2013 Otonabee Region Watershed Report Card Technical Report

Transcription

2013 Otonabee Region
Watershed Report Card
Technical Report
Written and Published by the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority
Principal Authors
Meredith Carter, Manager, Environmental and Technical Services
Erin McGauley, Watershed Biologist
Terri Cox, Environmental Technician
Kathy Reid, Co-ordinator, Communications and Education
Key Contributors
Cody Brown, GIS Technologist
Jessica Mueller, GIS Technologist
Otonabee Region Conservation Authority
FINAL
April 2013
FINAL
Table of Contents
1.0
What is a Watershed Report Card and why is it produced? ...............................................1
2.0
How is data assessed in the Watershed Report Card? .......................................................2
3.0
What indicators are used in Watershed Report Cards? .....................................................4
4.0
How was surface water quality evaluated? .......................................................................6
4.1
Total Phosphorus (TP) ........................................................................................................... 7
4.2
Escherichia coli (E. coli) Bacteria ........................................................................................... 7
4.3
Benthic Macroinvertebrates .................................................................................................. 8
4.4 Surface Water Results ........................................................................................................... 9
5.0 How was groundwater quality evaluated? ...................................................................... 10
6.0
How were forest conditions evaluated? ......................................................................... 12
6.1
Percent Forest Cover ........................................................................................................... 12
6.2
Percent Interior Forest ......................................................................................................... 12
6.3
Percent Forested Riparian Zone .......................................................................................... 13
6.4 Forest Conditions Results .................................................................................................... 13
7.0 Wetland Cover ............................................................................................................... 15
8.0
References Cited ............................................................................................................ 17
Appendix A: Surface Water Quality Data, 2007-2011 ................................................................ 18
Appendix B: Benthic Macroinvertebrates Modified Hilsenhoff Index ......................................... 20
Appendix C: Groundwater Quality Data, 2007-2011 .................................................................. 21
Appendix D: Forest Conditions Data ......................................................................................... 22
Appendix E: Evaluated Wetland Cover Data .............................................................................. 24
List of Maps
Map
Map
Map
Map
1: Otonabee Region Subwatersheds .......................................................................................... 3
2: Surface Water Quality in the Otonabee Region Watershed .................................................. 9
3: Forest Conditions in the Otonabee Region Watershed ....................................................... 14
4: Wetlands in the Otonabee Region Watershed .................................................................... 16
Otonabee Region Conservation Authority
April 2013
FINAL
1.0 What is a Watershed Report Card and why is it
produced?
Watershed Report Cards are an important tool used by Conservation Authorities (CAs) to
communicate the state of local watershed conditions and disseminate the environmental
monitoring data collected and analyzed by the organization.
Watershed Report Cards transfer technical information about local watershed conditions to a
wide audience including local residents, agencies, and municipal partners. In addition to providing
local stakeholders with information about watershed conditions, the watershed report card also
serves as a management and evaluation tool for Otonabee Conservation and other resource
management agencies. This resource will enable more informed decision-making to effectively
maintain and enhance the health of watersheds in the face of challenges such as climate change,
urbanization and pollution.
Conservation Ontario, the umbrella agency for Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities, developed a
set of guidelines in 2011* to standardize the evaluation of data used for watershed report cards
and achieve consistency in this form of reporting across the province. This standardization is
particularly beneficial for municipalities that span more than one watershed boundary, and to
individuals or groups wishing to compare results between different CA jurisdictions.
Reporting on the environment is an iterative process. The 2013 Otonabee Region Watershed
Report Card is the first of the ‘new generation’ of report cards based on the 2011 guidelines.
The 2013 Otonabee Region Watershed Report Card provides a snapshot of conditions in the
Otonabee Region Watershed based on available data for the five year period from 2007 through
2011. The Watershed Report Card is meant to be reviewed and updated every five years to
ensure it aligns with current best management practices and scientific standards, and to ensure
that the information it communicates remains up to date.
*Conservation Ontario. 2011 Guide to Developing Conservation Authority Watershed Report
Cards.
1 Otonabee Region Conservation Authority
April 2013
FINAL
2.0 How is data assessed in the Watershed Report Card?
The 2011 Guide to Developing Conservation Authority Watershed Report Cards developed by
Conservation Ontario recommends assessing and reporting environmental data on a
subwatershed scale. The number of subwatersheds chosen is specific to each Conservation
Authority, and those subwatersheds used in the assessment are meant to be meaningful and
identifiable to a public audience. Twelve subwatersheds as listed below are included in the 2013
Otonabee Region Watershed Report Card and are illustrated on Map 1.
1. Baxter Creek
2. Cavan Creek
3. Squirrel Creek
4. Jackson Creek
5. Otonabee River
6. Indian River
7. Ouse River
8. Trent/Rice Lake
9. Chemong/Pigeon Lake
10. Buckhorn/Lovesick Lake
11. Stoney/Clear Lake
12. Katchewanooka Lake
The guidelines also provide a standard grading system as a grade follows:
April 2013
FINAL
Map 1: Otonabee Region Subwatersheds
April 2013
FINAL
3.0 What indicators are used in Watershed Report Cards?
Conservation Ontario (2011) recommends that Conservation Authorities assess watershed health
based on the following three resource categories:
Surface Water Quality — Surface water is the water that flows through rivers, lakes
and streams and is a source of both municipal and private drinking water supplies.
Conservation Authorities typically assess surface water quality in a number of ways
including the measurement of water quality indicators such as water chemistry and the benthic
organisms that live in the sediment at the bottom of all waterbodies. Where resources permit,
some Conservation Authorities also monitor bacteria levels in surface water.
Groundwater Quality — Groundwater is the water found beneath the earth’s surface
and is a source of both municipal and private drinking water supplies. Groundwater is
difficult if not impossible to clean once contaminated, so its’ protection is critical,
particularly areas of groundwater recharge. Conservation Authorities typically monitor
water chemistry (i.e. nutrients, metals, chloride & nitrates) in groundwater.
Forest Conditions — Forests provide habitat and shade; they help to clean our air and
water and they protect the soil which promotes water infiltration and reduces both
erosion and flooding. Forests also help to cool the land and air. Conservation
Authorities assess the area of their watersheds covered by forest, the extent of waterfront areas
(riparian zones) that are forested; and the amount of forest “interior” (protected areas that are
more than 100 meters from the forest edge which provide critical habitat for many species
including songbirds).
Conservation Ontario (2011) recommends that these resource categories be evaluated based on
the following indicators:
Surface Water
Quality
 Total Phosphorus
 Escherichia coli Bacteria
 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Groundwater
Quality
 Nitrite + Nitrate
 Chloride
Forest
Conditions
 % Forest Cover
 % Forest Interior
 % Riparian Zone Forested
April 2013
FINAL
The recommended methodology for evaluating each indicator has also been established by
Conservation Ontario (2011) and includes the derivation of point scores and corresponding
grades.
The 2013 Otonabee Region Watershed Report Card is generally consistent with these
guidelines, except in the following two instances:


Groundwater quality is not assessed due to data limitations; and
An ‘optional’ discussion of wetland cover is included.
The following section outlines the methodologies and data used for the development of the
2013 Otonabee Region Watershed Report Card. This Technical Report is intended to provide
transparency of process and data to the public and will be a reference tool for future
Watershed Report Card updates.
April 2013
FINAL
4.0 How was surface water quality evaluated?
Three indicators are recommended by Conservation Ontario (2011) for the assessment
of surface water quality:
1. Total Phosphorus;
2. E. coli Bacteria; and
3. Benthic Macroinvertebrates.
The following is excerpted from the Conservation Ontario (2011) guidelines and addresses data
considerations:
These three surface water quality indicators reflect key issues related to surface water
quality across the province: nutrients, bacteria/waste, and aquatic health.
There should be a water quality monitoring site for each subwatershed that represents the
quality of water at the outlet. It is generally recommended that where there is more than
one water quality monitoring site in a subwatershed, information from the site closest to
the outlet be used for indicator reporting. However, it will be left to the discretion of each
Conservation Authority to use the most appropriate surface water quality site or sites to
represent conditions in the subwatershed (Section 3.1.4).
Data limitations associated with the evaluation of surface water quality for the 2013 Otonabee
Region Watershed Report Card are listed below.

Total Phosphorus data was not available for Squirrel Creek subwatershed.

There was insufficient data in the Otonabee Region watershed to report on E. coli.

Benthic macroinvertebrate data was not available for the Chemong/Pigeon Lake and
Katchewanooka Lake subwatersheds.

Benthic macroinvertebrate data was not available for the Ouse River or Rice Lake/Trent
River subwatersheds.
To best represent and report on surface water quality conditions, the following four
subwatersheds were combined and collectively identified as the Kawartha Lakes subwatershed:
Chemong/Pigeon Lake, Katchewanooka Lake, Clear/Stoney Lake and Buckhorn/Lovesick Lake.
April 2013
FINAL
4.1 Total Phosphorus (TP)
Total Phosphorous is a nutrient that occurs both naturally and as a result of human activities. It
is typically used in fertilizers and is found in municipal waste and from other human sources. TP
promotes plant growth which is good for agricultural yields, yet high concentrations can be
harmful to the environment by causing algae blooms which can reduce the oxygen available to
plants and fish.
Surface water samples were collected at various sites throughout the Otonabee Region
Watershed as part of Otonabee Conservation’s participation in the Provincial Water Quality
Monitoring Network (PWQMN). Data generated through this program was the source of
information for the TP indicator.
Conservation Ontario (2011) recommends a minimum of monthly sampling data with 30 or
more data points for the reporting period. Calculations are to be based on the 75th percentile
for the five year period for each subwatershed. Otonabee Conservation data met this criteria.
In considering site selection, Otonabee Conservation determined that average values best
represented overall subwatershed TP levels rather than did data from the most downstream
site in a given subwatershed. In six subwatersheds, data was only available from one location
(Baxter Creek, Cavan Creek, Indian River, Jackson Creek, Rice Lake/Trent River, Clear/Stoney
Lake). The Otonabee, Buckhorn/Lovesick Lake and Ouse River subwatersheds had data from
four, three and three locations, respectively.
The 75th percentile for data collected from 2007 through 2011 was calculated for each
subwatershed and converted to a corresponding point score based on guidance from
Conservation Ontario (2011). Appendix A summarizes the TP data used in the analysis.
4.2 Escherichia coli (E. coli) Bacteria
E. coli (Escherichia coli) is a bacteria that is widely accepted as the key indicator of fecal
contamination in surface waters. The main sources of E. coli are municipal sewage discharges,
runoff from failing septic systems and agricultural operations.
April 2013
FINAL
Currently, there is no province-wide program whereby Conservation Authorities collect water
samples for E. coli analysis. While the Peterborough County-City Health Unit tests for E. coli at
public beaches throughout the Otonabee Region Watershed, the data did not meet
Conservation Ontario’s recommendation (2011) as follows:
A minimum of monthly sampling data with 40 or more data points for the 5-year reporting
period.
As a result, there was insufficient data in the Otonabee Region watershed to report on E. coli.
4.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrates live within or on the bottom substrates of watercourses for at least
a portion of their life cycle. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples from sites throughout the
Otonabee Region Watershed were collected using the protocol established by the Ontario
Benthos Biomonitoring Network (OBBN), of which Otonabee Conservation is a member. In
addition to this data, Otonabee Conservation collected benthic samples using the Rapid Bio
method (Meade Creek, 2011) outlined in the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP). The
OBBN and OSAP methods were deemed comparable, based on Borisko et al (2007). All samples
were identified to a coarse 27-group taxonomic level, the minimum level of identification
required for the OBBN.
Conservation Ontario (2011) recommends the Hilsenhoff 1988 Family Biotic Index as modified
by New York State (Smith et al. 2009) to analyze surface water quality based on benthic
macroinvertebrates. The minimum level of taxon identification required by this measure was
not available in the Otonabee Conservation data, therefore a modified index was used to
evaluate the benthic macroinvertebrate data. The locally-modified Hilsenhoff Index that was
used is included in Appendix A.
In considering site selection, Otonabee Conservation determined that benthic data was best
represented by the average data from a given subwatershed, rather than from a single,
downstream site.
The average 2007-2011 locally-modified Hilsenhoff Index value was calculated for each
subwatershed and converted to a corresponding point score based on guidance from
Conservation Ontario (2011). Appendix A summarizes the benthic macroinvertebrate data
used in the analysis.
April 2013
FINAL
4.4 Surface Water Results
TP and benthic macroinvertebrate data were analyzed and equally weighted in the assessment
of surface water quality (Appendix A). Overall subwatershed grades for surface water quality
were calculated by averaging the point scores for each indicator and converting the result to a
corresponding Final Grade based on Conservation Ontario (2011).
Due to data limitations, the Final Grade for the Ouse River, Rice Lake/Trent River, and Squirrel
Creek subwatersheds reflect data from just one indicator. Map 2 illustrates the surface water
quality grading results as reported in the 2013 Otonabee Region Watershed Report Card.
Map 2: Surface Water Quality in the Otonabee Region Watershed
April 2013
FINAL
5.0 How was groundwater quality evaluated?
Two indicators are recommended by Conservation Ontario (2011) for the assessment of
groundwater quality:
1. Chloride; and
2. Nitrate + Nitrite.
Otonabee Conservation has been a partner in the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network
(PGMN) since 2002. The Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network was established in 2002
by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) to provide data to characterize groundwater
quantity and quality across the province. While it was the intent of the MOE that the PGMN be
established as a monitoring network that is representative of area aquifers, the network was
established prior to any aquifer characterization in the Otonabee Region.
Conservation Ontario (2011) recommends the inclusion and grading of groundwater quality in
Watershed Report Cards only where sufficient data exists, and where in the opinion of a
hydrogeologist, there are enough wells in the reporting area with a sufficient period of data to
provide general comments on the water quality. In general, it is recommended that five or
more years of data be used to make general comments on water quality in an aquifer.
Data generated through the PGMN program was considered in the assessment of groundwater
quality. Data limitations associated with the evaluation of groundwater quality in the
Otonabee Region are as follows:

Monitoring program not comprehensive enough over 2007 to 2011 reporting period;

Chemistry data reflects water quality in the monitoring well and is not necessarily
representative of the water quality in the overall aquifer; and,

Lack of regional aquifer characterization restricts interpretation of data from monitoring
wells.

Five years of data for Chloride and Nitrate + Nitrite is not available for each well due to
varying parameter analysis by participating laboratories.
From 2007 to 2011, groundwater samples were collected and analyzed from seven of twelve
PGMN wells located across three subwatersheds: Squirrel Creek, Indian River and Kawartha
Lakes. Chloride data was available from one well for each of the five years from 2007 to 2011,
April 2013
FINAL
seven wells in both 2008 and 2009, and five wells in both 2010 and 2011. Nitrate + Nitrite data
was available from seven wells in 2007 through 2009, and five wells in both 2010 and 2011.
Due to data limitations, groundwater quality in the Otonabee Region Watershed was not
graded for the 2013 Otonabee Region Watershed Report Card. The available data was
reviewed and compared against provincial guidelines such that a general statement of results
could be reported. The available groundwater data for 2007 to 2011 is summarized in
Appendix C.
April 2013
FINAL
6.0 How were forest conditions evaluated?
Three indicators are recommended by Conservation Ontario (2011) for the assessment of
forest conditions:

Percent Forest Cover;

Percent Forest Interior; and,

Percent Forested Riparian Zone.
The methods Otonabee Conservation used to generate data for these indicators were
consistent with those recommended by Conservation Ontario (2011). The Southern Ontario
Land Resource Information System Version 1.2 (SOLRIS) was used to generate forest condition
statistics for each subwatershed using GIS technology. The SOLRIS definition for ‘Woodland’
was used to identify forest cover: “Woodland describes areas with more than 60% tree cover
and greater than 2m in height” (Conservation Ontario 2011, Section 4.0).
6.1 Percent Forest Cover
Forest Cover is an area with more than 60% tree cover and where the trees are greater than 2
m in height.
To generate forest cover, the following upland forest SOLRIS cover classes: Coniferous Forest,
Deciduous Forest, Mixed Forest, Forest, Plantations-Tree Cultiv, and Hedgerow.
Minimum forest patch size was 0.5 ha. These classes were selected using the ‘Select by
Attribute’ tool and clipped to the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority Boundary. The new
Forest Cover layer was dissolved, which eliminated interior boundaries and merged all joined
polygons into one polygon. This was done in order to facilitate subsequent forest interior
calculations.
6.2 Percent Interior Forest
Forest Interior is the forested area that is more than 100 m from the forest edge. The outer
100 m of a forested area is considered ‘edge’ habitat and prone to high predation, sun and wind
damage, and is more susceptible to invasive species than the forest interior. Certain wildlife
species such as Ovenbirds, Bobcats and Grey wolves require interior forests for their survival.
To calculate interior forest, a buffer of 100 m was applied to the inside of the dissolved forest
cover layer polygons to generate data regarding the extent of forest interior. No minimum cutoff was set for forest interior. Thus, even a tiny forest interior area of 0.1 ha was counted.
April 2013
FINAL
6.3 Percent Forested Riparian Zone
Forested Riparian Zone is a 30 m wide strip of forested land along stream banks or shorelines.
These vegetated zones provide important habitat for birds, fish and other wildlife and help
improve water quality by naturally filtering sediment and contaminants before they enter
surface water. Forested Riparian Zones also help to reduce or prevent flooding and erosion.
Data for this indicator was calculated by buffering the watercourse layer using SOLRIS mapping
and calculating the percentage of forest/woodland cover within the buffered area for each
subwatershed.
Appendix D summarizes the data for the three forest condition indicators used in the analysis.
6.4 Forest Conditions Results
All three indicators were analyzed and equally weighted in the assessment of forest conditions
Otonabee Region Watershed. Overall subwatershed grades for forest conditions were
calculated by averaging the point scores for each indicator and converting the result to a
corresponding Final Grade based on Conservation Ontario (2011).
Environment Canada (2004) recommends that 30% of a watershed be forested and that a
watershed include 10% forest interior for specialized wildlife and plant species. To make the
forested riparian zone indicator workable at a subwatershed scale using GIS, this target was reinterpreted by Conservation Ontario (2011) to mean that 75% of the 30 m wide riparian zone
should be naturally vegetated. Furthermore, since most Conservation Authorities do not have
non-forested vegetation types mapped, only that portion of the riparian zone in forest cover
can be measured. It was estimated that the proportion of riparian vegetation that is forested is
two-thirds, the rest being marsh, meadow, and shrub thicket. Two-thirds of 75% is roughly 50%,
thus, the equivalent target is 50% of the riparian zone in forest cover (Conservation Ontario
2011, Section 4.2.4).
Map 3 illustrates the forest conditions grading results as reported in 2013 Otonabee Region
Watershed Report Card.
April 2013
FINAL
Map 3: Forest Conditions in the Otonabee Region Watershed
April 2013
FINAL
7.0 Wetland Cover
Wetlands and wetland functions are significant natural heritage features and natural
hazards in the Otonabee Region Watershed. Wetlands provide essential wildlife
habitat and also perform many water quantity and quality improvement functions including
flood retention and sediment filtration.
Conservation Ontario (2011) recommends reporting wetland cover as a stand-alone indicator
with the caveat that it is often under-estimated due to inherent mapping limitations associated
with SOLRIS, the most common source of wetland mapping for Conservation Authorities,
including Otonabee Conservation. Wetland cover inclusion and grading in Watershed Report
Cards is recommended only where more reliable data exists. Wetland cover in the Otonabee
Region Watershed was therefore not assessed or graded for the 2013 Otonabee Region
Watershed Report Card; rather, a general measure of wetland cover was included to illustrate
the prevalence and importance of wetland cover in the Otonabee Region Watershed.
Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) are identified by the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources (MNR) using a science-based ranking system known as the Ontario Wetland
Evaluation System (OWES). This standardized method assesses wetland functions and societal
values and is used to evaluate wetlands with PSWs being the most valuable. MNR mapping was
used to calculate the area of the watershed that has been evaluated as identified wetlands by
the OWES system. Additional wetlands may be present, but due to mapping limitations
associated with SOLRIS, these have been omitted from the analysis and maps.
All evaluated wetlands (PSW and Other Evaluated) in the Otonabee Region Watershed are
illustrated on Map 4. This data is based on the MNR wetland GIS layer dated January 24, 2013.
Environment Canada (2004) recommends restoring and/or maintaining wetland cover at 10% of
a major watershed. For the purposes of the 2013 Otonabee Region Watershed Report Card,
the overall area of Otonabee Region Watershed with evaluated wetland cover is 11%. In
addition, for the purposes of indicating the importance of the wetland habitat in the watershed,
the percentage of wetland cover that has been evaluated as provincially significant is reported,
and is 9%.
Appendix E summarizes the wetland data used in the analysis and a breakdown of evaluated
wetland cover per subwatershed.
April 2013
FINAL
Map 4: Wetlands in the Otonabee Region Watershed
April 2013
FINAL
8.0 References Cited
Borisko, J.P., B.W. Kilgour, L.W. Stanfield, F.C. Jones. 2007. An Evaluation of Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Stream Benthic Invertebrates in Southern Ontario, Canada. Water
Qual. Res. J. Canada. Vol. 42, No. 3, 184-193.
Conservation Ontario. 2011 Conservation Ontario Guide to Developing Conservation Authority
Watershed Report Cards. Conservation Ontario, Newmarket, ON. Available at:
http://www.conservation-ontario.on.ca/watershed_monitoring/index.html
Environment Canada. 2004. How Much Habitat Is Enough? A Framework for Guiding Habitat
Rehabilitation in Great Lakes Areas of Concern (Second Edition). Canadian Wildlife Service.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988 Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic
index. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 7(1):65-68
Mandaville, S.M. 2002. Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Freshwaters: Taxa Tolerance Values,
Metrics and Protocols. Coil and Water Conservation Society of Metro Halifax, 120 pp.
Smith, A., Heitzman, D., Duffy, B. 2009. Standard Operating Procedure: Biological Monitoring
of Surface Waters in New York State. New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Water.
April 2013
FINAL
Indian River
Jackson Creek
Otonabee River
Ouse River
Rice Lake/Trent River
Squirrel Creek
Kawartha Lakes *
75th Percentile
Cavan Creek
Subwatershed
Baxter Creek
Appendix A: Surface Water Quality Data, 2007-2011
0.0190
0.0300
0.0190
0.0570
0.0200
0.0230
0.0240
n/a
0.0160
5
4
5
3
4
4
4
n/a
5
5.57
4.91
5.77
5.74
6.59
n/a
n/a
5.5
6.16
3
4
2
3
1
n/a
n/a
3
2
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.5
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
C
B
TP
Average Point Score
Hilsenhoff Index
Benthic
Average Point Score
Final Point Score
Overall
Final Grade
*Includes four subwatersheds: Buckhorn/ Lovesick Lake, Chemong/ Pigeon Lake, Katchewanooka Lake and Stoney/ Clear Lake
April 2013
FINAL
Appendix A continued
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Modified Family Biotic Index
Index Value
Point Score
Grade
<4.26
5
A
4.26-5.00
4
B
5.01-5.75
3
C
5.76-6.5
2
D
>6.5
1
F
Total Phosphorus (TP)
TP (mg/L)
Point Score
Grade
<0.020
5
A
0.020-0.030
4
B
0.031-0.060
3
C
0.061-0.180
2
D
>0.180
1
F
Total
Phosphorus
(mg/L)
E. coli
(cfu/ 100 mL)
Benthic
Macroinvertebrates
(modified Family
Biotic Index)
<0.020
0-30
0.020 - 0.030
Point
Score
Grade
Final Point
Score
Final
Grade
0.00 - 4.25
5
A
>4.4
A
31 - 100
4.26 - 5.00
4
B
3.5 - 4.4
B
0.031 - 0.060
101 - 300
5.01 - 5.75
3
C
2.5 - 3.4
C
0.061 - 0.180
301 - 1000
5.76 - 6.50
2
D
1.5 - 2.4
D
>0.180
>1000
6.51 - 10.00
1
F
<1.5
F
April 2013
FINAL
Appendix B: Benthic Macroinvertebrates Modified Hilsenhoff Index
Invertebrate Taxon
Pollution Tolerance
Value
Coelenterata (Hydra)
5
Platyhelminthes (Flatworms)
4
Nematoda (Roundworms)
5
Oligochaeta (Aquatic Earthworms)
8
Hirudinea (Leeches)
8
Isopoda (Aquatic Sowbugs)
8
Pelecypoda (Clams)
8
Amphipoda (Scuds)
6
Decapoda (Crayfish)
6
Acarina (Water Mites)
6
Ephemeroptera (Mayflies)
5
Anisoptera (Dragonflies)
5
Zygoptera (Damselflies)
7
Plecoptera (Stoneflies)
1
Hemiptera (True Bugs)
5
Megaloptera (Fishflies, Alderflies)
4
Trichoptera (Caddisflies)
4
Lepidoptera (Aquatic Moths)
5
Coleoptera (Beetles)
4
Gastropoda (Snails)
7
Chironomidae (Midges)
7
Tabanidae (Horse and Deer Flies)
6
Culicidae (Mosquitos)
8
Ceratopogonidae (No-See-Ums)
6
Tipulidae (Crane Flies)
3
Simuliidae (Black Flies)
6
Other Diptera (Msic. True Flies)
5
Ostracoda (Seed Shrimp)
7
April 2013
FINAL
Appendix C: Groundwater Quality Data, 2007-2011
Nitrate +
Nitrite (mg/L)
Chloride
mg/L)
Nitrate +
Nitrite (mg/L)
Chloride
(mg/L)
Nitrate +
Nitrite (mg/L)
Canadian Water Quality Guideline/
Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standard
2011
Chloride
(mg/L)
Casing ID
2010
Nitrate +
Nitrite (mg/L)
Well ID
2009
Chloride
(mg/L)
Aquifer
(relative
location)
2008
Nitrate +
Nitrite (mg/L)
Subwatershed
250
mg/L
10
mg/L
250
mg/L
10
mg/L
250
mg/L
10
mg/L
250
mg/L
10
mg/L
250
mg/L
10
mg/L
3
No.
2007
Chloride
(mg/L)
MOE Identification
middle
4502540
W0000192
n/a
0.91
21
2
20.7
1.85
20.7
1.93
no
sample
no
sample
Squirrel Creek
middle
51090052
W0000225
4
0.06
13
0.05
10
0.05
18.8
<0.05
17.5
<0.25
3
Squirrel Creek
shallow
5119205
W0000255-3
n/a
<0.06
3.9
<0.05
3.8
<0.05
3.8
<0.05
4.3
<0.05
4
Buckhorn/
Lovesick Lake
deep
5116850
W0000193
n/a
20
5.5
0.88
4.2
0.49
6.4
1.75
4.4
0.46
5
Indian River
shallow
5117680
W0000195
n/a
0.45
10.8
0.4
7.8
0.32
8.5
0.32
8.8
0.32
6
Indian River
shallow
5101076
W0000196
n/a
0.63
4.3
<0.05
13.6
0.4
no
sample
no
sample
8.2
0.2
7
Indian River
shallow
5108692
W0000198
n/a
<0.06
26.9
<0.05
26
<0.05
no
sample
no
sample
no
sample
no
sample
1
Squirrel Creek
2
2
1
Each of the above-noted wells has a dedicated pump installed for monitoring purposes.
1
Well is located on private property. Monitoring equipment removed in 2011 at owner’s request and re-installed in 2012.
2
Well is located on private property. Monitoring equipment removed in 2011 at owner’s request.
3
All samples were analyzed at a Canadian Association for Environmental Analytical Laboratories accredited facility. MOE analysed samples from 2008 to
2011. Samples from 2007 were processed by an external laboratory that did not consistently analyse for Chloride.
April 2013
FINAL
Appendix D: Forest Conditions Data
Area
No.
Forest Cover
Forest Interior
Riparian Zone Forested
Average
Score
Average
Grade
C
4.3
B
4
B
3.7
B
22.4
2
D
2.0
D
5.5
51.9
4
B
2.3
D
F
15.1
34.2
3
C
2.0
D
1
F
6.8
39.2
3
C
2.3
D
0.4
1
F
12.2
51.3
4
B
2.7
C
0.3
0.2
1
F
4.7
42.3
3
C
2.0
D
D
0.2
0.1
1
F
6.5
57.6
5
A
2.7
C
4
B
1.3
1.2
1
F
3.6
97.1
5
A
3.3
C
31.3
5
A
0.9
0.9
1
F
3.6
39.1
3
C
3.0
C
8
9.1
2
D
0
0
1
F
4.4
29.3
3
C
2.0
D
288
15.1
-
-
22.7
-
-
-
78.2
-
Subwatershed
km2
km2
%
km2
%
km2
%
1
Baxter Creek
92
29
31.8
5
A
9.4
10.2
5
A
5.8
40.4
3
2
Cavan Creek
172
40
23.4
4
B
6.5
3.8
3
C
7.5
56.1
3
Squirrel Creek
41
6
15.2
3
C
0.7
1.7
1
F
2.4
4
Jackson Creek
119
12
10
2
D
0.4
0.3
1
F
5
Otonabee River
382
32
8.3
2
D
0.6
0.2
1
6
Indian River
206
32
15.3
3
C
1.1
0.5
7
Ouse River
285
48
17
3
C
1.3
8
161
12
7.6
2
D
9
Chemong/Pigeon Lake
160
15
9.6
2
10
Buckhorn/Lovesick Lake
106
23
21.2
11
Stoney/Clear Lake
101
31
12
Katchewanooka Lake
83
1906
Total
Summary
Score Grade
Score Grade
April 2013
Score Grade
-
FINAL
Appendix D: Forest Conditions Data continued
2011 Grading System for Forest Conditions (Conservation Ontario 2011)
Overall Forest Condition
% Forest
Cover
% Forest
Interior
% Riparian Zone
Forested
Point
Score
Grade
Final Points
Final Grade
>35.0
>11.5
>57.5
5
A
>4.4
A
25.1 - 35.0
8.6 - 11.5
42.6 - 57.5
4
B
3.5 - 4.4
B
15.1 - 25.0
5.6 - 8.5
27.6 - 42.5
3
C
2.5 - 3.4
C
5.0 - 15.0
2.5 - 5.5
12.5 - 27.5
2
D
1.5 - 2.4
D
<5.0
<2.5
<12.5
1
F
<1.5
F
April 2013
FINAL
Appendix E: Evaluated Wetland Cover Data
Subwatershed
Area (m2)
Evaluated-Other
Wetland
(m2)
Evaluated-Provincial
Significant
(m2)
Total Evaluated
Wetland
(m2)
Percent Area
Evaluated Wetland
Baxter Creek
91,652,385.69
1,811,419.91
1,490,022.83
3,301,442.74
3.60%
Buckhorn/Lovesick Lake
106,427,966.23
3,183,267.52
4,250,257.34
7,433,524.86
6.98%
Cavan Creek
171,570,741.36
1,728,142.87
12,924,066.75
14,652,209.62
8.54%
Chemong/Pigeon Lake
159,520,190.58
2,913,441.02
10,882,154.79
13,795,595.81
8.65%
Clear / Stoney Lake
100,457,068.65
1,047,568.36
5,185,595.17
6,233,163.53
6.20%
Indian River
205,901,400.00
4,751,263.25
18,960,664.00
23,711,927.25
11.52%
Jackson Creek
118,598,180.63
992,774.93
19,949,640.78
20,942,415.71
17.66%
Katchewanooka Lake
83,128,372.07
675,380.90
12,775,178.68
13,450,559.58
16.18%
Otonabee River
381,837,151.65
5,709,853.79
37,346,921.58
43,056,775.37
11.28%
Ouse River
284,854,448.92
6,204,427.69
35,753,613.73
41,958,041.42
14.73%
161,246,570.62
993,683.01
15,712,453.17
16,706,136.18
10.36%
Squirrel Creek
41,138,380.45
-
1,757,581.26
1,757,581.26
4.27%
1,906,332,856.84
30,011,223.26
176,988,150.08
206,999,373.35
10.85%
1.57%
9.28%
TOTAL
Otonabee Region Watershed
Non-PSW and PSW wetland as a percent
of watershed area
April 2013

2013 Otonabee Region Watershed Report Card Technical Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Khiet Luong Pennsylvania Environmental Council 1315 W alnut

Winter 2007-8

New Study Shows ʺCollapseʺ of Worldʹs Largest

Khiet Luong Pennsylvania Environmental Council 1315 W alnut

Lower Main Saugeen River Subwatershed

THE SURGE July 2016

Beatty Saugeen River Subwatershed

In Kind - Venture for Fund Raising

Seine River IWMP Table of Contents - Seine

enjoyment - Sierra Club of Canada