
migratory salmonid abundance Increased catch rates and presence of
rainbow trout and Chinook salmon
during monitoring and assessment
programs
2. Maintenance and increase of resident
brown trout abundance Increased catch rates and presence of
brown trout during monitoring and
assessment programs
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.5: Zone 5 (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 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 and expand area of application to
include the eastern portion of this zone.
Determine optimal areas for
reforestation. Utilize existing programs
that facilitate reforestation projects (e.g.
Greenbelt Plan, CFWIP, Natural Heritage
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)
1.1.1.2 Identify priority areas for
reforestation based on land
disturbance, patch conductivity,
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.
1.1.1.3 Identify areas for potential
wetland creation
P P P
Inventory historical wetlands to identify
areas for rehabilitation. Consider
opportunities to convert off-line ponds
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
forest/wetland cover
1.1
Insufficient
Forest/
Wetland
Cover
1.0 HABITAT ISSUES (See Habitat sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
Zone 5 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 80
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.5: Zone 5 (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
TARGETSTAKEHOLDER
PR
IOR
ITY
IMPLEMENTATIONISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
1.2
Insufficient
Water
Quantity
1.2.1 Maintain or
enhance appropriate
hydrograph to satisfy
Fish Community
Objectives
1.2.1.1 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
1.2.1.2 Secure, restore, and/or create
wetlands in key locationsKey wetland areas south of 4
th
Concession to be maintained
Ongoing
1.2.1.3 Determine the location and
extent of tile drains in the Wilmot
catchment and assess the impact on
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
1.3.1.1 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 Greenbelt Plan).
P P L P
Riparian areas supporting brook trout in
lower Stalker Creek should be restored.
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
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
2.0 BIODIVERSITY ISSUES (See Biodiversity sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
Zone 5 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 81
83
Fisheries Management Zone 6 Issues
&
Management Recommendations
Fish Community Objectives
The fish community of Fisheries Management Zone 6 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining native fish species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance of a diverse native fish
community including 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 favorable habitats
Steady or increased catch rates and
presence of brook trout during
monitoring and assessment
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
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 and expand area of application to
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)
1.1.1.2 Identify priority areas for
reforestation based on land
disturbance, patch conductivity,
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)
1.1.1.3 Identify areas for potential
wetland creationP P 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 0.85% or 32
hectares)
1.2.1.1 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
1.2.1.2 Determine the location and
extent of tile drains in the Wilmot
catchment and assess the impact on
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
1.0 HABITAT ISSUES (See Habitat sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
TARGETSTAKEHOLDERISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
PR
IOR
ITY
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
1.1
Insufficient
Forest/
Wetland
Cover
Zone 6 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 84
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
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
1.4.1.1 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
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.
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.
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
2.1.2.1 Explore the use of barriers to
protect populations of native 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
2.0 BIODIVERSITY ISSUES (See Biodiversity sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
Zone 6 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 85
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
IMPLEMENTATION TARGETSTAKEHOLDERISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
PR
IOR
ITY
3.1 Over-
harvest
3.1.1 Likely a limited
fishery for brook
trout. Discourage
angling of recovering
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.
4.1.1.3 Determine appropriate
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
4.0 SCIENCE AND INFORMATION GAPS
3.0 RESOURCE USE ISSUES
Zone 6 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 86
87
Fisheries Management Zone 7 Issues
&
Management Recommendations
Fish Community Objectives
The fish community of Fisheries Management Zone 7 will be composed of diverse, self-
sustaining native fish species characterized by:
OBJECTIVE INDICATOR
1. Maintenance of a diverse native fish
community including 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 favorable habitats
Steady or increased catch rates and
presence of brook trout during
monitoring and assessment
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.7: Zone 7 (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
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 and expand area of application to
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)
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)
1.1.1.2 Identify priority areas for
reforestation based on land
disturbance, patch conductivity,
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)
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 0.49% or 23
hectares)
1.2
Insufficient
Water
Quantity
1.2.1 Maintain or
enhance appropriate
hydrograph to satisfy
Fish Community
Objectives
1.2.1.1 Determine appropriate
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
1.0 HABITAT ISSUES (See Habitat sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
TARGETSTAKEHOLDERISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
PR
IOR
ITY
1.1
Insufficient
Forest/
Wetland
Cover
1.1.1 Maintain or
increase
forest/wetland cover
to satisfy FMZ
objectives
Zone 7 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 88
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.7: Zone 7 (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
IMPLEMENTATION TARGETSTAKEHOLDERISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
PR
IOR
ITY
1.2.1.2 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
1.3.1.1 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
Zone 7 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 89
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.7: Zone 7 (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
IMPLEMENTATION TARGETSTAKEHOLDERISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
PR
IOR
ITY
1.4
Insufficient
Riparian-
Floodplain
Habitat
1.4.1 Protect and
enhance
1.4.1.1 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
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.
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.
1.5.1.1 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
2.1.2.1 Explore the use of barriers to
protect populations of native 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
2.0 BIODIVERSITY ISSUES (See Biodiversity sections in Appendices for descriptions of the topics discussed below)
2.1
Restricted
Native
Species
abundance
and
distribution
Zone 7 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 90
Wilmot Creek FMP Table 3.7: Zone 7 (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
IMPLEMENTATION TARGETSTAKEHOLDERISSUE STRATEGIES ACTIONS
PR
IOR
ITY
3.1 Under-
utilization
3.1.1 Optimize
harvest opportunities
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
angling of recovering
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.
4.1.1.2 Determine appropriate
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
3.0 RESOURCE USE ISSUES
4.0 SCIENCE AND INFORMATION GAPS
Zone 7 Issues L = Lead; P = Partner; H = High Priority 91
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/93e28_e.htm
Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90e19_e.htm
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
Legislation
114
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/01o31_e.htm
Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 3
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/01o03_e.htm
Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90o40_e.htm
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
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/05p13_e.htm
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90p13_e.htm
Public Lands Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.43
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90p43_e.htm
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.