Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy Watershed Action Plan

Trout Creek Community-based Watershed Strategy Watershed Action Plan

Table of Contents

Trout Creek Watershed ...... 1 Purpose of the Community-based Strategy ...... 1 Trout Creek Watershed Open House and Community Meeting ...... 3 Target Areas ...... 4 Trout Creek Watershed Action Plan ...... 4 Appendix 1: Trout Creek Community Meeting Small Group Discussion Issues/Concerns ...... 7 Appendix 2: Trout Creek Community Values Assessment Survey Responses ...... 11 Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-based Watershed Strategy ...... 13

Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy - Watershed Action Plan i

Trout Creek Community-based Watershed Strategy Watershed Action Plan Report

Trout Creek Watershed The Trout Creek watershed (Figure 1) is approximately 161 square kilometres in area and is located in the center of the Upper Thames watershed. Trout Creek outlets into the North branch of the Thames River in the town of St. Marys. The watershed includes portions of the Townships of Zorra (44%), Perth South (32%), Perth East (22%), Town of St. Marys (3%) and the City of Stratford (1%) as seen in Figure 1.

Trout Creek is a tributary of the North Thames River, and has the following tributaries: Harrington Creek, Kerr Lupton Drain, Central Drain, Lange Drain and Birches Creek Drain. Wildwood Reservoir is located upstream of Highway 7 on Trout Creek.

Land use within the Trout Creek watershed is primarily agriculture (78%). Other land uses include wooded (17%), urban (3%) and water (2%).

Purpose of the Community-based Strategy The Trout Creek Community-based Watershed Strategy began in late 2008 with funding from the Ontario Trillium Foundation.

Community-based watershed strategy development is a process that involves the community (residents of a specific watershed) in the development and implementation of a watershed restoration strategy. The process brings together technical and cultural objectives to create consensus around action plans. The underlying belief behind the approach is that involving community members will result in the creation of the very best strategy – one that will be implemented over the long-term.

The purpose of the strategy is to build partnerships among community stakeholders to:  Prioritize environmental concerns of the local watershed communities,  Identify gaps in information / further research needs,  Identify activities to address the environmental concerns and research needs, and  Build local frameworks for ongoing implementation of the identified activities.

The strategy focuses on two components: a technical background summary and an action plan. The technical summary provides an overview of abiotic, biotic and cultural aspects of the Trout Creek watershed. The action plan prioritizes the issues and considerations of the community and makes recommendations for restoration work that improves the environmental health of the watershed.

The technical background summary (Appendix 2) was prepared in 2009 by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that consisted of: . Four watershed municipalities - Zorra, Perth South, Perth East, and the Town of St. Marys, . Ontario Ministries of Natural Resources, the Environment, and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, . Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

The research for the technical background summary builds on the work done in the Oxford Natural Heritage Study (Oxford County 2006) and the 2001 and 2007 Upper Thames River Watershed Report Cards.

Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy - Watershed Action Plan 1

Figure 1: Trout Creek Watershed

Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy - Watershed Action Plan 2

Trout Creek Watershed Open House and Community Meeting An open house and community meeting was held on December 3, 2008 at the Harrington Hall, Harrington. The purpose of the meeting was to gather community input and identify local environmental concerns with regard to the Trout Creek watershed.

Forty 40 people attended the meeting and most were watershed landowners. Representatives from the Township of Zorra, the Town of St. Marys, and the Rotary Club of St. Marys, as well as members of local environmental and community groups were also in attendance. The meeting was promoted through media releases in the local newspapers, flyers/notices at the municipal offices and flyers hand delivered to rural landowners.

The open house included displays, information and maps of the watershed from the UTRCA. There were also displays from the Local Outdoors Opportunities Partners (LOOP), the Perth Stewardship Network, the Avon Trail, Harrington Creek Eco Group, and the Harrington Community Club.

Participants were divided into small groups where they prioritized their issues and concerns for the Trout Creek watershed (Appendix 1). Participants were also requested to complete a Community Values Assessment Survey. The survey gave participants an opportunity to elaborate on specific issues or concerns. Twenty one surveys were returned and the issues/concerns are outlined in Appendix 2.

From this meeting, nine members agreed to form the Trout Creek Watershed Action Group (WAG) with the goal of “improving the natural heritage of the watershed”. The Trout Creek WAG spent the majority of 2009 educating itself about the Trout Creek watershed through presentations and tours. They also reviewed the background summary prepared by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and are using the criteria outlined by the TAC to to identify potential project areas in the watershed. Figure 2 shows the logo developed by the Trout Creek Watershed Action Group (WAG).

Figure 2: Trout Creek Watershed Action Group (WAG) Logo

Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy - Watershed Action Plan 3

Target Areas The Technical Advisory Committee recommended five criteria to identify potential project areas in the watershed (Table 1). These criteria are landscape features that should be targeted for enhancement activities.

Table 1: TAC Criteria to Identify Potential Project Sites

Criteria / Landscape Goal Possible Actions Feature Create buffers to improve water quality and aquatic Along watercourses Plant trees habitat Between woodlots Create wildlife corridors to improve wildlife habitat Plant trees In and around Create forest interior habitat for interior species Plant trees woodlots (especially birds) Plant trees and other Around wetlands Create buffers to protect wetlands vegetation Reduce or prevent erosion to protect farmland and Plant trees and other High erosion areas improve water quality and aquatic habitat vegetation

These criteria were used to develop a map prioritizing areas for enhancement. Areas of the watershed were identified and scored as high, medium or low priority in relation to the number of criteria that overlapped in an area. This information is shown on Figure 2: Areas for Restoration or Enhancement. This is not to say that areas mapped as low or not mapped have no value; indeed, projects in these areas have an environmental benefit.

The criteria, goals and actions address the most important issues outlined by the community at the Trout Creek Open House and Community Meeting. The results of the brainstorming session and the prioritization of issues are included in Appendix 1.

Trout Creek Watershed Action Plan Based on the mapping developed through the community-based watershed strategy process, the Trout Creek Watershed Action Group will: . Target priority areas identified on the map in Figure 3 for rehabilitation . Rehabilitate cold water streams to increase the number of streams able to support a cold water fishery and improve water quality downstream . Approach landowners in the priority areas regarding participation in rehabilitation projects . Continue to work with local municipalities, agencies, landowners and community groups on existing rehabilitation projects in the Trout Creek watershed . Involve secondary school students in the Trout Creek Watershed Report Card Program which examines forest conditions and surface water quality conditions

The Trout Creek Watershed Action Group will pursue funding opportunities to implement future projects.

The first project is scheduled for the fall of 2010 involves the naturalization of 1.5 acres on the north side of Trout Creek in St. Marys. Wildflowers will also be planted in the area in the spring 2011. A 2 acre parcel of agricultural land is also scheduled to be naturalized in the spring of 2011.

Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy - Watershed Action Plan 4

Figure 3: Trout Creek Watershed Areas for Restoration or Enhancement

Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy - Watershed Action Plan 5

Appendix 1: Trout Creek Community Meeting Small Group Discussion Issues/Concerns

Group 1 – Stage - (#) = number of dots (black/red) Black - issues participant felt are most important Red- if given $10,000, which issue should the money be spent on according to participant

 Soil erosion off farmland (3) (3) o Need mitigation and education o Mandatory  Saving Harrington Pond for cultural reasons (fishing heritage) (4) (2) o What is the protection for the wetland complexes?  Need more vegetative buffering along waterways and pond (3) (1)  Stabilize riverbank – erosion (2) (2)  Fallen trees in river (willows) (2) (1) o Need clean up  What are the results of the dispersion sandwich on water quality improvement? (2) o Alderman Farm – future adoption o How do we make our drains cleaner?  Find more historical information (2)  All the proposed and current gravel pits in watershed; silt runoff (incentives?) (1) (1) o Need mitigation o Impact on groundwater – cumulatively  If a wetland owner can’t log his woods, then there should be incentives (2)  Garbage in creek near 29th Line near bridges; need garbage cans (1)  Increasing and maintaining recreational opportunities (1) o e.g., Wildwood - ensure fast boats don’t ruin it for others uses o Harrington CA and Wildwood  Avon Trail – keep it going (1)  Deep wells (200 foot) with E. coli trouble and what is the source? (1) o Information on groundwater  Farmers need financial help to make the right moves to share the benefits (taxes on wetlands and woodlots – exemptions and incentives) (1)  Water quality  Can’t canoe downstream of Wildwood to St. Marys – tree blockage  Algae in Harrington Pond due to nutrients in creek water  Education on fertilizer use on fields  Recognition that both urban and rural land uses cause pollution  Township sprays roadsides near provincially significant wetlands (safer spray now used, costlier) o Weed issue vs. wetlands + lawn kill + calcium o More communication?  Trail at Wildwood – promote/develop mountain bike trail on south side

Appendix 1: Trout Creek Community Meeting Small Group Discussion Issues/Concerns App1-7

Group 2 – Main Floor - (#) = number of dots (black/red)

 Fence cattle out of creeks – incentives to encourage landowners (4) (3) o Who pays – farmer – alleviate taxes for land taken out of production o Incentive programs o Consider examples such as ALUS in Norfolk County to compensate landowners  Habitat protection (2) (4) o Corridor for wildlife  Tax incentives/exemptions for Beneficial Management Practices (4) (2)  Potential negative impacts from gravel pits in area (6)  Sources of spring water (4) (1) o Concerned with degrading water quality in springs o Between line 33 and Wildwood Lake – needs dredging o Destruction of natural springs through alteration/development projects – aquatic life affected  Wildwood reservoir degraded due to uses of recreational facility and further downstream (4) (1)  River/stream erosion (5)  How to deal with development conflicts, i.e. gravel pit/water quality especially if project is in conflict with local government works (3) (1)  Maintenance of Avon trail (2) (1) o Help with improving access and ease burden on those maintaining  Public education and awareness (2) (1)  Harrington Pond – siltation and build up (possible clean up) (2) (1)  Planting trees in wind rows (3)  Tile runoff very fast into creeks and ponds (1)  Contamination of deep wells (required UV treatment) (1)  Development of trails – potential project to explore natural areas and promote existing trails (1)  Aesthetics  Thames River Fisheries Management Plan o Use information collected previously  Trout Creek watershed o Split into 2 areas – upstream of Wildwood and downstream of Wildwood o Many improvements upstream of Wildwood involved landowners o Incorporate all uses including upstream in management plan for reservoir  Loss of forest cover  Treatment of ditches different than natural water courses – ditches closed – loss of habitat and aquatic life  Environmentally friendly drain maintenance  Degraded water quality  Where to gain access to information on the watershed? – better access needed  Deep drain – now has lots of trees o Does it need maintenance?  Concern with toxic herbicide application – ditches – water  Trout Creek – silt @ 33rd line needs clean out  Best aquatic systems is free flowing not dammed – creates long term problem with water quality  Need to balance community interests with need for dam – best use  Data source of ONHS and watershed report cards o Make sure consistent o Use implementations/recommendations  Enhance parts of trail with plantings  Respect private landowners – work with and partner

Appendix 1: Trout Creek Community Meeting Small Group Discussion Issues/Concerns App1-8

Group 3 – Library - (#) = number of dots (black/red)

 Water quality – algae, smell, low flow, turbidity around St. Marys, geese at Ducks Unlimited area, Harrington/St. Marys dam (6) (1)  Impact of flooding – intense rainfall causing floods and damage – Camp Bimini, St. Marys (3) (4)  Pollution from cattle access to creek (5)  Soil erosion - in Town of St. Marys (3) (2)  Water levels - low levels – impact of low levels – can we prevent (3) (1)  Impact of Wildwood dam operations (3) (1) o Drawdown is affecting other landowners o Effect on surrounding areas  Silt in south end of Harrington Pond (3) (1) o More information on the pond itself  Challenge of implementing best management practices, not farming – economics, looking for solutions; different solutions (3) (1)  Blockages – trees in creek below Wildwood (3)  Used to fish trout now only carp (1) (1)  Springs – focus on cold water protection (all over) (2)  Retention ponds in St. Marys – buffering ponds needs to be done (1)  Harrington Hills impacted by heavy rainfalls – erosion (1)  Lots of turkeys, deer, rabbits, herons, gulls – become an nuisance (1)  Geese  Lots of salamanders – breeding areas  Lots of frogs  Areas that need trees – wildlife/windbreaks  Dragonflies  Protecting prairie habitats

Appendix 1: Trout Creek Community Meeting Small Group Discussion Issues/Concerns App1-9

Appendix 2: Trout Creek Community Values Assessment Survey Responses

Issues/Concerns - erosion of fields under conventional tillage - effects of global warming on local farmland productivity (strip planting between rows of trees may help in the eventuality of hot dry summers) - loss of tree species, loss of habitat from many causes and resultant loss of bids and animals native to the area - destruction of small wetlands (by farmers) in area - silt in waterways – is this a natural progression? - water quality and fishery - livestock contamination - erosion along creek and at Harrington Pond - preserving Harrington Pond - low flow of creek - water quality of Trout Creek - aesthetic value of Trout Creek for St. Marys tourism , etc. - alarmingly accelerated degradation of natural areas (surface water, wetlands, and woodlands) over the past 50 years with the associated disappearance of wildlife diversity - deteriorating water quality in Trout Creek due to siltation and pollution from agricultural activities (improper tilling, heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides, and animal waste). Also included is associated ground water pollution. - cumulative impacts of aggregate extraction which is causing damage to regional water sources including groundwater sources and surface water courses. All aggregate pits contribute silt to Trout Creek following heavy rainfall and quick spring melting. Aggregate pits lessen the storage and filtration capacity of ground water along the Trout Creek water courses. Aggregate pits create heavy traffic, noise, and dust in sensitive natural heritage areas in the T.C. watershed. - man-made municipal modification of natural stream beds by trenching and underground drains thereby destroying and draining wetlands and water retention capacities of Trout Creek. Major portions of the Trout Creek watershed have been modified for mechanized agriculture. Field tiling systems feed directly into the Trout Creek system thereby lowering water storage by reducing volume of ground water recharge. - need for more education of local citizens including decision-makers regarding the negative impacts of over-development on much diminished natural heritage reduced to barely 14% of land base in Oxford county with regard to increased possibility of flooding & drought due to extreme weather events brought on by climate change. - Herbicides are being applied by the township along road side ditches regardless of need. These chemicals and there “break down” components drained into the TC surface waters. Even wetlands and forests along roadsides are sprayed. - maintain historical and cultural significance of watershed - improve water quality by buffering - maintain recreational activities, i.e. fishing, hiking - maintain/improve ecological balance - hiking trail development, clearing paths, crossing stream, fences – ideal is pristine stream - aesthetics of Trout Creek at the confluence – solutions are related to upstream practices and some of these solutions are difficult to address as a landowners even with current incentives - liked ideas from Group 3, i.e. springs – solution to pollution, retiring – tax incentives - preserve Harrington Pond - strengthen Avon Trail and others - erosion of river bank based on fallen trees, etc. rerouting the flow and prematurely causing damage - water levels (low) at time - St. Marys dam effects on water table, etc.

Appendix 2: Trout Creek Community Values Assessment Survey Responses 11

Suggestions: - A public awareness campaign is certainly needed to inform the public as to the current status of & value of natural heritage features (water sources, wetlands, woodlands, wildlife, soil quality) re impacts on quality of life. Also, - establish a plan of action to restore lost heritage involving community members (schools, environmental groups, local municipal leaders) with frequent progress reports in local media ( reaching across county lines) as many northern Oxford citizens in Trout Creek frequent nearby urban centres in Perth county for business purposes. Part of the education could be to model and describe the Trout Creek watershed prior human interference. - UTRCA working more closely with MNR to ensure aggregate pits are monitored to ensure silt and contaminants do not enter surface water and groundwater systems. As well to ensure progressive rehabilitation is aggressively carried out. - UTRCA working more closely with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Townships concerning municipal drains. An evaluation of detrimental drains and ditching associated with T.C. surface water runoff should be undertaken and the worst associated with silt and chemical pollution be modified or reversed. - Urging the townships to reduce or eliminate pesticide spraying in sensitive roadside areas and public property. - Urging the townships to consider environmental impacts when upgrading and paving concession roads such as Line 29 and Line 31. - More testing of surface water to identify “hot” spots and progressive tracing back to sources followed by remedial solutions. Sources of agricultural pollution for Harrington Creek are from the east and south. - Need more information/discussion regarding silt in waterways – what is natural vs. what isn’t

Appendix 2: Trout Creek Community Values Assessment Survey Responses 12

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-based Watershed Strategy

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy 13

Trout Creek Technical Background Summary

November 2009

Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... i List of Figures ...... iii List of Tables ...... iii List of Maps ...... iii 1.0 Introduction and Background...... 1 1.1 Trout Creek Watershed ...... 1 1.2 Purpose of the Community-based Watershed Strategy ...... 2 2.0 Abiotic Resources ...... 3 2.1 The Land ...... 3 2.1.1 Topography ...... 3 2.1.2 Geology ...... 3 2.1.3 Physiography ...... 3 Surficial Geology ...... 4 Bedrock Geology ...... 4 2.2 Groundwater Conditions (Hydrogeology) ...... 4 2.3 Surface Water Quality ...... 6 2.3.1 Summary of Parameters and Results ...... 7 Total Phosphorus ...... 7 Nitrate ...... 8 Chloride ...... 9 Suspended Solids ...... 10 Bacteria ...... 11 Conductivity ...... 12 Metals ...... 13 Copper ...... 13 Lead ...... 14 Zinc ...... 16 2.3.2 Wildwood Beach Monitoring ...... 18 2.3.3 Reservoir Research Project ...... 19 2.3.4 Wildwood Dam Discharge Aeration ...... 20 2.3.5 Stratford Central Secondary School Monitoring Project ...... 20 2.4 Wildwood Dam ...... 20 Flooding ...... 20 Water Quality ...... 20 Wildwood Dam Structure ...... 21 3.0 Biotic Resources ...... 23 3.1 Aquatic Natural Heritage ...... 23 Background Data Collection and Maintenance ...... 24 Field Data Collection ...... 24 Results and Findings ...... 24 3.1.1 Benthic Monitoring ...... 24 3.2 Forest and other Vegetation Cover ...... 25 Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-i

Vegetation Cover Types ...... 26 Wetland Cover ...... 26 Woodlot Size ...... 26 Significant Natural Sites ...... 27 Riparian Cover ...... 28 Forestry Projects ...... 28 4.0 Cultural Resources ...... 29 4.1 Settlements & Built Culture ...... 29 Wildwood Conservation Area ...... 29 St. Marys ...... 29 Zorra Township ...... 29 Townships of Perth South/Perth East ...... 30 Harrington ...... 30 Harrington Dam ...... 31 Harrington Mill ...... 31 Ducks Unlimited Viewing Area ...... 32 Harmony ...... 32 4.2 Transportation ...... 32 Highway 7 and 8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class EA Study ...... 33 4.3 Agriculture ...... 33 Conservation Practices ...... 33 Tillage Practices ...... 34 Farms Producing and/or Using Livestock Manure ...... 35 Best Management Practices ...... 36 Environmental Farm Plan ...... 36 Clean Water Program ...... 36 Glossary ...... 37 References ...... 38 Maps ...... 41 Appendix 1. Aquatic Resources ...... 50 Fisheries Monitoring ...... 53 Fisheries Management Planning ...... 56 Fish Habitat ...... 57 Mussels Monitoring ...... 58 Dams and Barriers ...... 59 Summary of Aquatic Resources ...... 60 Appendix 2. Trout Creek Benthic Sampling Results ...... 62 Appendix 3: Trout Creek Fish Sampling Results ...... 116 Appendix 4: TRFMP Summary of Public Input ...... 132 Resource (refers to fish, fish habitat and their use) ...... 132 Issues ...... 133 The Plan ...... 134 Opportunities ...... 135 TRFMP Public Workshop Rough Notes - Public Input for Trout Creek subwatershed ...... 136 Appendix 5. Aquatic Ecosystem Categories ...... 143 Appendix 6: Dams and Barriers ...... 146

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-ii

List of Figures Figure 1.1: Trout Creek Watershed ...... 1 Figure 2.1: Aquifers and wells ...... 5 Figure 2.2: Phosphorus levels in Trout Creek ...... 7 Figure 2.3: Nitrate concentrations in Trout Creek ...... 8 Figure 2.4: Chloride levels in Trout Creek ...... 9 Figure 2.5: Suspended solids levels in Trout Creek ...... 10 Figure 2.6: E. coli concentrations in Trout Creek ...... 11 Figure 2.7: Conductivity levels in Trout Creek ...... 12 Figure 2.8: Copper concentrations in Trout Creek downstream of Wildwood Reservoir ...... 13 Figure 2.9: Copper concentrations in Trout Creek upstream of Wildwood Reservoir ...... 14 Figure 2.10: Lead concentrations in Trout Creek downstream of Wildwood Reservoir ...... 15 Figure 2.11: Lead concentrations in Trout Creek upstream of Wildwood Reservoir ...... 16 Figure 2.12: Zinc concentrations in Trout Creek downstream of Wildwood Reservoir ...... 17 Figure 2.13: Zinc concentrations in Trout Creek upstream of Wildwood Reservoir ...... 18 Figure 2.14: Wildwood Reservoir Operation Guidelines ...... 22

List of Tables Table 2.1: Landforms ...... 3 Table 2.2: Summary of Recreational Guideline Exceedances at Wildwood Reservoir Beach ...... 19 Table 3.1: Vegetation Cover Types ...... 26 Table 3.2: Forest Patch Size ...... 27 Table 3.3: Significant Natural Sites ...... 27 Table 4.1: Trout Creek Watershed Tillage Practices and Area Used ...... 35 Table 4.2: Trout Creek Watershed Manure Application and Associated Land Base...... 35 Table 4.3: Clean Water Program Projects in the Trout Creek Watershed ...... 36 Table A1.1: Trout Creek Benthic Water Quality Sampling Summary ...... 50 Table A1.2: Trout Creek Fish Species Summary ...... 54 Table A1.3: Trout Creek Mussel Species Summary ...... 58 Table A2.1: Benthic Sampling Results ...... 62 Table A3.1: Fish Sampling Results ...... 116 Table A5.1 Aquatic Categories Component Summary ...... 145

List of Maps Map 1: Trout Creek Watershed ...... 41 Map 2: Land Cover ...... 42 Map 3: Physiography ...... 43 Map 4: Soils ...... 44 Map 5: Monitoring ...... 45 Map 6: Natural Heritage ...... 46 Map 7: Naturalization and Enhancement Projects ...... 47 Map 8: Soil Loss Potential ...... 48 Map 9: Watercourse Information ...... 49

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-iii

Trout Creek Technical Background Summary

1.0 Introduction and Background 1.1 Trout Creek Watershed The Trout Creek watershed (Figure 1.1, Map 1) is approximately 161 square kilometres in area and is located in the center of the Upper Thames watershed. Trout Creek outlets into the North branch of the Thames River in the town of St. Marys. The watershed includes portions of the Townships of Zorra (44%), Perth South (32%), Perth East (22%), Town of St. Marys (3%) and the City of Stratford (1%) as seen in Figure 1.1.

Land use (Map 2) within the Trout Creek watershed is primarily agriculture (78%). Other land uses include wooded (17%), urban (3%) and water (2%).

Figure 1.1: Trout Creek Watershed

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-1

1.2 Purpose of the Community-based Watershed Strategy The Trout Creek Community-based Watershed Strategy began in late 2008. Community-based watershed strategy development is a process that involves the community (residents of a specific watershed) in the development and implementation of a watershed restoration strategy. The process brings together technical and cultural objectives to create consensus around action plans. The underlying belief behind the approach is that involving community members will result in the creation of the very best strategy – one that will be implemented over the long-term.

The technical background summary was prepared in 2009 by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that consists of . Four watershed municipalities - Zorra, Perth South, Perth East, and the Town of St. Marys, . Ontario Ministries of Natural Resources, the Environment, and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, . Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

The research for this document builds on the work done in the Oxford Natural Heritage Study (Oxford County 2006) and the 2001 and 2007 Upper Thames River Watershed Report Cards.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-2

2.0 Abiotic Resources 2.1 The Land 2.1.1 Topography The highest elevation in the Trout Creek watershed is found in the Lakeside area (Harrington Highlands) which reaches approximately 385 metres above sea level (masl) elevation. The lowest elevation is where Trout Creek empties into the Thames River at approximately 300 masl. Much of the Trout Creek watershed is relatively flat, with the exception of the prominent portions of the Lakeside Moraine (Harrington Highlands) where the relief changes by 25 metres along Trout Creek east of St. Marys and up to 30 m in the upper headwater areas of the creek. However, in general, local relief does not exceed 15 m.

2.1.2 Geology Ontario was completely covered by the ice of the Laurentide Ice Sheet approximately 20,000 years ago. As the ice sheets melted, large amounts of meltwater eroded bedrock and deposited sediments across southern Ontario, burying the older Paleozoic bedrock surface. The bedrock is buried under 5 to 40 m of till throughout most of the watershed. During the Paleozoic period (350 to 500 million years ago), North America was covered by a series of inland seas that deposited limestone, dolomite and shale. Today, these rocks are economic commodities and a source for lime, cement and building stone (e.g., St. Marys quarry).

2.1.3 Physiography Physiography describes the land surface or landforms primarily composed of unconsolidated materials. Table 2.1 summarizes the extent of each landform in the watershed. The physiography of the Trout Creek watershed (Map 3) (summarized from Karrow, 19771) is comprised of glacially-deposited features such as undrumlinized and drumlinized till plains and moraines (e.g., Harrington Highlands). Landforms created by the scouring action of glacial meltwater and the deposition of the resultant sediment include outwash landforms, meltwater channels and spillways. These latter landforms comprise a smaller portion of the watershed and are comprised largely of sand and gravel. The subglacial meltwater channels consist of the St. Marys Esker system on the northeast side of Wildwood Reservoir; a high level terrace flanking the Trout Creek valley east of St. Marys, and spillways (predominantly along the creek channel).

Table 2.1: Landforms

Percent of Trout Creek Landform Watershed Occupied Undrumlinized Till Plain 54 Drumlinized Till Plain 14 Spillway 16 Moraine (e.g. Lakeside Moraine) 7 Esker 6 Clay Plain 1 Water 1

The Trout Creek valley was a major glacial meltwater drainageway flowing eastward (opposite to its current course) from the melting glacier at the Mitchell Moraine as the glacial ice retreated to Lake Huron. As the ice retreated, trapped lakes were formed and a geologic unit identified as Wildwood Silts, a

1 Karrow, P. F. 1977. Quaternary Geology of the St. Marys Area Southern Ontario. Geoscience Report 148 Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-3 remnant of a glacial age lake bed, remains in the Wildwood Reservoir area. High elevation gravel terrace remnants flank Trout Creek east of St. Marys.

Several Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) are found in the watershed, including the Harmony Cut, St. Marys Cement Company South Quarry, and the Wildwood Silts. Limestone bedrock can be observed in river cuts along the lower reaches of the Trout Creek valley.

Map 4 shows soils in the Trout Creek watershed.

Surficial Geology The overburden varies in thickness from 40 metres in the Lakeside area to less than 5 metres along portions of Trout Creek2. The physiography reflects the surficial geology and includes moraines, outwash landforms, lacustrine features and eskers. The surficial geology forms the aquifers and provides overburden material to filter out contaminants in the groundwater.

Bedrock Geology The Trout Creek watershed and surrounding area is entirely underlain by Devonian age carbonate formations. The Lucas Formation consists of brown limestone and dolomite and is found in a north to south line just east of St. Marys. The younger Dundee Formation is a gray to brown fossiliferous limestone and it underlies (subcrops) the western end of the subwatershed. There are good exposures of the Lucas and Dundee formations in the quarry at St. Marys. Oil production in southern Ontario is largely confined to the Dundee and Lucas Formations and isolated pockets of oil have been observed near St. Marys. Oil staining has been observed in the quarry but oil is not an economic resource in this area. Sink holes are also associated with the Dundee and Lucas formations and are found just west of St. Marys outside of the Trout Creek watershed. The Lucas and Dundee formations are a good source of groundwater.

2.2 Groundwater Conditions (Hydrogeology) The Town of St. Marys has relied on groundwater as a source of drinking water throughout its settlement history. Willis Chipman, appointed Chief Engineer in July 1899, evaluated four sources of drinking water for the town including two within the Trout Creek watershed (Trout Creek itself above the GTR bridge (now CN) and artesian wells). Chipman quickly discounted the surface water source due to the vast extent of agriculture in the vicinity of the creek and commenced drilling the first well near the railway bridge in 1899. The well was artesian and the first flow was struck at a depth of 14 metres (48 feet) in bedrock. The well was sunk ultimately to 32 m (105 feet) and the water rose to nearly 2 metres (6 feet) above land surface and, therefore, was an artesian well.3 Another two wells were installed shortly afterward and the waterworks for the town were completed throughout most of 1900. The water supply was provided entirely from three drilled wells, each six inches (15 cm) in diameter and approximately 100 feet (30 metres) deep3. Chipman commented that the water was clear, cold and palatable for all domestic purposes, but harder than most surface waters. A trace of sulphur showed at the wells but was not detected at consumer taps3 . Today, three wells still supply water for St. Marys, but none are the original drilled wells.

Groundwater can be found filling the spaces between the grains of sand and gravel, in rock crevices and in fractures. Groundwater flows slowly through water-bearing zones or formations, known as aquifers, at different rates. It is not confined to channels or depressions in the same way that surface water is

2 International Water Consultants, 2002. Town of St. Marys, Ontario Perth County Hydrogeologic Investigation 2001 to 2002. Prepared for the Town of St. Marys. 3 Chipman, W. 1901. Final Report upon Water Works System as Constructed, Town of St. Marys. Toronto. Provided by the St. Marys Museum. Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-4 concentrated in streams and lakes. Groundwater exists almost everywhere underground (Figure ) yet has a close connection with surface water bodies and circulates as part of the hydrologic cycle. Groundwater represents one of the safest and cleanest forms of water supply. Understanding how and where groundwater moves through the watershed and the factors that control this movement will help to protect and manage this resource.

Groundwater moves from recharge areas (where precipitation percolates into the ground) to discharge areas where water appears above the ground in seeps, streams and lakes. The groundwater recharge and discharge varies for each aquifer at depth. Recharge occurs throughout the Trout Creek watershed in all areas. Groundwater flows at different rates according to the nature of the aquifer, but the most shallow groundwater levels mimic the topography and are associated with the moraines. Aquifers occur at various depths in the overburden and in the bedrock in the Trout Creek watershed (Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc., 2007). Most of the aquifers of importance in the Trout Creek watershed are found in the bedrock aquifers.

Groundwater characteristics such as recharge and discharge areas are often controlled by physiography and topography. In general, groundwater flow is from east to west and the groundwater drainage area or “groundwater watershed” is much larger than the Trout Creek in most cases. The flow of Trout Creek has little influence on the groundwater flow in the deeper, more extensive aquifers. Localized shallow aquifers are in communication with streams and the stream flow is controlled by groundwater during dry periods.

Figure 2.1: Aquifers and wells

The location and extent of the overburden and bedrock aquifers and their water bearing capacities vary throughout the watershed. Aquifers are often found at shallow depths adjacent to the river in the spillway. In the higher, moraine areas, the more productive, confined aquifers are located deep within the overburden; however, there are also local, less extensive aquifers at shallow depths that are also important for natural habitat. In some parts of the watershed, groundwater is only found in the deeper, bedrock aquifer.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-5

The highest groundwater elevations occur along the Lakeside Moraine, also known as the Harrington Highlands, in the overburden aquifers. Lower water elevations are usually observed in the bedrock aquifers. The highest bedrock aquifer elevation also occurs in the Lakeside area.

Similar to Figure 2.1 above there are various types of wells in the Trout Creek subwatershed. When the wells in St. Marys were first drilled, they were flowing artesian wells from a deep confined aquifer where shallow wells are not available and only a deep aquifer is present. This deep aquifer is associated with the Dundee Formation/ Lucas Formation and water moves along the fractures of the rock.

Currently, the UTRCA has one groundwater monitoring well in the Trout Creek subwatershed as part of the provincial groundwater monitoring network. Water quality samples are collected once per year and water levels are measured hourly.

The Town of St. Marys is the owner and operator of a large municipal residential drinking water system supplied by a groundwater source. It provides potable water to approximately 2,400 residential, industrial, institutional and commercial premises within the Town. Three deep bedrock wells are connected to the water system, each of these wells are equipped with pumping, treating and monitoring operations. The Ministry of the Environment concluded that all three wells are GUDI (Groundwater under the Direct Influence of surface water) with effective in-situ filtration. The remainder of the system consists of a booster pump station (used in fire emergency only) and one elevated water storage tank facility located within the distribution system.

The town water supply for St. Marys is maintained by the Municipality and the water is of good quality. Water quality information is available at the St. Marys website www.townofstmarys.com/ indexlarge.aspx?id=92. There are no water quantity issues identified. St. Marys’ water supply is generally hard, high in iron and has naturally occurring elevated fluoride levels but still meets the drinking water standards.

2.3 Surface Water Quality Trout Creek has been monitored as part of the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) since 1979. Trout Creek is sampled once a month from April to December at two locations: downstream of Wildwood reservoir at Perth Line 9 and upstream of Wildwood reservoir at the 33rd line. Sampling is conducted through the range of stream flow conditions from baseflow to rain event sampling. This report summarizes data collected through this monitoring program for nine parameters that reflect landuse activities in the watershed.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-6

2.3.1 Summary of Parameters and Results

Total Phosphorus Fate and Behaviour While phosphorus is an essential nutrient for plant and animal life, excess phosphorus loading can result in significant increases in plant growth. Phosphorus is not directly toxic to aquatic life but elevated concentrations can lead to undesirable changes in a watercourse. These changes include reduced oxygen levels, reduced biodiversity, and algae blooms affecting recreational water.

Sources Potential phosphorus sources can include commercial fertilizers, animal waste, domestic and industrial wastewater, including soaps and cleaning products. Phosphorus binds to soil and is readily transported to streams with eroding soil.

Standards Ontario’s interim Provincial Water Quality Objective is 30 micrograms/L total phosphorus to prevent the nuisance growth of algae. Algae blooms and excessive plant growth should be eliminated at total phosphorus concentrations below 0.03 mg/L and can be a relevant site specific assessment of total phosphorus.

Monitoring Results Total phosphorus has been monitored in Trout Creek since 1979. Over this time period, total phosphorus has been consistently above the provincial guideline (Figure 2.2). Phosphorus concentrations downstream of Wildwood have remained fairly consistent over time at approximately three times the provincial objective. Samples upstream of Wildwood have shown more increase in the last 15 years.

Figure 2.2: Phosphorus levels in Trout Creek 75th percentiles showing phosphorous levels in 5 year time blocks Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-7

Nitrate Fate and Behaviour Nitrate is a nutrient that does not adsorb to sediment and moves readily through surface runoff to streams and through soil into groundwater. Elevated levels in a watercourse can be toxic to aquatic organisms, especially amphibians. A condition called blue baby syndrome can result from young children drinking water with elevated nitrates.

Sources Nitrate sources can include animal waste, commercial fertilizers, municipal waste water, septic systems, and atmospheric deposition.

Standards The Province does not have an objective for aquatic life but the Canadian Environmental Quality Guideline to protect aquatic life is 2.93 mg/L. The Ontario Drinking Water Standard for nitrate is a maximum acceptable concentration of 10 mg/L.

Monitoring Results Nitrate levels have been monitored in Trout Creek since 1979. Figure 2.3 shows concentrations of nitrates routinely exceeding the Canadian guideline (CCME) for the protection of aquatic life over the monitoring period. Nitrate levels upstream of Wildwood have been consistently higher than levels at the downstream site. Nitrates had been generally increasing over the long term in Trout Creek but are showing improvement in recent years.

Figure 2.3: Nitrate concentrations in Trout Creek 75th percentiles showing nitrate levels in 5 year time blocks

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-8

Chloride Fate and Behaviour Chloride moves easily with water and persists in the river system. Nearly all chloride added to the environment will eventually migrate to surface water or groundwater. Chloride can be toxic to aquatic organisms at high concentrations, and affects growth and reproduction at lower concentrations.

Sources The highest loadings of chloride are typically associated with the application and storage of road salt (e.g. calcium chloride). Urban streams tend to have the highest chloride concentrations.

Standards Ontario does not have a Provincial Water Quality Objective for aquatic life. An Environment Canada/ Health Canada assessment report (2001) documents toxicity for sensitive aquatic species at 210 mg/L.

Monitoring Results Chloride has been monitored in Trout Creek since 1979. Figure 2.4 shows chloride concentrations well below recommended guideline levels since monitoring began. Chloride levels have been increasing in Trout Creek since 1979 with some recent improvements at the site downstream of Wildwood.

Figure 2.4: Chloride levels in Trout Creek 75th percentiles showing chloride levels in 5 year time blocks

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-9

Suspended Solids Fate and Behaviour Suspended solids consist of silt, clay, and fine particles of organic and inorganic matter. These particles are significant carriers of phosphorus, metals, and other hazardous contaminants. Suspended solids can be detrimental to aquatic organisms including fish (covers spawning beds, damages gills, etc). Oxygen levels in the stream can be impaired by organic solids from sources such as wastewater treatment plants and storm sewers.

Sources Soil erosion is the most common source of suspended solids to a watercourse. Erosion from cultivated land, construction/development sites and eroded stream banks can all contribute sediment to surface water. Natural erosion of streambeds and banks are also sources.

Standards There are no established standards for suspended solids, although standards are built into the Provincial Water Quality Objective for turbidity. Turbid water is undesirable for water supplies, healthy aquatic life, recreation and aesthetics. Suspended solids can also transport quantities of trace contaminants.

Monitoring Results Suspended solids have been monitored in Trout Creek since 1979 (Figure 2.5). The site upstream of Wildwood has been variable over the years with an overall increase in suspended solids. The downstream site shows lower suspended solids and more consistency over time.

Figure 2.5: Suspended solids levels in Trout Creek 75th percentiles showing suspended solids levels in 5 year time blocks

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-10

Bacteria Fate and Behaviour E. coli is a member of the total coliform group of bacteria and is the only member that is found exclusively in the feces of humans and other mammals. Its presence in water indicates not only recent fecal contamination of the water but also the possible presence of intestinal disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Bacteria in surface water can also contaminate groundwater, putting drinking water sources at risk.

Sources E. coli and other fecal bacteria are found in the feces of humans and animals. Potential sources of fecal bacteria include runoff from biosolids/sewage or livestock waste application, faulty private septic systems, inadequate manure storage, wildlife, and urban storm water runoff.

Standards The Provincial Water Quality Objective for recreational waters is 100 E. coli/100 mL. The Ontario Drinking Water Standard for bacteria states that there should be no bacteria present in a drinking water supply.

Monitoring Results: Fecal bacteria have been monitored in Trout Creek since 1979. Bacteria levels in surface water tend to fluctuate widely and monthly sampling gives a minimal assessment of bacteria in a creek. Based on this data, E. coli/fecal coliforms are routinely above the recreational guideline of 100 E. coli/100 mL at the two sampling sites (Figure 2.6). E. coli levels have shown some overall increase since monitoring began.

Figure 2.6: E. coli concentrations in Trout Creek Geometric mean of data over 5 year time blocks

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-11

Conductivity Fate and Behaviour Conductivity is a measure of water’s ability to conduct an electrical current and provides an indication of the amount of dissolved ions present. Conductivity is used as a general indicator of pollutants in water.

Standards There are no provincial or federal water quality standards for conductivity.

Monitoring Results Conductivity levels at the site upstream of Wildwood are consistently higher than the downstream site indicating higher levels of pollutants (Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7: Conductivity levels in Trout Creek 75th percentiles of data over 5 year time blocks

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-12

Metals

Copper Fate and Behaviour Copper is relatively immobile because of its strong adsorption to soil particles. It can be toxic to aquatic animals at elevated levels but can also have serious impacts when in deficiency.

Sources Some sources for copper include textile manufacturing, sewage treatment plant effluent, paints, pesticides and fungicides, wood preservative, and electrical conductors. Higher levels of copper in the aquatic environment are usually found in more urbanized and industrial areas.

Standards The Provincial Water Quality Objective for copper is 5 ug/L.

Monitoring Results Copper has been monitored in Trout Creek since 1998 (Figures 2.8 and 2.9). All samples for both sites remain below the provincial objective of 5 ug/L.

Figure 2.8: Copper concentrations in Trout Creek downstream of Wildwood Reservoir Boxplot graph presenting 50% of the data within the gray box (25th to 75th percentiles); the 10th and 90th percentiles are the end of the “whiskers” and the 5th and 95th percentiles are the dots.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-13

Figure 2.9: Copper concentrations in Trout Creek upstream of Wildwood Reservoir Boxplot graph presenting 50% of the data within the boxes (25th to 75th percentiles); the 10th and 90th percentiles are the end of the “whiskers” and the 5th and 95th percentiles are the dots.

Lead Fate and Behaviour Lead can be toxic to aquatic organisms at elevated levels as this element is a cumulative toxin that can affect the central nervous system of both animals and humans. The solid form of lead binds strongly to soils, particularly clay, and the soluble form of lead is very mobile and bioavailable and has a more direct toxic effect on aquatic organisms.

Sources The main source of lead in Canada is the production of acid storage batteries. Other sources include smelting of lead, burning of fossil fuels, municipal wastewater, sewage sludge, phosphate fertilizers, and pesticides.

Standards The Provincial Water Quality Objective for lead is 5 ug/L.

Monitoring Results Lead has been monitored in Trout Creek since 1998 (Figures 2.10 and 2.11). Samples for both sites remain below the provincial objective of 5 ug/L.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-14

Figure 2.10: Lead concentrations in Trout Creek downstream of Wildwood Reservoir Boxplot graph presenting 50% of the data within the boxes (25th to 75th percentiles); the 10th and 90th percentiles are the end of the “whiskers” and the 5th and 95th percentiles are the dots.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-15

Figure 2.11: Lead concentrations in Trout Creek upstream of Wildwood Reservoir Boxplot graph presenting 50% of the data within the boxes (25th to 75th percentiles), the 10th and 90th percentiles are the end of the “whiskers” and the 5th and 95th percentiles are the dots.

Zinc Fate and Behaviour Zinc is essential for good health and the functioning of biological processes in plants and animals but in elevated levels in can be toxic to aquatic organisms. It can cause increased behavioural changes and mortality as well as decreased benthic invertebrate diversity and abundance. Zinc adheres strongly to aquatic particles, especially organic matter.

Sources The main sources of zinc are galvanized products used in the automobile and construction industry. Other sources include domestic and industrial wastewater, fossil fuels, road surface runoff, corrosion of zinc alloy and galvanized surfaces and soil erosion. Higher levels of zinc in the aquatic environment are usually found in more urbanized and industrial areas.

Standards The Provincial Water Quality Objective for lead is 20 ug/L.

Monitoring Results Zinc has been monitored in Trout Creek since 1998 (Figures 2.12 and 2.13). Samples for both sites remain below the provincial objective of 20 ug/L.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-16

Figure 2.12: Zinc concentrations in Trout Creek downstream of Wildwood Reservoir Boxplot graph presenting 50% of the data within the boxes (the 25th to 75th percentiles), the 10th and 90th percentiles are the end of the “whiskers,” and the 5th and 95th percentiles are the dots.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-17

Figure 2.13: Zinc concentrations in Trout Creek upstream of Wildwood Reservoir Boxplot graph presenting 50% of the data within the boxes (the 25th to 75th percentiles), the 10th and 90th percentiles are the end of the “whiskers,” and the 5th and 95th percentiles are the dots.

2.3.2 Wildwood Beach Monitoring The beach at Wildwood reservoir is monitored for recreational water quality by the Perth County Health Unit. The beach is posted by the Health Unit when E. coli bacteria levels in the water are unsuitable for swimming. Table 2.2 summarizes the number of recreational guideline exceedances for bacteria data from 1979 to 2008. Bacteria levels vary from year to year and the timing of elevated levels often relates to periods of increased rain and runoff.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-18

Table 2.2: Summary of Recreational Guideline Exceedances at Wildwood Reservoir Beach Geometric Means of sites located in swimming area at Wildwood Reservoir 1st Time Geometric Mean No. of Times Geometric Mean No. of Days Beach Year Exceeded RG* Exceeded RG* Sampled 1979 August 10 1 12 1980 August 25 2 7 1981 -- 0 4 1982 August 1 5 1983 August 12 1 8 1984 July 17 12 25 1985 August 28 1 13 1986 July 30 2 11 1987 -- 0 12 1988 August 15 6 13 1989 August 1 5 16 1990 July 31 15 30 1991 July 23 6 17 1992 August 26 3 12 1993 -- 0 14 1994 August 15 2 9 1998 July 29 5 12 1999 August 26 1 6 2000 August 23 1 8 2001 August 7 1 6 2002 August 12 7 12 2003 September 10 1 8 2004 August 16 2 7 2005 August 4 4 15 2006 July 31 7 12 2007 August 1 4 7 2008 August 5 2 10 *RG=Recreational Guideline of 100 CFU

2.3.3 Reservoir Research Project A study was conducted in 2004 to 2006 by Freshwater Research (G. Nurnberg, 2006) to assess the water quality of the North Thames River watershed with a focus on the impacts of the major reservoirs, including Wildwood. The study concluded that Wildwood does not adversely affect downstream water quality on an annual basis, but may do so occasionally in the summer. Wildwood continues to act as a

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-19 nutrient and sediment ‘sink,’ slowing water flow and retaining nutrients and other sediment runoff in its bottom sediments. The study reports that the annual export of contaminants from Wildwood is smaller than the input from upstream. The study suggests that this could potentially change in the future with excess accumulation in bottom sediments.

Most of the data in Figures 2.2 to 2.13 from the two Trout Creek sites support the conclusions of the study with contaminant levels at the site upstream of Wildwood generally higher than the downstream site.

2.3.4 Wildwood Dam Discharge Aeration Over the years there has been some deficiency in dissolved oxygen in the water on the downstream side of Wildwood dam. This situation had resulted in periodic conditions detrimental to aquatic life such as benthic invertebrates and fish. In 2002 a submerged vertical fountain was installed below Wildwood dam to aerate discharge water, improving oxygen levels for fish. The fountain, developed at the University of Western Ontario, works on water pressure from the reservoir and requires no other energy source. Follow-up monitoring has determined that the system improves dissolved oxygen downstream.

2.3.5 Stratford Central Secondary School Monitoring Project Students at Stratford Central Secondary School have been involved in a conservation project for a number of years along Trout Creek. This project involved testing Trout Creek water quality during the summers of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. The students tested at nine sites upstream of Wildwood Reservoir. Each site was tested six times every other week for a total of 12 weeks, except for 2005 where each site was tested five times every other week for a total of 10 weeks. Samples were taken such that a number of rainfall events were captured each year.

The students used a Hach DR/700 Colorimeter to test for phosphates, potassium, nitrates, and dissolved oxygen. Lamotte test kits were used to test for dissolved oxygen and turbidity. The mFC agar method was used to count fecal coliform colonies.

2.4 Wildwood Dam The Upper Thames Valley Conservation Report prepared in 1952 was the result of many years of effort by the Province to study the upper Thames watershed. Technical investigations pertaining to the management of land, water, forestry and wildlife resources were discussed. Relevant to water resources, significant observations were noted in the report dealing with historical flooding and water quality problems within the upper Thames watershed.

Flooding Over 100 years of flooding problems were noted, and the most recent events of 1937, 1947, and 1948 in the upper Thames watershed brought to light the need to address these problems as a high priority. Significant damages and loss of life that occurred in 1937 on the South Thames River in Woodstock, Ingersoll and London, and the North Thames River in Mitchell, Stratford and St. Marys led to the development of an integrated flood control plan for the upper Thames watershed. This plan identified dam and channel works on the South Thames, and for the North Thames at Wildwood near St Marys.

Water Quality Substantial problems were cited and were attributed to a number of factors, not all of them necessarily understood at the time, such as: the general land use changes that had occurred in the watershed due to the long term transformation of the land to agriculture and the intensive practices noted at the time, the pollution resulting from inadequate treatment of urban sewage, and the general lack of stream flow available during the summer periods. The development of the plan included the utilization of

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-20 recommended dams and the reservoirs that would be created to increase flows and improve water quality problems downstream.

Wildwood Dam Structure Original design concepts were prepared in the 1940s and this dam was first proposed in 1948 as the first major project of the Authority after it was formed in 1947. Originally designed as a flood control reservoir, the project received considerable opposition and was shelved as it was thought more effective methods to improve flood control could be undertaken by improving land use practices that would help to control flooding.

Further design concepts for this dam were prepared in the '52 Report in accordance with the plan developing at the time, which included the objectives of providing flood protection to downstream communities throughout the watershed during the prevalent annual maximum flood periods experienced during the spring due to snow melt, and to improve base flows such as during the drier summer months.

In 1961 engineering designs were reopened in general accordance with the Report. The major change from previous designs was an increase in the height of the dam by 12 feet and a corresponding increase in storage of 2½ times. Construction was started at the dam site in 1962 and completed in 1965. The cost of the dam and land base at that time was close to $3,500,000. The design details of the dam are such to allow for the full extent of necessary operations to take place for flood control and flow augmentation purposes.

The outflow from the dam is controlled by utilizing three main operating features: . Four large low level sluice gates set across the main opening of the dam provide coarse control of flows from the dam and are primarily used during the spring runoff period (March to April) and frequently during the fall and early winter when the soil is likely to be frozen or saturated and runoff from snow melt or rainfall is potentially high. Other factors such as temperature, which affects evaporation and therefore soil moisture, and vegetation cover, which intercepts rainfall but is seasonal, also have a significant bearing on the amount of water that finds its way into streams during the spring and fall months. . Three small valves set in penstocks are located in the core of the dam below the winter water level. Their purpose is to provide the fine control of outflow during the summer and also most remaining times of the year to provide small releases to downstream when often even less flow enters into the reservoir. By agreement with the Ministry of the Environment, a minimum release is provided to downstream during the summer months. The lowest valve also allows the reservoir to be further lowered for maintenance purposes if required. The valves allow discharges of cooler water from the bottom of the reservoir during the summer. . Concrete baffle walls above the gates provide some automatic control during the early summer months when the reservoir level is at or close to its highest level, by allowing flow to spill over the walls when the water levels rise following summer storms. The level the walls are at is slightly above the normal highest summer level in order to capture some storm runoff so that in the following dry period, flow to downstream can be equalized over a longer period of time as much as possible.

An annual operating cycle guideline was established within the original design intent for the dam and reservoir (Figure 2.14). The cycle indicates substantial fluctuations in water levels during the year need to be allowed for. The fluctuations are necessary to provide optimum year round flood control capability to protect downstream communities in a manner that does not endanger the safe operation of the dam under a variety of circumstances and to provide a water quality benefit to downstream during adverse (dry) summer conditions.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-21

With the beginning of the annual cycle considered to commence prior to spring runoff which generally falls in the period of February to early April, the reservoir water level is considered to be at its minimum and its storage volume capacity to be at its maximum. A significant amount of storage capacity is available in the reservoir at this time of year, which on average enables the containment of the entire spring snow melt runoff volume into the reservoir. The water level in the reservoir can be seen to rise from the winter level to the summer level in less than one week. Timely operations coordinated with observations and forecasts of downstream water levels on various watercourses can be utilized to minimize some flooding impacts downstream. The possibility of more severe situations must be allowed for to ensure the safety of the dam during these conditions.

Following spring runoff the reservoir level is jockeyed toward a summer starting level for May and June. During this period climatic conditions can fluctuate significantly over short periods of time to influence the filling of the reservoir to the desired level. Knowledge of the volume potentially available from spring runoff is no longer available. As the growing season begins one can neither anticipate a future drought period nor an above normal wet period prior to topping of water levels in the late spring. Reservoir operators are generally not any more privy to better climatic information than that provided to the public in order to guide long term operations. Decisions during this period can influence whether the summer level is reached.

During the summer period and into the fall, watershed vegetation reaches full growth. Temperatures and reservoir surface evaporation can be extreme. Soil moisture is usually low. Runoff from summer precipitation may only be a small fraction of that during the spring or late fall. Because of the significant lack of stream flow that may be present in the watershed, the storage accumulated from the spring and subsequent rain events in Wildwood Reservoir is generally required to be used to supplement low stream flow periods downstream. The need to augment downstream flows can require the use of greater volumes of water from the reservoir than come into it from upstream during the summer and fall. Therefore, the reservoir water levels are in general decline over the remainder of the summer or recreation season. Summer storm runoff can cause some fluctuations in reservoir water levels as previously noted, but these are usually substantially less than experienced during the spring and fall.

During the fall, the decline in water levels continues until the winter level is reached in early December. During this time, reservoir capacity is gradually restored if possible in order to provide the flood control capacities necessary to accommodate the situations in the fall where runoff potential due to watershed and climatic conditions becomes greater. Return to winter levels reestablishes the operating cycle to its beginning in anticipation of the next season’s critical operating needs.

Figure 2.14: Wildwood Reservoir Operation Guidelines

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-22

3.0 Biotic Resources 3.1 Aquatic Natural Heritage The intent of the aquatic portion of the Trout Creek Community Subwatershed Strategy is to provide an assessment of the current aquatic habitat conditions and to provide benthic water quality and fisheries information within the subwatershed of the Trout Creek. While this portion of the study focuses on the aquatic natural heritage features found within the subwatershed, these aquatic features influence the downstream portion of the North Thames River and, subsequently, the receiving waters of the Thames River and Lake St. Clair.

Aquatic natural heritage features are generally called aquatic ecosystems or aquatic environments and include watercourses (streams, rivers, and drains), waterbodies (lakes, reservoirs, and ponds), and wetlands. Aquatic means to consist of water; thus, aquatic environments are comprised of water for some or all of the year. These environments provide habitat for all life stages of aquatic organisms and specific life stages for semi-aquatic species, corridors for movement, food for sustenance, cover for protection, and habitat for spawning and nursery areas.

An aquatic environment is a function of its living and non-living components, as well as the natural and unnatural stresses placed upon them. The landscape (soils, valleys, etc.) forms the non-living portion of the aquatic environment, and contributes to the habitat conditions required by the living portion of the aquatic environment. The living component of the aquatic environment is comprised of living organisms, some of which contribute to the aquatic habitat, while others live in the aquatic portion. Each component plays a vital role in the aquatic ecosystem. For example; the habitat conditions and the quality of habitat available determines the aquatic community that will occupy a given aquatic environment.

Many aquatic species are specialists only found in specific habitats, while other aquatic species are generalists and can be found in a variety of habitats. This is one reason why several aquatic species of plants, fish, mussels, insects and invertebrates are excellent indicators of ecosystem health. An aquatic community can provide an indication of the current conditions, conditions suitable for a certain location or reach of watercourse, and the potential for future improved/restored conditions. The indicator species aid in targeting areas in need of conservation, protection and preservation while identifying those areas in need of restoration or rehabilitation.

The species living within the aquatic environment are the first affected by an adverse or irreversible impact such as impaired water quality. In many cases, aquatic species monitoring measures the extent of contamination and the state of the water conditions, for extended periods of time. It is important to have baseline surveys and consistent monitoring programs in place to ensure the accurate reporting of current conditions. Continuous monitoring provides insight into changing conditions or trends, and additional monitoring is required to target information gaps.

For the purpose of the Trout Creek Community Subwatershed Strategy, aquatic natural heritage features were limited to watercourses, which include streams, rivers, creeks, swales, and open surface drains. Watercourses have been defined as an identifiable depression in the ground in which a flow of water regularly or continuously occurs (Government of Ontario, 1990, C-27). A watercourse conveys water and this flowing water transports food, sediment, nutrients, and debris. Several watercourses may dry up or contain pools of standing water during the drier periods of the year and especially during periods of drought.

Watercourses provide habitat for species such as fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals, plants, and insects. The habitat that a watercourse provides includes the water, the river bottom, the surrounding lands, the in-stream vegetation, and the overhanging vegetation. The aquatic and semi aquatic species

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-23 using this habitat need the habitat for feeding, cover to escape predation, areas to reproduce, and migration routes. Watercourses also provide a source of food and water, and travel corridors for many terrestrial species.

Watercourses are complex systems influenced by water quality and quantity, the surrounding lands such as the floodplain, the substrate (rocks, cobble, clay, sand, and silt), the channel itself, water flow, water temperature, and many other factors. Combined, all of these factors determine the type of aquatic community that is present.

Background Data Collection and Maintenance Aquatic information pertinent to watercourses in the Trout Creek subwatershed was gathered from the following sources: Environment Canada (EC), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), Royal Ontario Musuem (ROM), and Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA). The information was compiled and is maintained in Microsoft Access databases, and is transferable to a Geographical Information Systems (GIS) application.

Field Data Collection The aquatic monitoring data collected by UTRCA staff is comprised of regular fish and benthos (benthic invertebrate) population sampling and aquatic habitat assessments. Standardised provincial protocols, including the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP), the Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network (OBBN), and the Municipal Drain Classification Project (MDC), were followed. The OBBN protocol determines the collection of the benthos as an indicator of water and habitat quality while the OSAP guides the fish community sampling. The MDC and OBBN direct the qualitative assessment of the aquatic habitat conditions.

Results and Findings The aquatic information collected provides baseline data and a current picture of the aquatic environment found within the Trout Creek subwatershed.

3.1.1 Benthic Monitoring Benthos refers to benthic macroinvertebrates (BMI) which are insects and other macroscopic organisms that lack a backbone, and live at or near the bottom of watercourses (rivers) and waterbodies (lakes). They include the larval and/or adult stages of freshwater worms, beetles, caddisflies, crustaceans, damselflies, dragonflies, leeches, mayflies, and stoneflies. BMI are abundant in most stream sediments and have well known tolerances to pollution and habitat disturbances. Additionally, they provide a long term assessment of water and habitat quality because they are relatively sedentary, spend all or most of their lives in water, and many have life spans of a year or more. Benthic organisms are collected because they are relatively easy to sample and identify for analysis and monitoring purposes.

Table A1.1: Trout Creek Benthic Water Quality Sampling Summary (Appendix 1) summarizes benthic samples collected by the UTRCA since 1997 within the Trout Creek watershed. The sample sites are illustrated in Map 5: Monitoring. The appendices contain the detailed analysis of the benthic sampling results.

The UTRCA has conducted benthic sampling as a cooperative project with the University of Western Ontario (UWO) throughout the Upper Thames Watershed. This sampling methodology follows a version of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rapid bioassessment protocol as modified by Dr. Robert Bailey. Dr. Bailey and John Schwindt (affiliated with UWO and UTRCA, respectively) were involved with the development of the provincial OBBN protocol which incorporated Dr. Bailey’s methods. UTRCA benthic samples are taken at the same locations as the Provincial Water Quality Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-24

Monitoring Network (PWQMN), from reference reaches, and at representative sites along watercourses to provide adequate information for assessment purposes. Benthic sampling also targets areas where monitoring activities track the changes occurring on the landscape such as urban development and instream habitat improvements.

Trout Creek watershed benthic sampling results indicate a range from very poor to good water and habitat quality conditions. These results are fairly typical of the impaired conditions found through out the Upper Thames watershed and are indicative of intensive urban and rural development. Fluctuations at individual sampling sites result from natural and man-made impacts. Natural factors include flow extremes (drought and unusually high flows) while manure and fertilizer run-off, spills, septic waste contamination and habitat disturbances are influenced by human activities. A few of the Trout Creek tributary streams have fairly good water quality, are relatively unimpaired, and are sampled regularly as refererence sites. The relatively poor water quality evident at Trout Creek sites is likely due to rural impacts such as run-off and habitat disturbances. Downstream sites are generally of poorer quality and illustrate the negative habitat and water quality impacts of a large impoundment (Wildwood Reservoir).

Further investigation would be required to pinpoint specific sources of habitat and water quality impairment and to suggest possible solutions. General issues and remedial measures are prescribed in the Trout Creek Watershed Report Card (www.thamesriver.on.ca/Watershed_Report_Cards/images_2007/ Report_Cards_Trout.pdf). Continued monitoring would help track any changes occurring with water and habitat quality as well as indicate trends within the watershed.

3.2 Forest and other Vegetation Cover The Trout Creek watershed lies within the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Forest Region, which is characterized by a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees. The main tree species in this forest region include maple, oak, Yellow Birch, Red Pine, Eastern White Pine, and Eastern Hemlock. The Deciduous or Carolinian Forest Zone begins near London and extends south, so there is some overlap of the forest zones in the St. Marys area. Typical trees of the Deciduous Forest Zone include beech, maple, Black Walnut, hickory and oak.

Prior to European settlement, much of Oxford and Perth Counties was forested. Today, only a fraction of the original forest cover remains because of large scale land clearing for agriculture, urban settlement and other land uses.

The Trout Creek watershed has 17.2% forest cover (Map 6: Natural Heritage), which is higher than the average for the Upper Thames watershed (11.4%), but still considered too low for sustainability. Meadows and other habitat types add another 2.5% for a total of 19.7% natural vegetation cover. It is believed there should be 25 – 30% forest cover and other natural cover in southern Ontario’s landscape to sustain native plants and animals (Environment Canada 2004).

The amount of forest interior is 2.7%, which is above the Upper Thames average, but still considered low. Forest interior refers to the protected core area found inside a woodlot that some bird species require to nest and breed successfully. The outer 100 m perimeter of a woodlot is considered ‘edge’ habitat and prone to high predation, sun and wind damage and alien species invasion. There are some good sized woodlots in the Trout Creek watershed, providing forest interior habitat for area sensitive birds such as Scarlet Tanager and Ovenbird. Many of the larger woodlots are located around Wildwood CA and Harrington Creek. Long, narrow woodlots rarely contain forest interior as they are less than 200 m wide. Round or square-shaped woodlots maximize the amount of interior as there is less edge.

In the 2007 Upper Thames River Watershed Report Cards, forest conditions in the Trout Creek watershed scored a C grade overall, with a C for forest cover and a D for forest interior. The average grade for forest Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-25 conditions in the Upper Thames is a D, which is not an unexpected result considering the Thames is situated in a highly developed part of Ontario with productive farmland and a large human population.

Vegetation Cover Types Most of the vegetation cover in the Trout Creek watershed is composed of deciduous forest with some coniferous and mixed (deciduous and coniferous) forest and shrubland. Together, these forest types account for 76% of the natural vegetation in the watershed (Table 3.1). Coniferous plantations comprise another 11%, which is a relatively large amount that reflects the extensive tree-planting that took place some 50 years ago within Wildwood CA when the UTRCA acquired and reforested this area.

Table 3.1: Vegetation Cover Types

Vegetation Cover Type Ha % of Cover Deciduous 1462 46 Mixed 631 20 Coniferous 307 10 Plantation 353 11 Hedgerow 19 <1 Tree Nursery, Orchard 32 1 Urban Woods <0.5 ha 4 <1 Meadow 375 12 3182 TOTAL COVER 100 (19.7% of watershed)

Meadows (unmaintained grasslands with scattered shrubs and trees) occupy 12% of the vegetation cover and are often associated with watercourses and fallow farm fields. There is a growing recognition for the importance of meadow habitat in the landscape.

Wetland Cover Over 80% of wetlands in southwestern Ontario have been lost due to land clearing and drainage. Today, 2.9% of the Trout Creek watershed is in wetland cover, about the same as the average for the entire Upper Thames basin. While there are no records of how much wetland cover existed historically, this area probably contained 10 - 40 % wetland cover by watershed. Wetlands, primarily wooded swamps, are a common vegetation community in woodlands. They represent 17% of the natural vegetation cover in Trout Creek watershed. Swamps can be deciduous, mixed or coniferous.

Woodlot Size As mentioned earlier, large woodland and forest patches are needed to sustain certain sensitive bird species as well as other species. In the Trout Creek watershed, 71% of woodlands are small, 17% are mid- sized and only 12% are large (>30 ha) (Table 3.2). This size distribution is typical of other watersheds within the Upper Thames basin.

Connecting and filling in gaps in woodland patches with trees and natural vegetation can go a long way in effectively doubling the size of woodland patches.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-26

Table 3.2: Forest Patch Size

Number of Woodlot % of Woodlot Size Category Patches Patches Small, < 10 ha 198 71 Medium, 10 – 30 ha 48 17 Large, > 30 ha 32 12 TOTAL 278 100

Significant Natural Sites Many sites in the Trout Creek watershed have been designated as significant by the Ministry of Natural Resources and/or the Counties. Table 3.3 summarizes the sites. The vast majority are situated along Trout Creek or a major tributary. Refer to Figure 1.1 for specific locations.

Table 3.3: Significant Natural Sites

Name Designations Size (ha) Comments Only 225 ha of the 503 ha wetland is (1) Lakeside/Wildwood PSW, LS ANSI 225 within Trout. Lakeside Swamp is a Complex * LS ANSI (3 ha) Only 22ha of the 165 wetland is (2) Stratford Wetland Complex PSW 22 within the Trout Creek Watershed. SNA = 61 Wetland area of Zorra Swamp is 82 (3) Zorra Swamp LSW, SNA Wetland ha in total (rest is outside the Trout = 15 Creek Watershed) (4) Harmony Woods SNA Perth 38 (5) Shagbark Hickory Woods SNA Perth 29 (6) Trout Creek Valley SNA Oxford 76 (7) Trout Creek Floodplain SNA Perth 48 (8) Brooksdale Forest SNA Oxford 70 (9) Fairview Woods SNA Perth 23 Area of SNA given here; see (10) Happy Hills * PSW, SNA Oxford 131 Lakeside/Wildwood (11) Lost Concession * PSW, SNA Oxford 67 Area of SNA given here (12) Wildwood Lake* PSW, SNA 126 Earth Science Harmony Road Cut 1 ANSI Earth Science Brooksdale Glacial Complex 273 Entire site is 459 ha. ANSI St. Marys Cement Company Earth Science ? South Quarry ANSI Earth Science Wildwood Silts 35 ANSI

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-27

Name Designations Size (ha) Comments Lakeside Moraine (Harrington

Highlands) * Part of the Lakeside/Wildwood Complex PSW = Provincially Significant Wetland LSW = Locally Significant Wetland SNA Oxford = Significant Natural Area in Oxford County. (Hilts, S. 1976. Natural Areas in Oxford County: A Preliminary Survey. Dept. Geography UWO) SNA Perth = Significant Natural Area in Perth County. (Hoffman, D. 1982. Perth County: Preliminary Environmentally Sensitive Areas Survey. Experience 81 and 82, Ministry of the Environment. Douglas Hoffman, University of Waterloo) Earth Science ANSI = Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest Life Science ANSI = Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest Sites can have more than one designation. SNAs include entire wooded patch (wetland and upland) but wetlands are smaller vegetation communities and do not include the larger wooded area in which it is found.

Wildwood Reservoir is known as a significant birding area, owing to the great roost of gulls that stage over in the shallow waters at the upper end of the reservoir each fall. It is recognized by Birdlife International, a global network of Important Bird Areas.

Riparian Cover The area alongside a watercourse is called the riparian zone. There are about 208 km of open watercourse in the Trout Creek watershed, including farm drains and natural creek systems. About 39% of the riparian zone (30 m on both sides of the watercourse) is in permanent vegetation (forest and meadow). The average for the Upper Thames is 34%. Environment Canada recommends 75% of watercourses be naturally vegetated (up to 30 m) to maintain stream health.

The main branches of Trout Creek have more riparian vegetation cover than the smaller, headwater drains. Landowners tend to keep back from larger watercourses, which experience more flooding.

Forestry Projects Approximately 8,870 trees have been planted in the Trout Creek watershed at 17 locations through the UTRCA’s Private Land Reforestation Program. See Map 7: Naturalization and Enhancement Projects.

Volunteers with Local Outdoors Opportunies Perth and the Perth Conservation Club, with support from the Perth Stewardship Network, planted 5,250 trees in the Trout Creek corridor and made improvements to over 2 km of stream banks, and stream and riparian habitat. Through the UTRCA’s Communities for Nature program, schools and community groups planted 2180 native shrubs and trees, and 1400 wildflowers and grasses at five sites. The sites included Harrington CA, Meadowridge, Wildwood CA and locations within St. Marys.

The UTRCA thinned over 162 ha of conifer plantation on public and private land to allow hardwood regeneration and improve habitat for wildlife.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-28

4.0 Cultural Resources 4.1 Settlements & Built Culture

Wildwood Conservation Area Once the Wildwood dam and reservoir were completed late in 1965, no time was lost in moving toward recreational development. A preliminary land use plan was prepared by Rex Bishop, and later the services of a professional planning consultant, J.A.J. Knox, of Canadian Mitchell Associates, Bramalea, were retained. A master plan was produced in 1967.

In the interval steps were taken to provide limited facilities for boaters, bathers and picnickers. A section of the park was opened to the public for the first time in May 1966. A road was built to the lake, an area was staked off for bathers and a number of picnic tables were installed. As an experiment no restrictions were placed on the type of watercraft using the lake, and sailboats, powerboats, canoes, rowboats and water skiers used the facilities.

A new pavilion was constructed near the beach in the fall of 1967 with a picnic shelter, food concession, sanitary facilities and a change room for bathers. A 62-site trailer camp and a service building were ready for use in 1968. On the north side of the lake, a cottage area was divided into 24 lots, staked out and a number of lots leased.

Today, Wildwood Conservation Area offers a 480-site campground with washrooms and laundry facilities; a lake for swimming, boating, sailing and fishing; 20 kilometres of hiking trails; summer recreation programs; and a large day use area. It also offers environmental education programs to more than 5000 students annually.

St. Marys The first settlers arrived in St. Marys in the early 1840s, attracted by the area’s natural resources. At the new town site, the Thames River cascaded over a series of limestone ledges, providing the power to run the first pioneer mills and giving the community an early nickname: Little Falls.

In the riverbed and along the banks, limestone was close to the surface and could be quarried for building materials. Many 19th century limestone structures survive: churches, commercial blocks, and private homes. They have given St. Marys its current nickname: Stonetown.

The coming of the Grand Trunk Railway in the late 1850s spurred growth and soon St. Marys became a centre for milling, grain-trading and the manufacture of agriculture-related products. The railway connected the town to the rest of the world and framed the local landscape with its two large trestle bridges on limestone pillars across the waterways. Today, limestone is no longer quarried for building blocks but it is still essential to production at the St. Marys Cement Company, a major local industry.

In the late 1800s as the town prospered, social, educational and cultural facilities expanded. St. Marys was incorporated into the province of Ontario, officially, in 1863. However, it did not incorporate itself into Perth County.

St. Marys has a population of 6,617 (2006 Census of Canada) which is a 5.1% increase since 2001.

Zorra Township In 1821 the Township of Zorra became part of Oxford County. The name “Zorra” was chosen in 1819 by Peregrine Maitland, the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada from 1818 to 1828. Translated from

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-29

Spanish to English, zorra means vixen, which is a female fox, but also a spiteful or quarrelsome woman (Historically bound, 2008).

In 1845, Zorra was divided in East Zorra and West Zorra. In the same year, district councils were given the power to appoint their own warden, clerk and treasurer.

In 1975, the provincial government’s restructuring of rural Ontario led to the union of Embro with the townships of West Zorra, East Nissouri and North Oxford to create the Township of Zorra.

The township’s population increased by 0.9% between the 2001 and 2006 Canadian Census results (from 8052 to 8125). The 2006 census also counted 2,994 dwellings in the township (Statistic Canada, 2006).

Townships of Perth South/Perth East The history of the townships is very much tied to the Canada Company, formed in 1824 by a group of investors in London, England. The purpose of the company was to sell the Crown Reserves and Clergy Reserves that were held by the government of Upper Canada. These reserves were lots all over the province. Opposition from the Anglican Church forced the government to keep the Clergy Reserves. Instead, the Canada Company purchased over a million acres of unsurveyed land known as the Huron Tract in addition to the Crown Reserves. It was out of this large block of land that Blanshard, Downie and many other townships in Perth, Huron and Middlesex Counties were carved (My Roots are in Blanshard, 1989). Blanshard and Downie Townships were named after directors of the Canada Company.

In 1997, 14 municipal corporations within the County of Perth restructured to form four new municipalities: the Township of Perth East, Township of Perth South, Municipality of West Perth and the Municipality of North Perth.

On January 1, 1998, the Townships of Blanshard and Downie amalgamated to become the Township of Perth South. The township is predominately agricultural and has a population of 4,132.

On the same date, the Townships of Ellice, Mornington, North Easthope, South Easthope and the Village of Milverton officially restructured to become the Township of Perth East. The new municipality has over 7,000 hectares, 4,000 households and a total population of approximately 12,000.

Harrington The settlement of Harrington was initially referred to as Demorestville after David Lazier Demorest, a United Empire Loyalist who bought the west half of Lot 30, Concession 2, in 1843 from the Canada Company. Eventually the settlement became known as Springfield due to the many springs in the area. Since Springfield was a popular name for communities in this part of Canada, the name had to be changed once again in order to have a post office.

Harrington is named after John Harrington who was Zorra’s representative on the first council for the District of Brock in 1842. He eventually became reeve of East Zorra and in 1860 the warden of Oxford County.

Because there was already a settlement in Quebec called Harrington, the West Zorra version was called Harrington West to avoid confusion with the postal system.

By 1875, Harrington had a population of 200 and a thriving business and industrial sector. Harrington West was never served by a railway and that accelerated its transformation from a commercial centre to a mostly residential hamlet (Historically bound, 2008).

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-30

Harrington Dam In 1948, Milton Betteridge suggested the UTRCA acquire the Harrington dam site as a conservation area. Lengthy negotiations were involved and several obstacles overcome before the first piece of property was bought in 1952.

Representatives of the Conservation Authority inspected the property and Gordon Ross reported that a large section of the 35-ft spillway had been undermined and washed away. It was estimated that to repair the dam and enlarge the pond from 4 to 8 acres, would cost approximately $10,000. This was beyond the Authority’s means. Furthermore, the Conservation Branch of the Department of Planning and Development ruled that it would not consider a grant for this dam, or similar projects elsewhere, without complete engineering and cost estimates. Plans for the dam and spillway were prepared by R. K. Kilborn & Associates and the Conservation Branch supplied a plan for the pond.

Negotiations for property purchase were opened with Robert Duncan, who owned the dam and pond, and with adjoining property owners William Simpson, Mrs. Levi Nimock and George Robinson. In all, about 12 acres were obtained. Work started on July 1952 and the project was virtually completed a year later. Service buildings were added afterwards.

After almost two years of negotiations, the UTRCA purchased the mill in 1966 from Mr. Duncan. It was one of the few remaining water-powered grist mills in western Ontario. The original mill was built in 1846 by Mr. Demerest and was purchased by Mr. Duncan in 1920. That mill was destroyed by fire in 1923 and replaced the same year.

The Harrington Dam was overtopped twice in the summer of 2000 with subsequent repair work performed on the downstream embankment slopes adjacent to the spillway.

Source: “Twenty Five Years of Conservation on the Upper Thames Watershed,” 1947 to 1973. Published by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

Harrington Mill The grist mill at Harrington Conservation Area was built by the town’s founder, D.L Demorest. The original mill structure was built with hand-hewn native pine timbers and topped with a split shingle roof. It was powered by an overshot waterwheel that was later replaced by a more efficient water-driven turbine in the 1880s. At this time the mill was still utilizing the Frenchburr stone system for the production of flour. When the practice of grinding coarse grains for area farmers was introduced, it quickly deteriorated the stones and that method of milling ceased.

In the late 1890s, modern milling equipment came to Harrington in the form of an oat roller and chopper. The mill’s oat roller dates back to 1899 and was manufactured locally by Whitelaw Machinery of Woodstock.

The mill was in continuous operation from 1846 to 1966, except for a brief period of time in 1923 when it succumbed to fire, and twice in 1903 and 1949 when the mill dam broke. In later years, a diesel engine was used to operate the mill when the water supply was too low to operate the turbine. The UTRCA acquired the mill in 1966. Since then, the grist mill has remained closed and unused.

In April 1998, the UTRCA held a public meeting to discuss the future of the mill. The community was supportive of efforts to restore the mill at its current location. In February 1999, the UTRCA entered into a lease agreement with the Harrington Community Club for the long-term restoration of the grist mill and the maintenance of Harrington Conservation Area. In 2005, the club applied for a grant from the Ontario Trillium Foundation (OTF) for the restoration of the mill foundation and was granted $70,800. But the Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-31 quotes received for the work were $140,000-$220,000. Even with fundraising there was still a large gap between the OTF grant and quotes. In addition, the OTF required the project to be completed in 2009. The Harrington Community Club worked diligently and received a second set of quotes to fit the $70,800 budget. The work involved building a roadway, removing the lien on the building, rebuilding the back wall of the foundation, constructing buttress walls against the interior west wall, forming a dead wall under the interior wall to stop erosion, forming concrete columns (posts) under the main floor supporting joists, pouring a concrete floor in the area of the running gear in the basement. The project was completed in August 2009 and the club received the OTF money. Future projects involve securing the building to stop rodent damage, re-aligning and loosening the running gear, and re-establishing the raceway which brings water from the pond so the wheels will turn again from water power (Green, 2009).

Ducks Unlimited Viewing Area The Ducks Unlimited Viewing Area was constructed at Wildwood Conservation Area in 1978 as a wetland project through an agreement between the UTRCA and Ducks Unlimited Canada. The project was undertaken to provide migratory wildfowl and other wildlife with suitable habitat for feeding, breeding and nesting. In 1985, a viewing tower was installed with financial assistance from the Ministry of Natural Resources. The site is located in Zorra Township, Line 31, Part of Lots 31, 32, and 33; north of Harrington.

Harmony The community of Harmony came into existence when a Methodist missionary named Cleghorn lost his way while traveling from Shakespeare to West Zorra. He is said to have come upon a settler’s house where he remained for some time. Services were held at the house attracting backwoodsmen with an interest in religious exercise, who formed the foundation of a small congregation known as “Harmony.”

The society continued to hold worship each week in private homes or the local school until a frame building was constructed in 1864, ministered by John S. Fisher. The church was founded on Lot 1, Concession VII (Johnston 1902:184). It was replaced with a brick structure in 1874 (DTHBC 2002:2). The community was provided with a post office in 1867 with Edmond Corbett holding position of postmaster from that year until 1875 (DTHBC 2002:2). By 1879, Harmony had within its limits an Orange Lodge, saw mill, blacksmith, wagon shop, and general store serving a population of about 75 individuals (H. Belden & Co. 1879: xiv).

4.2 Transportation Highway 7 & 8 once formed part of one of the earliest roads constructed by the Canada Company, first named the Goderich Road and later the Huron Road. The road was opened in 1828 and connected two major planned centres established by the Canada Company: Goderich, on the shore of Lake Huron, and Guelph. The road, which extended from Wilmot Township to Goderich, was originally a native trail and early sleigh road (Lee 2004:158). It was surveyed by Deputy Provincial Surveyor John McDonald and travels the general course of modern Highway 8. The Company actively worked to promote travel between the two centres and to encourage settlement along the roadway. In so doing, they offered financial grants or assistance to individuals who would erect inns along the route, and often funded the construction of schools, and prepared town plans for communities in strategic locales. Several historic properties along Highway 7 & 8 and within the Trout Creek watershed were established as Canada Company projects. One of these is the Fryfogel Inn, east of Shakespeare.

Perth Road 113/Embro Road 6 provides direct access to the 401 Provincial Highway.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-32

Highway 7 and 8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class EA Study The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has initiated a Highway 7 and 8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study, from Greater Stratford to the New Hamburg Area. The study will develop a plan that addresses: . capacity, operation and safety needs for the 2-lane and 4-lane sections of Highway 7 and 8 between Stratford and New Hamburg and through the built-up areas of Stratford, Shakespeare and New Hamburg; and . linkage needs between the analysis area and other regions in the province. A preliminary design will be prepared for the provincial roadway components of the plan, and be documented in a Transportation Environmental Study Report for public review at study completion (www.7and8corridorstudy.ca/index.htm).

4.3 Agriculture Land use in the Trout Creek watershed is predominately agriculture (78%). Approximately 17% of the watershed is forested, 3% is urban and 2% is water (Map 2).

The following summary is based on a Statistics Canada 2006 survey. A total of 161 farms participated in the survey, representing a total land base of 13,753 ha or approximately 85% of the watershed. These farms reported total gross farm receipts of approximately $51,868,215.

The farm types that participated in the Statistics Canada survey were:

Livestock . Swine . Poultry . Cattle both beef and dairy . Other livestock (e.g. horses)

Cash Crop . Corn . Grain . Soybeans . Berries and grapes . Vegetables . Trees, fruits and nuts

Other . Natural pastures . Tame or seeded pastures

Conservation Practices Farms that implement sound conservation practices wherever possible will reduce runoff (water, sediment, etc.) to surface water and minimize soil losses by wind. Conservation practices improve soil health by increasing the organic levels, soil structure, and soil water holding capacity, and can also increase crop yields. Map 4 shows soils in the Trout Creek watershed. Map 8 shows soil loss potential.

In the Trout Creek watershed, at least 137 farms implemented the following soil conservation practices (Note: Statistics Canada reports that the 161 farms reported using the following soil conservation methods or a combination of these methods, 356 times): . Crop rotation

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-33

. Rotation grazing . Winter cover crops . Plowing down green crops . Buffer zones around water bodies . Windbreaks or shelter belts (natural or planted)

Tillage Practices The traditional role for tillage systems was to provide weed control and prepare a seedbed that will give good crop stands and high yields. More recently, tillage and cropping systems have been changed to accomplish the same goals while reducing soil erosion through less intensive or no cultivation. High fuel costs and shortage of labour may encourage farmers to use reduced tillage systems.

The switch to a different tillage system must be based on the system’s compatibility with the farm’s soil types, slopes, drainage, moisture regime and temperature. Farm operators must consider the tillage system’s effect on erosion control, timeliness, the potential for controlling weeds, insects and diseases, and profitability. No one tillage system is best for Ontario conditions because of the variability in soils, crops and climate. In fact, the tillage system may rotate with the crop to allow the most appropriate tillage for the crop being grown. Ontario farmers tend to use conventional tillage, mulch tillage and no-tillage systems.

Conventional Tillage Systems Conventional tillage is any tillage system that attempts to bury most of the previous crop residue, leaving less than 30% of the soil surface covered with residue after planting. Usually the moldboard plow is used in conjunction with a variety of other tillage implements. The principal advantages of the moldboard system are that machinery is familiar, widely available and adaptable to a wide range of soil conditions. Moldboard plowing increases soil porosity and allows for good air exchange, root proliferation and water infiltration. The increased soil porosity can be lost with excessive secondary tillage or in soils with poor structural stability. Many livestock producers view the moldboard plow as the most effective way to incorporate manure and break up sod fields. The disadvantage of the moldboard system is the high cost of equipment, fuel and labour associated with seedbed preparation. Another disadvantage is that with little or no residue cover, there is a high risk of soil erosion by wind and/or water.

Mulch Tillage Systems Mulch tillage systems are designed to leave more than 30% of crop residue on the soil surface and offer more protection from soil erosion by wind and water than does the moldboard plow. The chisel plow has been the most widely adopted mulch tillage tool in Ontario. Other terms used to describe this system are reduced tillage, minimum till or conservation tillage.

No-Till Systems No-till systems provide the greatest opportunity to leave protective crop residues on the soil surface that will reduce soil erosion by wind and water. This system also has the greatest potential for reducing tillage costs, offset somewhat by the need to control weeds in almost all cases with a preplant “burndown” herbicide application. The term no-till refers to any system that confines all tillage and seeding operations to one pass of the planting equipment, regardless of the amount of in-row soil disturbance.

The success of no-till systems is often dependent on a range of factors other than the equipment design. Two of these factors - soil drainage and crop rotation - have a significant influence on the performance of all no-till systems.

In the Trout Creek watershed, 131 farms prepared 10,031 ha of land for yearly seeding (Table 4.1). Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-34

Table 4.1: Trout Creek Watershed Tillage Practices and Area Used

Conventional Tillage Tillage incorporating most of the crop residue into soil 4596 ha Mulch Tillage Tillage retaining most of the crop residue on the surface 2946 ha No-Till No-till seeding or zero-till seeding 2946 ha

Farms Producing and/or Using Livestock Manure Properly managing the nutrients from manure is essential to optimizing economic benefit to the farmer and minimizing impacts on the environment.

The value of manure in crop production is often underestimated. Manure contains all of the nutrients required by crops, but not necessarily in the proportions needed for specific soil and crop conditions. In addition to nitrogen, phosphorus and potash, manure contains many secondary nutrients and micronutrients. Manure supplies vital organic matter that helps maintain soil structure, reduce soil erosion, and increase soil moisture holding capacity. Manure application is one of the few ways to increase the organic matter within farmed soils.

There are three manure application methods used on farmlands: . surface application, . surface application and incorporation, . direct injection.

Surface application Surface application involves manure applied onto the surface of a field. The field may or may not have a living crop and the manure can be either in a solid or liquid form.

Incorporation (surface applied and incorporated and direct injected) Incorporation involves the mixing of nutrients into the soil surface by some form of tillage. Tillage should have a minimum depth of soil disturbance of 10 cm and, for optimum nutrient retention, should occur immediately after or during application. Direct injection of a liquid material into the soil is considered to be a form of incorporation.

The main purposes for incorporation or injection of manure are to reduce odours, minimize surface runoff and improve nutrient and pathogen retention. Shallow incorporation and the mixing of these materials with the crop residue will also promote the decomposition of the residue.

In the Trout Creek watershed, approximately 75% of the farms surveyed generated manure or used manure (Table 4.2). The types of manure applied included liquid, solid and composted manure. The manure was reported to be applied to field crops, hay and/or pasture.

Table 4.2: Trout Creek Watershed Manure Application and Associated Land Base

Surface applied 1451 ha Surface applied and incorporated and 3826 ha direct injection into the field

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-35

Best Management Practices Farming is a business with many risks: the weather, finances, and market uncertainties. Today, we also realize that certain farming practices may create environmental risks that affect water quality.

Producers experience some of the resulting problems themselves in the form of lower crop yields, soil losses and water pollution. Both rural and urban neighbours may be affected. For those affected, practical and workable solutions exist in detail in Ontario’s Best Management Practice Program (BMP). The BMP addresses solutions for various soil, water and habitat concerns. There are environmental cost-share programs available to assist farmers through the Environmental Farm Plan.

Environmental Farm Plan 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 timetables to improve environmental conditions. Environmental cost-share programs are available to assist in the implementation of projects.

Clean Water Program The Clean Water Program (CWP) is a collaborative effort between local municipalities to help improve and protect water quality in Oxford, Middlesex and Perth Counties. The program is delivered by local Conservation Authority staff with funding provided by the municipalities. Technical and financial assistance is provided for projects that improve and protect water quality.

The County of Oxford has expanded the CWP to include funding for woodland and wetland improvements for properties in Oxford County.

Sixty-four CWP projects have been completed in the Trout Creek Watershed. Table 4.3 outlines the different types of projects.

Table 4.3: Clean Water Program Projects in the Trout Creek Watershed

Type of Project No. of Projects Decommissioning Unused Wells 7 Erosion Control Measures 24 Fragile Land Retirement 8 Livestock Access Restriction to Watercourse 3 Manure Spreading Equipment Modification 3 Manure Storage 2 Milkhouse/Milk Parlour Washwater Treatment and Disposal 2 Nutrient Management Plans 2 Septic Systems 6 Wellhead Protection 7 Total 64

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-36

Glossary Dam: a barrier across a river, lake, pond or stream intended to hold back water in order to raise its level or create a reservoir, or divert the flow of water including: dams that are more than 3 m above the original stream bed, more than 2 m in height with reservoir area more than 2 ha, or dam failure causing loss of life, property damage or $100,000 or more, or serious environmental impact. MNR Ontario Dam Safety Guidelines

Abbreviated version of the definition found in UTRCA’s Dams and Barriers Project Phase 1 –Final Report: The 2001 inventory differentiated between dams and barriers by defining dams as structures that would have a water storage capacity, while barriers would not. More often than not, the 2001 inventory found that the design of other structures would create a barrier. Examples of these structures included perched culverts, weirs, train or road crossings, velocity and debris barriers.

Barrier: The term barrier implies barring passage or movement and in this case, the barrier is to fish and/or aquatic wildlife movement or migration. Barrier construction can be virtually anything including large woody debris, perched or orphaned culverts, concrete steps, steep slopes or gradients, excessively fast or high velocity flow, or even chemical or thermal in nature...anything that would bar passage...including dams. (UTRCA, 2001)

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-37

References Chipman, W. 1901. Final Report upon Water Works System as Constructed, Town of St. Marys. Toronto. Provided by the St. Marys Museum.

Coker, G.A., C.B. Portt, and C.K. Minns. 2001. Morphological and Ecological Characteristics of Canadian Freshwater Fishes, Can. MS. Rpt. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 2554: iv+89p.

Coker, G.A. and C.B. Portt. 2005. Sensitive Species List for Agricultural Municipal Drain Clean Outs (draft) not published.

County of Oxford. 2006. Oxford Natural Heritage Study. Prepared by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. (may be downloaded at www.county.oxford.on.ca )

Cudmore-Vokey, B., C.A. MacKinnon and S.E. Madzia. 2004. Aquatic species at risk in the Thames River watershed, Ontario. Can. MS Rpt. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2707: v + 123 p. (may be downloaded at www.thamesriver.on.ca/Species_at_Risk/manuscript_report/ Thames_Species_at_Risk_Msrpt_Report.pdf )

Department of Justice Canada. 2006. Fisheries Act: Chapter F-14 (may be downloaded at laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-14/index.html )

Department of Justice Canada. 2006. Species at Risk Act. (may be downloaded at laws.justice.gc.ca/en/S- 15.3/index.html )

Downie Township Heritage Book Committee (DTHBC). Memories of Downie: Volume I. Downie Township, 2002.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). A Class Authorization System for Agricultural Municipal Drains in the Southern Ontario Region. (may be downloaded at www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/pub/fact- fait/L2_e.htm )

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 1999. Fact Sheet L-2: A Class Authorization System for Agricultural Municipal Drains in the Southern Ontario Region (may be downloaded at www.dfo- mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/pub/fact-fait/L2_e.htm )

Government of Ontario. 2006. Conservation Authorities Act: RSO 1990, Chapter C-27 (may be downloaded at www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/ statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c27_e.htm)

Graf, W.L. 2003. Dam Removal Research Status and Prospects: Proceedings of The Heinz Center’s Dam Removal Research Workshop October 23-24, 2002. The H. John Heinz III Centre for Science Economics and the Environment. This report is also available at www.heinzctr.org/NEW_WEB/ PDF/Dam_Research_Full%20Report.pdf

Green, Laura. October 2009. Harrington Grist Mill- Phase 1. The Embro Village Voice. Issue #91:5.

H. Belden & Co. 1879 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Perth County. Reprint Edition. The Heinz Center. 2002. Dam Removal Science and Decision Making. The H. John Heinz III Centre for Science Economics and the Environment. This report is also available at www.heinzctr.org/NEW_WEB/ PDF/Dam_removal_full_report.pdf

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-38

Highway 7 & 8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class EA Study. www.7and8corridorstudy.ca/index.htm

Hilts, S. 1976. Natural Areas in Oxford County: A Preliminary Survey. Department of Geography, University of Waterloo.

Hoffman, D. 1982. Perth County: Preliminary Environmentally Sensitive Areas Survey. Experience 81 and 82, Ministry of the Environment. Douglas Hoffman, University of Waterloo.

Jones, C., K.M. Somers, B. Craig, and T.B. Reynoldson. 2004. Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Protocol Manual, Version 1.0, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 107 pages. (may be downloaded at obbn.eman-rese.ca/obbn/)

Johnston, William. 1902 [1976]. History of Perth County 1825-1902. Reprint Edition. Stratford: Beacon Herald Fine Printing Division

Lee, Robert C. 2004. The Canada Company and the Huron Tract, 1826-1853. Toronto: Natural Heritage Books.

Maaskant, K., C. Quinlan and I. Taylor. 2001. The Upper Thames River Watershed Report Cards. Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

Mandrak, N.E. and E.J. Crossman. 1992. A Checklist of Ontario Freshwater Fishes. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario.

Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., G.L. Mackie, J. Di Maio, and S.K. Staton. 2000. Changes over Time in the Diversity and Distribution of Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) in the Grand River, Southwestern Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res 26(4):445-459. Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res.

Metcalfe-Smith, J., A. MacKenzie, I. Carmicheal, and D. McGoldrick. 2005. Photo Field Guide to the Freshwater Mussels of Ontario. St. Thomas Field Naturalist Club Incorporated. St. Thomas, Ontario. 60p (in press)

Morris, T.J. 1996. The unionid fauna of the Thames River drainage, southwestern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. 60 pages.

Morris, T.J. 2004. National Recovery Strategy for the Round Hickorynut (Obovaria subrotunda, Rafinesque 1820) and the Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus fasciolaris, Rafinesque 1820): 2004-2009. Prepared for the Freshwater Mussel Recovery Team. Draft – November 25, 2004. x + 36p.

Morris, T.J. 2004. National Recovery Strategy for the Wavy-Rayed Lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola, Rafineseque 1820): 2004-2009. Prepared for the Freshwater Mussel Recovery Team. Draft – November 25, 2004. viii + 33p.

My Roots are in Blanshard, 1839-1989. Stratford, 1989.

NHIC (Natural Heritage Information Centre). 2005. (may be downloaded at www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/species.cfm )

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-39

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1990. Aylmer District Fisheries Management Plan 1987-2000. OMNR. ISBN: 0-7729-7334-2 49p

OMNR. 1987. Background Information and Optional Management Strategies and Tactics Aylmer District Fisheries Management Plan 1987-2000 A Summary. OMNR. 40p

OMNR. 1992. Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries – SPOF II – An Aquatic Ecosystem Approach to Managing Fisheries. OMNR ISBN: 0-7729-923-9 22 p

Robinson, Dean, editor. 2008. Historically bound: the history of Embro and West Zorra, 1820-2007.

Stammler, K.L. 2005. Agricultural Drains as Fish Habitat in Southwestern Ontario. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. 45 pages

Stanfield, L. (Editor) 2005. Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol. Version 7, Fish and Wildlife Branch. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 256 pages.

Statistics Canada. Census of Canada 2006.

Stoneman, C.L. and M.L Jones. 1996. A Simple Methodology to Evaluate the Thermal Stability of Trout Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16:728-737.

Taylor, I. et al. 2004. The Thames River Watershed Synthesis Report. Prepared for The Thames River Ecosystem Recovery Team. (may be downloaded at www.thamesriver.on.ca/Species_at_Risk/ synthesis_report/Thames_River_Synthesis_report.pdf )

Thames River Recovery Team. 2004. Recovery strategy for the Thames River Aquatic Ecosystem: 2005- 2010. December 2004 Draft. To be submitted to RENEW Secretariat. 159 pp

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. Twenty Five Years of Conservation on the Upper Thames Watershed, 1947 to 1973.

Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc. A Schlumberger Company. July, 2007. Six Conservation Authorities FEFLOW Groundwater Modeling Project Final Report.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-40

Maps

Map 1: Trout Creek Watershed

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-41

Map 2: Land Cover

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-42

Map 3: Physiography

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-43

Map 4: Soils

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-44

Map 5: Monitoring

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-45

Map 6: Natural Heritage

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-46

Map 7: Naturalization and Enhancement Projects

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-47

Map 8: Soil Loss Potential

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-48

Map 9: Watercourse Information

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-49

Appendix 1. Aquatic Resources Table A1.1: Trout Creek Benthic Water Quality Sampling Summary

Watercourse Sample Family Biotic Index Location Name Date (FBI) Value Harrington Creek Near Harrington 6/4/1997 5.535353535 Fair 6/22/1998 5.214953271 Fair 6/25/1999 5.051282051 Fair 6/25/1999 5.18852459 Fair 6/5/2000 4.8359375 Good 10/2/2000 5.301886792 Fair 6/19/2001 4.220588235 Excellent 6/19/2002 4.274038462 Good 6/10/2003 4.171232877 Excellent 5/31/2004 4.791666667 Good 5/30/2006 4.850828729 Good 10/6/2006 5.26910299 Fair 5/30/2007 4.86039886 Good 10/1/2007 5.264026403 Fair 5/28/2008 5.293706294 Fair John Green Drain Upstream of Road 96 6/25/2003 6.285714286 Fairly Poor 10/23/2003 7.141304348 Poor Kerr Lupton Drain Line 35 6/22/1998 6.072727273 Fairly Poor 6/25/1999 5.844660194 Fairly Poor 6/19/2001 5.921296296 Fairly Poor Kerr-Lupman 45th Line 6/25/2003 6.175159236 Fairly Poor Drain Branch D 10/23/2003 6.595477387 Poor Kerr-Lupton Drain West of Tavistock 6/22/1999 6.1 Fairly Poor Lowe Drain County Road 26 6/19/2007 5.891129032 Fairly Poor Rolston Drain St. Marys 12/7/2003 4.223880597 Excellent 10/6/2006 6.299465241 Fairly Poor Trout Creek At Dump Road 6/2/2000 7.462809917 Very Poor Below County Road 20 6/3/1997 6.069565217 Fairly Poor 6/22/1998 6.289719626 Fairly Poor 6/22/1999 5.930693069 Fairly Poor 6/22/1999 6.062857143 Fairly Poor 6/5/2000 7.423728814 Very Poor 10/2/2000 6.027777778 Fairly Poor

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-50

Watercourse Sample Family Biotic Index Location Name Date (FBI) Value 6/19/2001 6.688995215 Poor 6/19/2002 7.680089485 Very Poor Below Junction of Main Tributaries 6/10/2003 6.185328185 Fairly Poor 5/31/2004 5.852380952 Fairly Poor 5/26/2005 6.207885305 Fairly Poor 5/30/2006 6.07860262 Fairly Poor 5/30/2007 5.494773519 Fair 5/28/2008 6.095808383 Fairly Poor 7/8/2008 5.237373737 Fair Below Wildwood Reservoir 6/27/1997 6.762135922 Poor Between Wildwood and St. Marys 6/27/1997 6.782945736 Poor Perth County Road 9 6/22/1998 6.923728814 Poor 6/4/1999 6.877192982 Poor 6/8/2000 6.441947566 Fairly Poor 6/20/2002 7.433962264 Very Poor 6/10/2003 6.653846154 Poor 5/31/2004 7.527675277 Very Poor 5/26/2005 7.204678363 Poor 5/30/2006 6.702564103 Poor 5/30/2007 6.89047619 Poor 5/28/2008 7.742930591 Very Poor St. Marys - Station St. south of Peel St. N. 10/1/2007 6.548387097 Poor Township/County Line Upstream of 6/5/2000 6.723214286 Poor Wildwood Reservoir 6/19/2001 6.32173913 Fairly Poor 6/12/2002 6.810559006 Poor 10/2/2006 4.628440367 Good 5/30/2007 6.020408163 Fairly Poor 10/1/2007 5.115485564 Fair 7/8/2008 5.517006803 Fair Upstream of Line 20 10/2/2006 5.594339623 Fair 6/19/2007 6.437799043 Fairly Poor Trout Creek T. Jackson Property 6/5/2000 6.272 Fairly Poor Tributary Trout Creek Upstream of Wildwood, at Road 96 and 6/3/1997 5.503937008 Fair Tributary 33rd Line 6/22/1998 5.47706422 Fair 7/8/2008 5.615835777 Fair Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-51

Watercourse Sample Family Biotic Index Location Name Date (FBI) Value Trout Creek Harmony Conservation Area 6/3/1997 6.368131868 Fairly Poor Tributary 7/2/1998 5.352941176 Fair (Harmony Creek) 10/2/2006 5.004587156 Fair 6/19/2007 6.012195122 Fairly Poor 7/8/2008 5.8 Fairly Poor Wildwood CA Wildwood Conservation Area 6/20/2002 5.277227723 Fair Creek 10/28/2002 6.737864078 Poor 6/10/2003 4.515923567 Good 10/31/2003 2.126696833 Excellent 5/31/2004 3.714285714 Excellent 5/26/2005 4.417956656 Good 5/30/2006 5.572992701 Fair 10/6/2006 6 Fairly Poor 5/30/2007 5.278125 Fair 5/28/2008 5.870229008 Fairly Poor Young Drain Line 35 6/25/1999 5.614754098 Fair

Biotic indices are values assigned to benthic invertebrate taxa indicating their pollution sensitivity and tolerance on a scale from 0 to 10. Lower numbers indicate pollution sensitivity and high numbers pollution tolerance. The Family Biotic Index (FBI) is the weighted average of the biotic index and number of bugs in each taxon in the sample.

The water quality ranges for the FBI values are as follows: <4.25 = Excellent; 4.25-5.00 = Good; 5.00-5.75 = Fair; 5.75-6.50 = Fairly Poor; 6.50-7.50 = Poor; >7.50 = Very Poor.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-52

Fisheries Monitoring In the Federal Fisheries Act, fish have been defined 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 (Department of Justice, 2006). Essentially the Fisheries Act definition states that fish, freshwater mussels, crayfish and marine mammals are defined as fish. In the scope of this study, fish species will be discussed further in this section, crustaceans fall into the category of benthic macroinvertebrates and shellfish are considered mussels which will be a separate subsection of fisheries monitoring in this report.

Fish Fish are vertebrates (have a backbone), that live in water, breath through gills and swim with fins. Most fish are able to survive in various habitat and water quality conditions; however, several species of fish have very specific habitat and water quality requirements as well as food preferences. Some species of fish are considered to be sedentary, spending their time under the cover of rocks or overhanging vegetation, even though all are capable of moving throughout the water column and traveling large distances in a watercourse. Due to specific habitat requirements, varying water quality tolerances, and ability to accumulate substances such as toxins, fish are excellent indicators of ecosystem health, especially those species susceptible to pollution and intolerant of habitat alterations. Generally speaking, a diverse fish community indicates a relatively healthy aquatic environment. Fish also play a crucial role in the aquatic food chain, by providing food for humans, fish, and other wildlife.

Approximately 94 species of fish have been recorded from the Thames River and its tributaries which represent more than half of the 165 fish species found in Ontario. A dozen of these have federal or provincial species at risk (SAR) status. Federal SAR are listed by the Committee of the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) according to the Species at Risk Act (SARA). SAR in Ontario (SARO) are designated by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) in accordance with the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Since 1928, 41 species of fish have been recorded in fish samples that were collected throughout the Trout Creek subwatershed and are listed in Table A1.2: Trout Creek Fish Species Summary. Map 4: Monitoring illustrates the fish sampling locations and Appendix 3 contains the fish report for each sample collected. Records for two species at risk exist, a historic Northern Brook Lamprey record and a recent Silver Shiner record. Both have status federally and provincially as Special Concern.

Much of the Trout Creek watershed supports a warmwater fish community, with commonly occurring minnow, sucker and darter species present. Wildwood Reservoir and the lower reaches of Trout Creek also support gamefish populations including such species as largemouth and smallmouth bass, yellow perch, and northern pike. Several tributaries and parts of Trout Creek provide coldwater habitat, representing a significant proportion of this habitat type remaining in the Upper Thames watershed. Coldwater conditions exist where water temperatures rarely exceed the 20 degree Celsius range, even during the hottest summer days. Coldwater habitat can support a unique and sensitive community, including trout species such as Brook Trout. Considering that brook trout are identified as the ‘canary in the coal mine’ of the aquatic environment, and a significant amount of habitat is available for this species in the subwatershed, efforts should focus on protecting and restoring viable habitat.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-53

Table A1.2: Trout Creek Fish Species Summary

Species at Risk Common Name Scientific Name Federal Provincial Native Coldwater Sensitive Target Migrant

American Brook Lampetra appendix   Lamprey Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas  Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus  Blackside Darter Percina maculata  Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus  Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus  Brassy Minnow Hybognathus  hankinsoni Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans  Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis      Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus  Central Mudminnow Umbra limi  Central Stoneroller Campostoma  anomalum Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus  Creek Chub Semotilus  atromaculatus Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare  Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas  Golden Shiner Notemigonus  crysoleucas Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides   Hornyhead Chub Nocomis biguttatus  Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile  Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum  Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides    Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus  Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi   Northern Brook Ichthyomyzon fossor Special Special   Lamprey Concern Concern Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans 

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-54

Species at Risk Common Name Scientific Name Federal Provincial Native Coldwater Sensitive Target Migrant

Northern Pike Esox lucius     Northern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos  Pearl Dace Margariscus margarita   Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Rainbow Darter Etheostoma caeruleum  Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss     Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris    Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis Special Special   Concern Concern Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu    Stonecat Noturus flavus  Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus  White Sucker Catostomus   commersoni Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis  Yellow Perch Perca flavescens    

With respect to the preceeding table, the terms are:

Coldwater: Life history information was reviewed in “Morphological and Ecological Characteristics of Canadian Freshwater Fishes” to identify species habitat, including thermal ‘preferences’. These species are found in coldwater habitats, defined as having water temperatures of less than 19°C. Native: A species indigenous to a particular region or area. Migrant: A species that travels a significant distance in order to carry out one of its life history requirements such as spawning. Sensitive: In 2005, Coker and Portt identified sensitive species in the draft "Sensitive Species List for Agricultural Municipal Drain Clean Outs". Sensitive species have specific habitat requirements, and any alterations to their habitat could prove to be detrimental to the species. Target: Indicates if the species is a sportfish and considered a top level predator or a species requiring the same habitat as a top level predator. Generally speaking, any species that is targeted for angling purposes would be a sportfish.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-55

Not at Risk: A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances. Data Deficient: A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a wildlife species’ eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the wildlife species’ risk of extinction.

References: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct2/sct2_6_e.cfm , http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm , http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/rpts/Short_Species_Assessments_e.htm , http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct0/rpt/dsp_booklet_e.htm (current to December 2008)

SARO Status: Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) are designated by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) in accordance with the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA) through the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). Extirpated: A species that no longer exists in the wild in Ontario but still occurs elsewhere. Endangered: A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate for regulation under Ontario's ESA. Threatened: A species that is at risk of becoming endangered in Ontario if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern: A species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural events.

Reference: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/STEL01_131230.html and http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/246809.html (current to December 2008)

Fisheries Management Planning The process to prepare a fisheries management plan for the Thames River watershed was initiatied in December 2003 as a Fish Habitat Management Plan for the Upper Thames River Watershed. In obtaining stakeholder input, the project focus shifted from one component of fisheries management (i.e. habitat) in the upper part of the watershed, to an all-encompassing fisheries management plan for the entire Thames River watershed.

The purpose of the plan is to articulate and enable a vision for the fisheries of the Thames River watershed in a way that is most likely to maintain and improve benefits for those living in the watershed and those utilizing the resource. The plan will form a document, and will be developed in collaboration with stakeholders and it will be for the entire Thames River watershed. It involves managing fish, their habitat and use, while complementing other watershed plans and recognizing other planning efforts. A fisheries management plan for the Thames River watershed will help guide and integrate initiatives to optimize societal benefits from use of fisheries resources.

The first round of public consulation was completed in 2006 when the TRFMP committee hosted six public input sessions throughout the Thames River watershed. The goal of the public consultation process was to provide the community with an opportunity to provide input to the Fisheries Management Plan for the Thames River watershed. Two objectives of the consultation process were to: 1. Provide the community with an appreciation for the fish of the Thames resource and a fisheries management plan including the plan process and components. 2. Provide the community with an opportunity to influence the plan process and components by providing input regarding the resource, the management plan, and issues and opportunities pertaining to fish of the Thames and the fisheries management plan.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-56

The input sessions gathered quite a bit of valuable information regarding the fisheries resource, the fisheries management plan, and issues and opportunities relating to the fish of the Thames and the fisheries management plan. Additional information was collected through email correspondence, phone calls and the return of questionnaires.

A summary of the public input collected in 2006 is provided in Appendix 3, and following the summary, the rough notes that pertain to the North Branch and Mud Creek subwatershed are listed.

Upon completion of the TRFMP public consultation process, a workshop was held with TRFMP committee members to consolidate and define the public input collected. This workshop developed issues and solutions to form the basis for the Draft TRFMP document.

The workshop proceedings and Draft TRFMP document must be circulated for review and edits prior to release to the public. A second round of public consultation will be developed in order to inform the public of what was heard from them, to ensure that their input has been incorporated, and to assist with finalizing the TRFMP. These next steps have been dependent upon staff availablility and receipt of funding and will be completed as resources become available.

Fish Habitat 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 in order to carry out their life processes (Department of Justice, 2006). Essentially fish habitat would include all sections of a watercourse that fish depend on during any stage of their life process, whether directly or indirectly. Areas in which fish migrate, forage for food, spawn and rear their young are all considered fish habitat. This also includes watercourses and adjacent lands that are only seasonally wet, such as intermittent systems or swales and the floodplain.

Historical fish habitat information was gathered by the ROM and the MNR. UTRCA has collected fish habitat information since 1998 following the Municipal Drain Classification Project (MDC) protocol. Habitat information was also collected during the UTRCA benthic monitoring program that was initiated in 1997. Basically, measurements are taken in the watercourse, such as water width and depth, water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, water flow, types of sediment and vegetation present. The habitat information collected combined with the fish community found in the watercourse determines the fish habitat that is present, or the fish habitat potential for the watercourse. This fish habitat information has been lumped with other aquatic resources information into 3 categories of aquatic systems. The summary of aquatic resources discusses the categorisation of the aquatic system and Figure 5.4: Watercourse Categories shows the locations of the different aquatic habitat found within the Trout Creek Subwatershed.

The Trout Creek watershed provides habitat that supports both warmwater and coldwater fish communities. Wildwood Reservoir, parts of Trout Creek and several tributaries provide habitat for the spawning and survival of important gamefish such as Northern Pike, Yellow Perch, and Smallmouth and Largemouth Bass. Other parts of Trout Creek and several tributaries have coldwater habitat supporting Brook Trout populations. A priority should be the protection of these coldwater habitats that support Brook Trout. The potential for coldwater habitat throughout much of the subwatershed suggests that with a concentrated effort to rehabilitate stream habitat and restore riparian vegetation, coldwater conditions would be enhanced. The aquatic environments found in the Trout Creek subwatershed have the potential to provide enhanced fish habitat, especially if implementation activities such as rehabilitation and restoration occur.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-57

Mussels Monitoring Freshwater mussels or molluscs are soft-bodied organisms that secrete a calcareous substance that surrounds the soft body and hardens into a shell to protect the mussel from predation and adverse conditions (Metcalfe-Smith, 2005). Mussels serve as natural filters as they feed on algae, bacteria and organic matter. Mussels have a muscular foot that allows these sedentary creatures to burrow into softer sediments and move about. Freshwater mussels are sensitive to environmental pollution and habitat alterations, which make them excellent indicators of ecosystem health (Morris, 2004).

A total of 34 of Ontario’s 41 species of freshwater mussels have been recorded in the Thames River watershed, including 10 species designated, or proposed for designation, as Species at Risk (SAR). Freshwater mussel sampling in the Thames has occurred since the 1930s. Environment Canada has collected mussel information since the early 1980s, while Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the University of Guelph and UTRCA have gathered more recent mussel data. Little sampling effort has been directed towards mussels in the Trout Creek watershed with only two commonly occurring species recorded. Considering SAR populations occur in nearby reaches of the North Thames River and several other Thames tributaries, this represents a significant information gap. Table A1.3: Trout Creek Mussel Species Summary lists the two species observed. Map 4: Monitoring illustrates the mussel sampling stations.

All mussel species are negatively affected by drought, pollutants, sedimentation, urbanization, agricultural practices, dams and barriers, poor water quality, predation (by muskrats and raccoons), loss of habitat, and recreational activities (Thames River Recovery Team, 2004; Morris, 2004; Metcalfe-Smith et al., 2000). A diverse community of mussels indicates a healthy aquatic environment. Further sampling of the mussel populations in the watershed could provide a clearer indication of the mussel community.

Table A1.3: Trout Creek Mussel Species Summary

Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC Status SARO Status Native Creek Heelsplitter Lasmigona compressa  Giant Floater Pyganodon grandis 

With respect to the preceding table, the terms are described as:

Native: A species indigenous to a particular region or area.

COSEWIC Status: The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses species for their consideration for legal protection and recovery (or management) under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Extinct: A wildlife species that no longer exists. Extirpated: A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere. Endangered: A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Threatened: A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern: A wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Not at Risk: A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances. Data Deficient: A category that applies when the available information is insufficient (a) to resolve a wildlife species’ eligibility for assessment or (b) to permit an assessment of the wildlife species’ risk of extinction. References: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct2/sct2_6_e.cfm , http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct5/index_e.cfm ,

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-58 http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/rpts/Short_Species_Assessments_e.htm (current November 2009), http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct0/rpt/dsp_booklet_e.htm (current to August 2009)

SARO Status: Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) are designated by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in accordance with the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA) through the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). Extirpated: A species that no longer exists in the wild in Ontario but still occurs elsewhere. Endangered: A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate for regulation under Ontario's ESA. Threatened: A species that is at risk of becoming endangered in Ontario if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern: A species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural events. Reference: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/STEL01_131230.html and http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/246809.html (current to September 2009)

Dams and Barriers Dams and barriers found in watercourses are also known as impoundments because they back up water behind them. Generally, dams were built for water storage to store more water on the landscape, to prevent flooding and to use as a source of water for livestock and other domestic uses such as irrigation or fire fighting and as a source of power generation for mills. The design of dams and other structures such as road, lane and train crossings, culverts, and weirs create barriers. These structures mentioned are designed and installed by man. There are other naturally occurring structures that create barriers such as velocity (fast flowing), gradient (steep slope), woody debris, natural formations of bedrock (waterfalls) and beavers also build dams. Chemical and thermal differences within the water column/body may also create a barrier.

Many dams and reservoirs are highly valued by their local communities for their recreational and aesthetic uses as well as their historical significance. Other structures are important for their role in flood control or flow augmentation. Incidental benefits of dams and reservoirs include, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational activities such as fishing, canoeing, swimming and cultural value. While it may seem that increasing water storage capacity would provide a positive result, there are negative impacts of dams and barriers on riverine systems. The negative impacts include barring migration of fish and wildlife, altering the river channel to a lake like habitat, increasing soil deposition upstream of the dam, accelerating erosion downstream of the dam/barrier, altering water quantity and quality, increasing temperature of the water, escalating eutrophication (excess nutrients that cause excessive algae growth and a resulting lack of oxygen), as well as causing wildlife mortality.

Man-made dams have traditionally been managed and maintained as multi-use facilities. Starting in the late 1900s, dams reaching the end of their lifespan were evaluated to consider whether it was worthwhile to replace the dam or to just decommission the dam. Some of the reasoning for dam decommissioning or removal considers whether the dam serves a purpose, the cost of rehabilitation or maintenance, and the restoration of the fish and wildlife community as well as the riverine state. In some instances, it may be necessary to maintain the barrier as it is. These reasons include the cost of removing or altering the structure is prohibitive as it may house some form of infrastructure, the hazard/cost of damagae associated with structures that were built for flood control purposes is high, species partitioning, which means that species upstream of the dam/barrier could be displaced by invasive species inhabiting downstream, or species downstream of the barrier could bring diseases such as VHS to the population upstream.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-59

When considering the fate of any dam, it is important to complete studies and provide the best option for the structure. Normally the options include maintaining the status quo (maintain and repair), doing nothing, rehabilitating the structure (usually by modifying the structure and providing mitigation for fish and wildlife movement) or removing the structure. Since most dams have a historical or cultural value to the local community, a process to engage the public is required to mediate any issues or concerns, and to aid in deciding upon the best solution for the structure. It is important to note that all instream dam and barrier alterations require permits and approvals from several regulatory agencies prior to works commencing, which means that these agencies would also be involved throughout the process.

Based on a dam and barrier inventory that was completed in 2001 by UTRCA, 14 barriers have been identified in the Trout Creek Subwatershed. None of the dams identified in the Trout Creek Subwatershed have a purpose for flood control, nor were they designed for that purpose. One dam, the St Mary’s Dam is located where Trout Creek outlets into the North Thames River in the Town of St Mary’s. This dam, though not directly in the Trout Creek watershed, influences the lower reach of Trout Creek and the confluence of the North Thames and Trout Creek. Refer to Map 9 to view the general locations of these barriers in the watershed. Some of the recognizable dams include the Wildwood Dam, Harrington Pond Dam, and the Ducks Unlimited Berm. Appendix 6 has a table that lists the dams and barriers that have been identified in the watershed and provides a description of the type of barrier and the purpose of the structure. All of the dams and barriers in this watershed are characterized as being a run of the river. Run of the river structures create a blockage in the water column and once the water is backed up behind it the water will continue to flow over the dam.

Summary of Aquatic Resources Based on the aquatic resources mentioned previously in this section, these resources combined have contributed to a system of differentiating the aquatic natural heritage features found in the subwatershed. This approach follows the categorization process that was developed for the Oxford Natural Heritage Study (ONHS) (County of Oxford, 2006). The intent of the ONHS was to be consistent with federal and provincial policies; thus, this approach was adapted for the Trout Creek watershed community strategy. Appendix 5 describes the process developed for the ONHS.

Aquatic resources were grouped into three categories called System Type I, II and III. Refer to Map 9: Watercourse Information for the differentiation of the aquatic systems within Trout Creek.

System Type I System Type I is generally considered to be the most desirable of the three system types due to the permanence of water found in these watercourses year round and the diverse habitat that is available in these watercourses. Some of the more sensitive species (as identified in Table 5.2 Trout Creek Fish Species Summary and Table 5.3 Trout Creek Mussel Species Summary) found in these aquatic environments are susceptible to changes in habitat such as fluctuating water temperatures or water levels, pollutants, and a loss of spawning grounds.

As an aquatic natural heritage feature, watercourses identified as System Type I should be conserved, protected and enhanced when possible. One should not expect that all watercourses could become this, however, it is an attainable goal to restore some watercourses to this level.

System Type II System Type II watercourses may have water flowing in them all year, or have standing pools of water when flow is lacking during the drier periods of the year or during periods of drought. The species found in this category are usually found in many aquatic habitats as they are more tolerant to habitat changes. All watercourses in this category are warmwater, which by definition means that they have an average temperature of 25 oC (or greater). These watercourses are generally fairly productive and diverse. Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-60

With targeted rehabilitation or restoration efforts, conditions in many of these watercourses would improve to support more diverse and sensitive fish communities, and potentially restore System Type I habitat.

System Type III Watercourses in System Type III are intermittent or ephemeral systems, meaning that they have water in them for only part of the year, and their aquatic ecosystem function is largely limited to these periods. Usually these watercourses convey water during rain events, snowmelt and spring runoff. These watercourses are feeder streams for the larger watercourses as they play an important role in transporting water, sediment, and nutrients downstream. When wet, these watercourses provide migration corridors and access to food and spawning habitats for many species of fish, waterfowl, and amphibian.

Remedial activities would enhance these watercourses. Habitat restoration and rehabilitation has the potential to elevate some watercourses to System Type II and a few others to System Type I.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-61

Appendix 2. Trout Creek Benthic Sampling Results Table A2.1: Benthic Sampling Results

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Harrington Creek Near Harrington 6/4/1997 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 6 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 2 4 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 38 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 9 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 2 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 9 6 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 7 4 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 5 2 Neophylax Caddisfly Larvae 2 4 Simuliidae Black Fly Pupa 1 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 9 8 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 3 6 Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 6 8 5.535353535 Fair 6/22/1998 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 16 4 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 64 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 4 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 5 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 2 6 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 1 4 Lepidostomatidae Lepistomatid Caddisfly Larvae 2 1

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-62

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly Larvae 1 4 Leuctridae Stonefly Nymph 5 0 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 2 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 2 6 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 1 6 5.214953271 Fair 6/25/1999 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 8 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 19 4 Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 5 1 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 72 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 1 6 Daphniidae Water Flea Adult 2 8 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 1 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 2 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 2 6 Isotomidae Springtail Adult 1 5 Lepidostomatidae Lepistomatid Caddisfly Larvae 3 1 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 3 -1 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 1 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 2 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 2 3 5.18852459 Fair 6/25/1999 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 6 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 40 4 Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 6 1 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 89 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 1 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-63

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 4 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 1 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 2 6 Ephemeroptera Mayfly Nymph 1 -1 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 2 4 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1 Rhyacophilidae Primative Caddisfly Larvae 2 0 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 3 6 5.051282051 Fair 6/5/2000 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 4 4

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 26 4 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 8 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 67 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 4 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 1 6 Hemiptera Water Bug Adult 1 -1 Leuctridae Stonefly Nymph 13 0 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 2 -1 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 1 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 2 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 1 6 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3 4.8359375 Good 10/2/2000 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 9 4 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 7 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 38 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 5 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 7 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-64

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 4 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 20 4 Lepidostomatidae Lepistomatid Caddisfly Larvae 3 1 Lymnaeidae Pond Snail Adult 1 6 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 1 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 7 8 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 1 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 4 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3 5.301886792 Fair 6/19/2001 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 66 4 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 1 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 66 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 2 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 9 4 Empididae Dance Fly Pupa 1 6 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 1 6 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 2 4 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 4 4 Hydrozoa Hydra Adult 1 5 Leuctridae Stonefly Nymph 34 0 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 2 -1 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 3 8 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 1 8 Psychodidae Sand Fly Larvae 1 10

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-65

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 10 6 Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 1 4 4.220588235 Excellent 6/19/2002 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 4 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 58 4 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 8 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 64 6 Coenagrionidae Narrow-winged Damselfly Nymph 1 9 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 4 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 8 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 2 6 Leuctridae Stonefly Nymph 38 0 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 2 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 7 8 Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 1 8 Psychodidae Sand Fly Larvae 1 10 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 8 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 1 6 4.274038462 Good 6/10/2003 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 4 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 108 4 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 12 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 66 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 36 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 4 4 Empididae Dance Fly Pupa 1 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-66

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 7 6 Glossiphoniidae Leech Adult 2 8 Hemiptera Water Bug Adult 1 -1 Leuctridae Stonefly Nymph 34 0 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 9 2 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 4 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 2 8 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 1 6 Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 8 4.171232877 Excellent 5/31/2004 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 7 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 31 4 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 2 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 85 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 2 6 Daphniidae Water Flea Adult 3 8 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 11 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 2 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 10 6 Leptophlebiidae Mayfly Nymph 1 2 Leuctridae Stonefly Nymph 30 0 Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 1 4 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 1 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 4 8 Rhyacophilidae Primative Caddisfly Larvae 1 0 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 11 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-67

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 12 8 Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 8 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3 4.791666667 Good 5/30/2006 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 7 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 48 4 Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 18 1 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 3 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 159 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 3 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 4 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 60 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 11 6 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 4 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 2 4 Leuctridae Stonefly Nymph 14 0 Lymnaeidae Pond Snail Adult 1 6 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 3 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 2 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 11 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 11 8 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 1 6 Taeniopterygidae Stonefly Nymph 3 2 4.850828729 Good 10/6/2006 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 12 4 Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 1 8 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 1 7 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 117 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-68

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Chironomidae Midge Pupa 20 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 1 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 48 4

Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 5 6 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 8 4 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 2 4 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Pupa 1 4 Leptophlebiidae Mayfly Nymph 5 2 Leuctridae Stonefly Nymph 2 0 Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 2 4 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 30 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 3 8 Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 1 8 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 8 8 Rhyacophilidae Primative Caddisfly Larvae 1 0 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 1 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 11 8 Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 20 8 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3 5.26910299 Fair 5/30/2007 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 3 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 34 4 Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 40 1 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 2 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 9 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 170 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-69

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 2 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 49 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 10 6 Gomphidae Clubtail Dragonfly Nymph 1 1 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 3 4 Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 1 4 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 3 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 2 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 11 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 3 8 Taeniopterygidae Stonefly Nymph 1 2 Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 3 8 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 3 3 Tricorythidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 1 4 4.86039886 Good 10/1/2007 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 10 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 3 4 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 1 7 Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 2 1 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 166 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 19 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 27 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 3 6 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 7 4 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly Nymph 1 4 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 9 4 Leptophlebiidae Mayfly Nymph 6 2

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-70

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 3 4 Muscidae Muscid Fly Larvae 6 6 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 7 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 2 8 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 4 8 Pyralidae Pyralid Moth Larvae 1 5 Rhyacophilidae Primative Caddisfly Larvae 10 0 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 1 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 Taeniopterygidae Stonefly Nymph 3 2 Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 10 8

Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3 5.264026403 Fair 5/28/2008 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 6 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 18 4 Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 16 1 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 9 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 155 6 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 26 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 9 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 6 6 Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 1 4 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 8 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 6 8

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-71

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Perlodidae Stonefly Nymph 1 2 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly Larvae 1 3 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 10 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 11 8 Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 2 8 5.293706294 Fair John Green Drain Upstream of 6/25/2003 Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 3 8 Road 96 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 22 4 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 129 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 14 6 Coenagrionidae Narrow-winged Damselfly Nymph 1 9 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 1 4 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 4 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly Larvae 1 0 Glossosomatidae Caddisfly Pupa 1 0 Lepidostomatidae Lepistomatid Caddisfly Larvae 6 1 Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 8 4 Molannidae Larvae 2 6 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 6 8 Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 2 7 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 21 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 88 8 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 8 6 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3 6.285714286 Fairly Poor 10/23/2003 Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 3 8 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-72

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Chironomidae Midge Larvae 71 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 3 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 1 6 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 4 4 Leptophlebiidae Mayfly Nymph 5 2 Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 6 4 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 17 8 Perlodidae Stonefly Nymph 3 2 Phryganeidae Large Caddisfly Larvae 4 4 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 2 8 Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 1 7 Psychodidae Sand Fly Larvae 2 10 Sialidae Alderfly Nymph 1 4 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 1 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 228 8 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 8 6 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 7 3 7.141304348 Poor

Kerr Lupton Drain Line 35 6/22/1998 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 2 7 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 72 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 3 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 4 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 10 4 Hemiptera Water Bug Adult 1 -1 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 17 8 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle Larvae 1 4 6.072727273 Fairly Poor

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-73

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health 6/25/1999 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 2 4 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 1 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 74 6 Coenagrionidae Narrow-winged Damselfly Nymph 2 9 Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 20 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 1 4 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 1 8 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 5.844660194 Fairly Poor 6/19/2001 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 10 4 Athericidae Snipe Fly Larvae 1 2 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 4 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 37 6 Collembola Springtail Adult 1 5 Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 41 5 Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 5 8 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 46 4 Hydrozoa Hydra Adult 3 5 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 3 -1 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 29 8 Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 36 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 1 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 2 8 5.921296296 Fairly Poor Kerr-Lupton Drain West of 6/22/1999 Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 8 8 Tavistock Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-74

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Chironomidae Midge Larvae 103 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 3 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 3 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 7 4 Haliplidae Crawling Water Beetle Larvae 1 5 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 1 4 Lymnaeidae Pond Snail Adult 1 6 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 8 8 Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 1 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 2 6 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 1 6 6.1 Fairly Poor Kerr-Lupman Drain 45th Line 6/25/2003 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4 Branch D Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 13 8 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 1 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 208 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 1 5 Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 13 8 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 11 5 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 16 4 Hydrophilidae Water Scavenger Beetle Adult 3 5 Lymnaeidae Pond Snail Adult 18 6 Muscidae Muscid Fly Larvae 1 6 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 8 -1 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 4 8 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 19 8 Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 4 7

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-75

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 6.175159236 Fairly Poor 10/23/2003 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 7 4 Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 3 8 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 36 6 Chrysomelidae Leaf Beetle Adult 2 -1 Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 9 8 Diptera Two-winged Fly Pupa 1 -1 Dixidae Dixa Fly Larvae 1 1 Dolichopodidae Long-legged Fly Larvae 3 4 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Adult 1 5 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 11 4 Hydrophilidae Water Scavenger Beetle Adult 4 5

Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 35 4

Lymnaeidae Pond Snail Adult 30 6

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 30 -1

Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 3 2

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 133 8

Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 8 7

Psychodidae Sand Fly Larvae 8 10

Rhyacophilidae Primative Caddisfly Larvae 1 0

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 65 8

Stratiomyidae Soldier Fly Larvae 1 7

Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 6 3

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 33 4 6.595477387 Poor

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-76

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Lowe Drain County Road 26 6/19/2007 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 9 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 7 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 3 4

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 71 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 3 6

Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 2 5

Daphniidae Water Flea Adult 1 8

Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 1 5

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 1 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 37 4

Erpobdellidae Leech Adult 1 10

Gerridae Water Strider Adult 1 -1

Haliplidae Crawling Water Beetle Larvae 8 5

Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly Nymph 1 4

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 11 4

Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 14 4

Hydrozoa Hydra Adult 2 5

Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly Larvae 4 4

Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 1 8

Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 19 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 1 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 3 8

Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 44 8

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-77

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 4 4 5.891129032 Fairly Poor

Rolston Drain St. Marys 12/7/2003 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 4 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 1 8

Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 55 1

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 53 6

Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 9 8

Diptera Two-winged Fly Pupa 1 -1

Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 1 5

Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 3 4

Lymnaeidae Pond Snail Adult 1 6

Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 28 2

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 20 8

Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 9 7

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 4 6

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 12 4 4.223880597 Excellent

10/6/2006 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 2 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 2 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 9 4

Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 3 1

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 1 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 57 6

Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 1 8

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-78

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Daphniidae Water Flea Adult 1 8

Diptera Two-winged Fly Pupa 2 -1

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 1 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 2 4

Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 4

Lymnaeidae Pond Snail Adult 8 6

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 16 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 36 8

Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 7 8

Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 32 7

Rhyacophilidae Primative Caddisfly Larvae 1 0

Sciomyzidae Snail Killing Fly Larvae 2 -1

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 5 8

Stratiomyidae Soldier Fly Larvae 1 7

Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 8

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 16 4 6.299465241 Fairly Poor

Trout Creek Between 6/27/1997 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4 Wildwood and St. Marys Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 3 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 1 4

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 5 7

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 2 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 62 6

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 1 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-79

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 2 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 49 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 4 6

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 1 4 6.782945736 Poor

Perth County 6/22/1998 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 1 4 Road 9 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 14 6

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 59 8

Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 5 8

Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 9 7

Pleuroceridae River Snail Adult 4 6

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 3 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 5 8

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 18 4 6.923728814 Poor

6/4/1999 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 2 4

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 39 6

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 3 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 22 8

Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 1 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 21 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 15 8

Valvatidae Round-mouthed Snail Adult 14 8 6.877192982 Poor

6/8/2000 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 2 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-80

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Chironomidae Midge Larvae 10 6

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 1 4

Hydrozoa Hydra Adult 124 5

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 2 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 119 8

Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 3 8

Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 4 7

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 2 8

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 2 4 6.441947566 Fairly Poor

6/20/2002 Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 1 8

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 1 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 27 6

Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 15 8

Daphniidae Water Flea Adult 35 8

Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 4

Hydrozoa Hydra Adult 12 5

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 104 8

Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 8 8

Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 1 8

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 6 4 7.433962264 Very Poor

6/10/2003 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 2 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-81

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 9 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 3 4

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 1 7

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 141 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 38 6

Chrysomelidae Leaf Beetle Larvae 3 -1

Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 1 8

Empididae Dance Fly Pupa 1 6

Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 1 6

Haliplidae Crawling Water Beetle Adult 1 5

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 95 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 7 6

Simuliidae Black Fly Pupa 9 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8

Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 8 6.653846154 Poor

5/31/2004 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 5 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 9 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 6 4

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 18 7

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 63 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 13 6

Daphniidae Water Flea Adult 360 8

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-82

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Empididae Dance Fly Pupa 2 6

Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 1 6

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 42 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 17 6

Simuliidae Black Fly Pupa 1 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 4 8

Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 8 7.527675277 Very Poor

5/26/2005 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 2 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 3 8

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 8 7

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 2 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 45 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 2 6

Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 1 8

Daphniidae Water Flea Adult 72 8

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 1 4

Hydrozoa Hydra Adult 6 5

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 2 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 28 8

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 7.204678363 Poor

5/30/2006 Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 18 8

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 5 7

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 5 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-83

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Chironomidae Midge Pupa 2 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 48 6

Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 3 5

Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 2 5

Empididae Dance Fly Pupa 1 6

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 1 4

Hydrozoa Hydra Adult 37 5

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 7 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 68 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 1 6

Simuliidae Black Fly Pupa 2 6

Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 2 8 6.702564103 Poor

5/30/2007 Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 7 8

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 2 7

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 2 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 17 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 88 6

Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 1 5

Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 2 8

Daphniidae Water Flea Adult 12 8

Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 1 6

Empididae Dance Fly Pupa 2 6

Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 2 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-84

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 74 8 6.89047619 Poor

5/28/2008 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 3 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 5 8

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 4 7

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 41 6

Daphniidae Water Flea Adult 330 8

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 5 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 1 6 7.742930591 Very Poor

Below Wildwood 6/27/1997 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 1 4 Reservoir Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 1 7

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 5 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 67 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 14 6

Cladocera Water Flea Adult 11 8

Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 1 8

Empididae Dance Fly Pupa 1 6

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 56 8

Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 11 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 26 6

Simuliidae Black Fly Pupa 12 6 6.762135922 Poor

Township/Count 6/5/2000 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-85

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health y Line Upstream Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 5 8 of Wildwood Reservoir Chironomidae Midge Larvae 38 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 4 6

Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 1 5

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 9 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 2 4

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 47 8

Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 2 8

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 2 4 6.723214286 Poor

6/19/2001 Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 2 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 9 4

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 110 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 14 6

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 2 4

Empididae Dance Fly Pupa 1 6

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 23 4

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 67 8

Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 2 8 6.32173913 Fairly Poor

6/12/2002 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 3 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 44 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 7 4

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-86

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Chironomidae Midge Pupa 11 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 108 6

Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 1 5

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 6 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 2 4

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 10 4

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 2 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 99 8

Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 17 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 12 6

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 1 4 6.810559006 Poor

10/2/2006 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 8 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 6 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 3 4

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 1 7

Calopterygidae Broad-winged Damselfly Nymph 1 5

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 4 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 42 6

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 31 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 7 4

Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 2 6

Hebridae Sphagnum Bug Nymph 1 -1

Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly Nymph 15 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-87

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 87 4

Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 4 4

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 2 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 1 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 1 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 2 8

Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 2 4 4.628440367 Good

5/30/2007 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 4 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 20 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 22 4

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 37 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 200 6

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 8 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 6 4

Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 4

Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 3 4

Leptophlebiidae Mayfly Nymph 2 2

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 34 8

Perlidae Stonefly Nymph 1 1

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 5 6 6.020408163 Fairly Poor

10/1/2007 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 33 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 1 8

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-88

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 5 4

Calopterygidae Broad-winged Damselfly Nymph 3 5

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 15 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 136 6

Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 4 5

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 16 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 20 4

Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 4 6

Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly Nymph 4 4

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 85 4

Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 2 4

Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly Larvae 1 4

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 12 8

Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 7 8

Pisauridae Fisher Spider Adult 2 -1

Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 2 7

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 8 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 2 8

Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 2 3

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 19 4

Veliidae Ripple Bug Adult 5 -1 5.115485564 Fair

7/8/2008 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 2 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-89

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Ancylidae Limpet Adult 1 6

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 8 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 14 4

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 217 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 5 6

Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 1 5

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 40 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 7 4

Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 4

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 52 4

Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 8 4

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 2 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 10 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Pupa 3 6

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 72 6 5.517006803 Fair

Below County 6/3/1997 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4 Road 20 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 2 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 81 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 8 6

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 1 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 2 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 2 6

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 3 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-90

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 11 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 3 6

Simuliidae Black Fly Pupa 1 6 6.069565217 Fairly Poor

6/22/1998 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 1 4

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 56 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 9 6

Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 1 5

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 1 4

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 6 4

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 25 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 7 6

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 1 4 6.289719626 Fairly Poor

6/22/1999 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 4 4

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 2 7

Calanoida Fish Lice Adult 2 -1

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 6 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 129 6

Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 1 5

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 6 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 1 4

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 4 4

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 17 8

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-91

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 1 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 1 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 2 8 6.062857143 Fairly Poor

Acariformes Water Mite Adult 4 4

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 2 7

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 76 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 6 6

Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 1 5

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 3 4

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 2 4

Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly Larvae 1 4

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 6 8 5.930693069 Fairly Poor

6/5/2000 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 2 4

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 10 7

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 4 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 14 6

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 2 4

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 80 8

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 3 8

Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 8

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 1 4 7.423728814 Very Poor

10/2/2000 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 5 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-92

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 3 4

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 3 7

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 70 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 2 6

Daphniidae Water Flea Adult 2 8

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 3 4

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 11 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 7 6

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 2 4 6.027777778 Fairly Poor

6/19/2001 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 9 4

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 1 4

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 76 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 22 6

Coenagrionidae Narrow-winged Damselfly Nymph 2 9

Diptera Two-winged Fly Pupa 3 -1

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 4 4

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 3 4

Hydrozoa Hydra Adult 2 5

Muscidae Muscid Fly Larvae 1 6

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 78 8

Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 3 8

Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 4 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 2 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-93

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 2 8 6.688995215 Poor

6/19/2002 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 3 4

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 48 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 5 6

Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 2 5

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 1 4

Hydrozoa Hydra Adult 3 5

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 378 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 2 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 4 8 7.680089485 Very Poor

At Dump Road 6/2/2000 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 3 8

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 21 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 1 6

Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 1 5

Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 6 8

Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Adult 2 5

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 1 4

Muscidae Muscid Fly Larvae 1 6

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 82 8

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 7.462809917 Very Poor

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-94

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Below Junction 6/10/2003 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 6 4 of Main Tributaries Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 6 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 28 4

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 3 7

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 2 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 58 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 15 6

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 18 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 8 4

Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 4

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Pupa 3 4

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 3 4

Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 1 4

Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Pupa 1 4

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 2 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 87 8

Perlidae Stonefly Nymph 1 1

Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 1 7

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 6 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 6 8

Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 4 4 6.185328185 Fairly Poor

5/31/2004 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 3 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-95

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 4 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 24 4

Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 4 7

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 27 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 5 6

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 17 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 44 4

Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 3 6

Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly Nymph 3 4

Hydrophilidae Water Scavenger Beetle Larvae 1 5

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 70 8

Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle Larvae 1 4

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 3 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 5.852380952 Fairly Poor

5/26/2005 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 2 4

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 25 4

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 121 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 10 6

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 13 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 12 4

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 2 4

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 83 8

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-96

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 11 6 6.207885305 Fairly Poor

5/30/2006 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 2 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 15 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 12 4

Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 1 1

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 9 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 81 6

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 14 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 7 4

Empididae Dance Fly Pupa 1 6

Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 4

Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly Nymph 1 4

Hydrophilidae Water Scavenger Beetle Larvae 1 5

Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly Larvae 1 4

Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 33 8

Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 1 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 48 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 6.07860262 Fairly Poor

5/30/2007 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 11 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 38 4

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-97

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Chironomidae Midge Larvae 100 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 33 6

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 7 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 36 4

Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 2 6

Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly Nymph 2 4

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 6 4

Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 4 4

Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 1 2

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 12 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 30 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 2 8

Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3 5.494773519 Fair

5/28/2008 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 3 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 11 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 9 4

Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 1 1

Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 6 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 122 6

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 17 6

Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 1 5

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 9 4

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 11 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-98

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 1 6

Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 1 4

Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 1 4

Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 1 2

Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 44 8

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 90 6

Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 3 8

Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 3 4 6.095808383 Fairly Poor

7/8/2008 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 3 4

Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 9 8

Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 29 4

Chironomidae Midge Pupa 3 6

Chironomidae Midge Larvae 95 6

Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 3 5

Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 13 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 57 4 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 101 4 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Pupa 1 4 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 3 4 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 30 8 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 1 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 14 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 26 8 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-99

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 7 4 5.237373737 Fair Upstream of 10/2/2006 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 8 4 Line 20 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 3 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 3 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 70 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 2 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 5 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 43 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 1 6 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 12 4 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 2 4 Hydrozoa Hydra Adult 3 5 Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly Larvae 11 4 Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 1 4 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 44 8 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 2 6 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3 Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 1 4 5.594339623 Fair 6/19/2007 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 16 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 6 4 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 7 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 126 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 20 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 41 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-100

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 6 4 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 2 -1 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 180 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 6 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 5 8 Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 4 4 6.437799043 Fairly Poor St. Marys - 10/1/2007 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4 Station St. south of Peel St. Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 8 4 N. Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 11 7 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 51 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 134 6 Coenagrionidae Narrow-winged Damselfly Nymph 2 9 Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 8 8 Daphniidae Water Flea Adult 8 8 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 6 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 1 4 Glossiphoniidae Leech Adult 1 8 Haliplidae Crawling Water Beetle Larvae 1 5 Hydrophilidae Water Scavenger Beetle Larvae 3 5 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 85 8 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 9 8 Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 8 Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 10 4 Valvatidae Round-mouthed Snail Adult 1 8 6.548387097 Poor

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-101

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Trout Creek Upstream of 6/3/1997 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 4 4 Tributary Wildwood, at Road 96 and Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6 33rd Line Chironomidae Midge Larvae 44 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 10 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 10 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 1 4 Lepidostomatidae Lepistomatid Caddisfly Larvae 13 1 Leuctridae Stonefly Nymph 4 0 Lymnaeidae Pond Snail Adult 1 6 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 31 8 Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 3 8 Rhyacophilidae Primative Caddisfly Larvae 1 0 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 2 6 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 2 3 5.503937008 Fair 6/22/1998 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 5 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 8 4 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 5 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 58 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 1 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 2 4 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 1 4 Lepidostomatidae Lepistomatid Caddisfly Larvae 5 1 Leuctridae Stonefly Nymph 3 0 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 8 8 Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 1 8

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-102

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 2 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 3 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 2 8 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 3 6 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 2 3 5.47706422 Fair 7/8/2008 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 4 4 Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 5 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 11 4 Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 1 1 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 4 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 168 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 3 4 Hydrophilidae Water Scavenger Beetle Larvae 1 5 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Pupa 1 4 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 24 4 Lepidostomatidae Lepistomatid Caddisfly Larvae 1 1 Philopotamidae Finger-net Caddisfly Larvae 12 3

Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 3 8 Rhyacophilidae Primative Caddisfly Larvae 1 0 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 99 6 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 2 3 Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 1 4 5.615835777 Fair Trout Creek T. Jackson 6/5/2000 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4 Tributary Property Chironomidae Midge Larvae 98 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-103

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Chironomidae Midge Pupa 7 6 Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 2 8 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 5 8 Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 1 8 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 9 8 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 1 6 6.272 Fairly Poor Trout Creek Harmony 6/3/1997 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 118 6 Tributary (Harmony Conservation Creek) Area Chironomidae Midge Pupa 13 6 Chloroperlidae Stonefly Nymph 2 1 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 4 4 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 2 -1 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 44 8 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3 6.368131868 Fairly Poor 7/2/1998 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 1 7 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 8 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 58 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 1 5 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 18 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 5 4 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly Nymph 2 4 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 4 4 Sialidae Alderfly Nymph 1 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-104

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 1 6 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3 5.352941176 Fair 10/2/2006 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 20 4 Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 2 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 2 4 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 1 7 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 42 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 3 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 29 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 4 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 1 6 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly Nymph 10 4 Hydrophilidae Water Scavenger Beetle Larvae 1 5 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 53 4 Leptoceridae Long-horned Caddisfly Larvae 5 4 Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 3 4 Lymnaeidae Pond Snail Adult 2 6 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 15 8 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 2 8 Pisauridae Fisher Spider Adult 1 -1

Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 4 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 9 8 Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 8 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 5 3 Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 4 4 5.004587156 Fair 6/19/2007 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 26 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-105

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Baetidae Small Mayfly Larvae 7 4 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 6 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 166 6 Chrysomelidae Leaf Beetle Larvae 2 -1 Coleoptera Beetle Adult 1 -1 Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 1 5 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 1 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 8 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 13 4 Hydrachnidae Water Mite Adult 1 4 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 13 4 Muscidae Muscid Fly Larvae 1 6 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 73 8 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 1 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 2 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 3 8 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 1 6 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 2 3 Trichoptera Caddisfly Pupa 1 -1 Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 3 4 Veliidae Ripple Bug Adult 1 -1 6.012195122 Fairly Poor 7/8/2008 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 2 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 6 4 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 278 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 10 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 1 5

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-106

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 23 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 6 4 Empididae Dance Fly Larvae 2 6 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 16 4 Muscidae Muscid Fly Larvae 2 6 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 8 8 Psephenidae Water Penny Beetle Larvae 1 4 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 39 6 Simuliidae Black Fly Pupa 1 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 8 8 Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 2 4 5.8 Fairly Poor Wildwood CA Creek Wildwood 6/20/2002 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4 Conservation Area Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 1 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 11 4 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 8 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 74 6 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 19 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 3 4 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 5 4 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 5 -1 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 36 2 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 2 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 6 8 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 24 8 Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 4 7 Simuliidae Black Fly Pupa 1 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-107

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 4 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 1 6 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3 5.277227723 Fair 10/28/2002 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 3 4 Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 1 1 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 2 6 Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 90 8 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Adult 8 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 11 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 14 4 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 6 4 Glossiphoniidae Leech Adult 1 8 Haliplidae Crawling Water Beetle Adult 4 5 Haliplidae Crawling Water Beetle Larvae 4 5 Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 11 4 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 4 -1 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 37 8 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 4 8 Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 4 7 Sialidae Alderfly Nymph 1 4 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 2 6 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3 Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 1 4 6.737864078 Poor 6/10/2003 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 1 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-108

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 1 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 21 4 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 6 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 7 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 151 6 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 3 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 1 4 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 5 4 Haliplidae Crawling Water Beetle Larvae 1 5 Leptophlebiidae Mayfly Nymph 3 2 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 2 -1 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 96 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 4 8 Perlodidae Stonefly Nymph 6 2 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 1 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 6 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 1 8 4.515923567 Good 10/31/2003 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 2 4 Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 161 1 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 6 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 8 6 Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 3 8 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 2 4 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 4 Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 14 4

Lymnaeidae Pond Snail Adult 1 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-109

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 4 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 5 8 Phryganeidae Large Caddisfly Larvae 9 4 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 1 8 Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 3 7 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 1 6 2.126696833 Excellent 5/31/2004 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 5 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 89 4 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 2 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 1 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 27 6 Chrysomelidae Leaf Beetle Larvae 3 -1 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 2 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 2 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 1 4 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 4 4 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 63 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 4 8 Perlodidae Stonefly Nymph 8 2 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 2 6 Trichoptera Caddisfly Pupa 2 -1 3.714285714 Excellent 5/26/2005 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 5 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 48 4 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 4 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 70 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 5 6

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-110

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 1 8 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Adult 1 5 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 3 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 5 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 2 4 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 10 4 Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 5 4 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 2 -1 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 75 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 4 8 Perlodidae Stonefly Nymph 16 2 Simuliidae Black Fly Pupa 35 6 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 33 6 Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 1 3 Veliidae Ripple Bug Adult 1 -1 4.417956656 Good 5/30/2006 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 36 4 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 2 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 196 6 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 21 5 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 8 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 8 8 Perlodidae Stonefly Nymph 2 2 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 1 6 5.572992701 Fair 10/6/2006 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 4 4 Asellidae Sow Bug Adult 3 8 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 1 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-111

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 18 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 2 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 33 6 Coenagrionidae Narrow-winged Damselfly Nymph 2 9 Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 7 8 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 3 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 65 4 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 3 4 Haliplidae Crawling Water Beetle Adult 1 5 Haliplidae Crawling Water Beetle Larvae 5 5 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 1 4 Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 12 4 Lymnaeidae Pond Snail Adult 7 6 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 1 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 31 8 Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 1 8 Phryganeidae Large Caddisfly Larvae 1 4

Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 56 8 Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 18 7 Psychomyiidae Tube-making Caddisfly Larvae 2 2 Rhyacophilidae Primative Caddisfly Larvae 5 0 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 7 8 Stratiomyidae Soldier Fly Larvae 1 7 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 3 6 Talitridae Sideswimmer Adult 2 8

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-112

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Tipulidae Crane Fly Larvae 3 3 Turbellaria Flatworm Adult 1 4 6 Fairly Poor 5/30/2007 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 9 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 31 4 Capniidae Stonefly Nymph 2 1 Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 10 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 144 6 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 5 6 Corixidae Water Boatmen Adult 1 5 Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 10 8 Diptera Two-winged Fly Pupa 3 -1 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 20 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 21 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 4 4 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 8 4 Hydroptilidae Micro-caddisfly Larvae 6 4 Leptophlebiidae Mayfly Nymph 7 2 Limnephilidae Northern Caddisfly Larvae 1 4 Mesoveliidae Water Measurer Adult 1 -1 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 1 -1 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 16 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 13 8 Perlodidae Stonefly Nymph 3 2 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 9 8 Veliidae Ripple Bug Adult 2 -1 5.278125 Fair 5/28/2008 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 8 4

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-113

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Ceratopogonidae Biting Midge Larvae 1 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 349 6 Cyclopoida Fish Lice Adult 3 8 Dytiscidae Predacious Diving Beetle Larvae 5 5 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 1 4 Gammaridae Sideswimmer Adult 1 4 Heptageniidae Stream Mayfly Nymph 1 4 Hydrozoa Hydra Adult 1 5 Nematoda Thread Worm Adult 3 -1 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 6 8 Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 3 8 Perlodidae Stonefly Nymph 12 2 Planorbidae Orb Snail Adult 1 7 Tabanidae Horse Fly Larvae 1 6 5.870229008 Fairly Poor Young Drain Line 35 6/25/1999 Acariformes Water Mite Adult 7 4 Baetidae Small Mayfly Nymph 9 4 Caenidae Crawling Mayfly Nymph 2 7 Chironomidae Midge Pupa 1 6 Chironomidae Midge Larvae 73 6 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Adult 1 4 Elmidae Riffle Beetle Larvae 10 4 Hydrophilidae Water Scavenger Beetle Larvae 1 5 Hydropsychidae Net-spinning Caddisfly Larvae 4 4 Hypogasturidae Springtail Adult 1 -1 Nemouridae Stonefly Nymph 2 2 Oligochaeta Aquatic Worm Adult 6 8

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-114

Watercourse Sample Taxonomic # Biotic Family Biotic Stream Location Common Name Life Stage Name Date Names Individuals Index Index (FBI) Health Ostracoda Seed Shrimp Adult 2 8 Physidae Pouch Snail Adult 1 8 Simuliidae Black Fly Larvae 1 6 Sphaeriidae Fingernail Clam Adult 2 8 5.614754098 Fair

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-115

Appendix 3: Trout Creek Fish Sampling Results Table A3.1: Fish Sampling Results

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal Central Drain Road 111 11/8/2000 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Brassy Minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni Central Mudminnow Umbra limi Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Northern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos Pearl Dace Margariscus margarita White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Road 112 8/15/2001 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Blackside Darter Percina maculata Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris White Sucker Catostomus commersoni

Harmony CA, Perth 11/7/1995 MNR-MDC Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Line 26 Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum White Sucker Catostomus commersoni 8/15/2001 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-116

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum White Sucker Catostomus commersoni 6/25/2007 UTRCA Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Central Mudminnow Umbra limi Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Northern Pike Esox lucius White Sucker Catostomus commersoni 7/15/2008 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-117

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal Northern Pike Esox lucius White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Road 111 7/15/2008 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Pearl Dace Margariscus margarita White Sucker Catostomus commersoni

Harrington Creek Upstream of 10/13/1992 ROM Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Harrington CA pond Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi d/s Harrington CA 11/29/2004 UTRCA Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Blackside Darter Percina maculata Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Rainbow Darter Etheostoma caeruleum Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Perch Perca flavescens Harrington West Road 92 and Line 29 8/14/2008 UTRCA Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Tributary

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-118

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal Harrington-West Drain 31st Line 10/25/1999 UTRCA Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi White Sucker Catostomus commersoni 8/14/2008 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis White Sucker Catostomus commersoni

John Green Drain Rd 96 East of 10/27/1999 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Harrington Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi d/s of Road 96 11/21/2003 UTRCA American Brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Central Mudminnow Umbra limi Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi Kerr-Lupton Drain 35th Line 10/27/1999 UTRCA Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-119

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal White Sucker Catostomus commersoni 11/28/2002 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Kerr-Lupton Drain 35th Line, Hwy 6 6/22/2004 DFO Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus between Perth-Oxford Blackside Darter Percina maculata Road and Road 96 (CR 28) Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Northern Pike Esox lucius Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Perch Perca flavescens Kerr-Lupton Drain 35th Line 7/14/2008 UTRCA Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Blackside Darter Percina maculata Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Perch Perca flavescens

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-120

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal Road 112 7/15/2008 UTRCA Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Perch Perca flavescens

Kerr-Lupton Drain 45th Line 11/21/2003 UTRCA Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Branch D Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Lange Drain Road 112 11/7/1995 MNR-MDC Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Lowe Drain County Road 26 6/25/2007 UTRCA Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Central Mudminnow Umbra limi Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Northern Pike Esox lucius White Sucker Catostomus commersoni

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-121

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal 7/15/2008 UTRCA Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Northern Pike Esox lucius White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Line 29 West of Road 7/15/2008 UTRCA No Fish Found 111 Lowe Drain Improvement Line 29 11/7/1995 MNR-MDC No Fish Found Raper Drain 35th Line 10/27/1999 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum 7/14/2008 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Blackside Darter Percina maculata Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Rolston Drain St. Marys 12/5/2003 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-122

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus White Sucker Catostomus commersoni 12/7/2003 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Line 7 9/1/2006 UTRCA Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Northern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Trout Creek West Zorra 1/1/1974 OMNR Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Central Mudminnow Umbra limi Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Northern Hog Sucker Hypentelium nigricans Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Rainbow Darter Etheostoma caeruleum Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Slimy Sculpin Cottus cognatus

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-123

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis Below Wildwood Dam 8/23/1974 ROM Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare Perth Line 9 11/6/1998 ROM Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Special Silver Shiner Notropis photogenis Special Concern Concern Yellow Perch Perca flavescens

Perth-Oxford Rd, 11/27/1999 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus County Line Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Hornyhead Chub Nocomis biguttatus Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Below Wildwood 12/7/1999 UTRCA Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Yellow Perch Perca flavescens

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-124

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal Perth Road 113 8/8/2000 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Blackside Darter Percina maculata Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare Hornyhead Chub Nocomis biguttatus Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Northern Pike Esox lucius Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Stonecat Noturus flavus White Sucker Catostomus commersoni

Perth-Oxford Rd, 6/22/2004 DFO Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus County Line Blackside Darter Percina maculata Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus 6/25/2007 UTRCA Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Blackside Darter Percina maculata Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Stonecat Noturus flavus

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-125

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal White Sucker Catostomus commersoni 7/14/2008 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Blackside Darter Percina maculata Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides Not at Risk Special Concern Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Northern Pike Esox lucius Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 7/14/2008 UTRCA Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Road 120, upstream of golf Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus course Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides Not at Risk Special Concern Hornyhead Chub Nocomis biguttatus Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu Stonecat Noturus flavus Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-126

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Perch Perca flavescens St. Marys - Rehab site 7/14/2008 UTRCA Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Greenside Darter Etheostoma blennioides Not at Risk Special Concern Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Perch Perca flavescens Line 20 7/15/2008 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Central Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Northern Pike Esox lucius Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu Stonecat Noturus flavus White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Trout Creek Tributary St.Marys 9/1/1928 ROM Iowa Darter Etheostoma exile

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-127

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal Trout Creek Tributary 27th Line 10/25/1999 UTRCA Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Harrington Near Special Unknown Creek 5/27/1931 ROM Northern Brook Lamprey Ichthyomyzon fossor Special Concern Stratford Concern Wildwood C.A. Reservoir West Zorra 1/1/1968 OMNR Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 1/1/1979 OMNR Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Perch Perca flavescens Wildwood Tributary 29th Line 11/28/2002 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Blackside Darter Percina maculata Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-128

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Northern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 8/14/2008 UTRCA Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus

Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fantail Darter Etheostoma flabellare Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Perch Perca flavescens Young Drain 10/13/1992 ROM American Brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix Vicinity of County Road 96, Lot 30-31, Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Conc IV Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus White Sucker Catostomus commersoni 33rd Line 10/27/1999 UTRCA American Brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Blackside Darter Percina maculata Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Brook Stickleback Culaea inconstans Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Common Carp Cyprinus carpio

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-129

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal Common Shiner Luxilus cornutus Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Vicinity of County 11/28/2002 UTRCA American Brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix Road 96, Lot 30-31, Conc IV Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Northern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus eos Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieu White Sucker Catostomus commersoni 33rd Line 11/29/2004 UTRCA American Brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Blackside Darter Percina maculata Johnny Darter Etheostoma nigrum Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Line 35 7/14/2008 UTRCA American Brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-130

Sample Species at Risk Watercourse Name Location Source Common Name Scientific Name Date Provincial Federal Blacknose Dace Rhinichthys atratulus Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Central Mudminnow Umbra limi Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi White Sucker Catostomus commersoni Yellow Perch Perca flavescens COSEWIC Status: The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) assesses species for their consideration for legal protection and recovery (or management) under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Extinct: A wildlife species that no longer exists Extirpated: A wildlife species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere. Endangered: A wildlife species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. Threatened: A wildlife species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern: A wildlife species that may become a threatened or endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Not at Risk: A wildlife species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances. Reference: http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct0/rpt/rpt_csar_e.pdf (current to August 2009)

SARO Status: Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) are designated by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) in accordance with the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA) Extinct: A species that no longer exists. Extirpated: A species that no longer exists in the Wild in Ontario but still occurs elsewhere. Endangered-R (Regulated): A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is regulated under Ontario’s Endangered Species Act (ESA). Endangered (Not Regulated): A speices facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate for regulatin under Ontario’s ESA. Threatened: A species that is at risk of becoming endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. Special Concern: A species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural events. Not at Risk: A species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk. Reference: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/246809.html (current to September 2009)

Abundance: Refers to the relative abundance or common occurrence of the species found within the waters of the Thames River watershed based on sampling results. Consideration was given to accurately reflect the species presence within the watershed due to the sampling capture method, effort and biases, difficulty in capturing certain species and anecdotal reporting. Abundant: Greater than 50 sample records in the database. Common: Between 15 and 50 sample records in the database Historical: Species that have been previously recorded in the Thames Rare: Less than 5 sample records in database Uncommon: Between 5 and 15 sample records in database

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-131

Appendix 4: TRFMP Summary of Public Input The questions posed to the public and the summary of responses for each subject area follow.

Resource (refers to fish, fish habitat and their use)

Questions Asked: What can you tell us about the river and the fish as a resource in your area, in your experience? Over time, have things changed? How?

Summary of Responses: We were informed of fish species locations (general areas) and of local actions taken to improve the fisheries resource (including stocking and habitat improvements). This information supplements existing information by confirming anecdotal information and by providing current and historical knowledge.

The information gathered informs us that fishing is a popular recreational activity and that people are targeting specific species when fishing.

Over the years, the public have noticed significant changes to fish communities. In some locations, there are species that were never there before and in other locations, certain species have decreased in size and numbers or have been lost completely. There have been positive and negative responses to the noticeable changeover in species – depending upon the view and interest of the individual.

Many comments focused on the lack of water everywhere, although, it was mentioned that there are variations in water levels at certain times of year (spring flooding or rain events).

There is also a concern for the poor water quality such as an increase in algae blooms and a decrease in the water clarity during the warmer months.

The public also mentioned a significant loss of habitat. This loss of habitat occurs when tributaries have been lost or converted to closed surface drainage, and when watercourses became channelized or converted to drains that are uniform, lacking riffle, pool, run sequencing and riparian vegetation. Ongoing rehabilitation efforts in localized areas or tributaries have made improvements to the habitat.

There is a perception that there is nothing there (in terms of fish) and it’s not worth the effort (to fish). The size and numbers of fish have gone down. People are going elsewhere to fish, not in their own backyards anymore – especially when they have a certain target species in mind.

Some people believe that the Thames is a good fisheries resource, while others wish that it had more to offer. There is a perception that there are more people fishing (specific locations were not identified) and that additional recreational activities have increased the fishing pressure.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-132

Issues

Questions Asked: What do you think impacts the health of the fish in the Thames? What do you see as the biggest challenges facing the future of the fish of the Thames?

Summary of Responses: Many rural and urban impacts were discussed as issues. These included erosion and sedimentation, industry, urban development/sprawl, aggregate operations, storm water management, agricultural land use practices, drainage, water takings, barriers, flood control operations, and spills. Some of the issues that were mentioned more than once were agricultural drainage, pollution, water quality, loss of riparian habitat and loss of water. Several other items mentioned that would have an impact on the fisheries were the lack of enforcement for poaching and other legislation, lack of resources to implement remedial actions, tile drainage and the loss of first order watercourses, storm and sanitary sewers, developing to the waters edge, and climate change.

The public has also noticed the alteration in the hydrograph following rain events, with the time lag decreasing over the years and flooding occurring immediately after a rain event. They noted that most of the watercourses have become silted in where there were pools, and that dams and barriers have had a significant impact on the habitat upstream and downstream of the dam.

The public stated that the connection between the local resource has been lost due to the lack of understanding the resource and loss of respect for what is in landowners own backyard. People would like to know where to fish, or just enjoy the resource, while there are landowners that have noticed a lack of respect when the public is accessing the resource on private lands.

Conflicting uses such as recreational activities and flood control structures are thought to negatively influence the fisheries resource (fish and habitat).

Invasive and non-native species are a concern as both terrestrial and aquatic non-native invasive species can detrimentally impact fish communities and the fisheries resource.

Concerns for the impact that impaired water quality and increased pollution would have on the human health and the aquatic community that come from humans and wildlife include increases in e coli, agricultural and urban runoff containing fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, increases in gull, geese, and cormorant populations, and littering.

The public identified that there is a lack of awareness and/or communication between partners and agencies, and that there are several outdated or ineffective policies and legislation.

Some of the needs mentioned were for more education and awareness building to bridge communication and understanding gaps, and to use research and monitoring to identify problems and solutions.

They would like access to fishing addressed by decreasing the barriers and making the Thames more accessible.

They noted the lack of habitat, the need for wetland restoration, the influence of Lake St. Clair and the Sydenham River and the decrease in the walleye population acknowledged and addressed.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-133

The Plan

Questions Asked: What would you like to see the fisheries management plan accomplish? What would signal to you that the plan has been a success? Are there questions that the plan should endeavour to answer?

Summary of Responses: The public would like the TRFMP document to be a reference manual that can influence the day-to-day activities of the stakeholders. They would like the plan to identify priority tactics on a regional basis and provide clear guidelines for stocking programs and managing for certain species populations. The plan should identify areas in need of improvement and provide adaptive management programs, including action plans for quick responses. The plan should address the unknowns, and identify areas requiring further research and monitoring. The plan needs to address the issues and target areas for improvement and implement activities. The plan needs to educate and create momentum.

The plan should be part of other plans such as a Thames River Watershed Plan, and integrate with other plans already prepared like the Species at Risk Recovery Strategy, Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair Management Plans, and subwatershed plans. The plan also needs to be in a similar format as other watershed Fisheries Management Plans (FMP’s).

Ideally the plan would identify the shortcomings of information, development management, strategies and provide a means of breaking down barriers between authority, regulation and policy for the proper needs of the riparian lands and public interest. This would require equally sharing the cost between all who have a shared interest. This could also include clarifying and simplifying regulations such as creel limits, which should be adjusted to reflect current conditions.

The plan should provide a means of collecting and storing data all in one place including historical data, and ensuring the data is in a user friendly format for all interest groups. The plan would bring together different user groups with common goals. It would be an educational and promotional tool to heighten the awareness of the value of the natural resource. It would create momentum and build on implementation.

The plan must protect significant fish habitat, improve water quality and quantity, improve swamps and wetlands, address issues like carp and pike in Wildwood, prioritize hierarchy of species, and set timelines for implementation activities such as removing barriers.

The plan must also show success by collecting baseline information and incorporating long term monitoring programs.

The plan should provide a means of answering questions like What is causing algae blooms and what are the impacts on the fish? It needs to look at different ways of controlling water levels – for more consistent flow, encourage cooling water temperatures, improving habitat, letting vegetation grow back along streams or implementing BMP’s along all streams and creeks to include buffer zones and fence cattle out of streams.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-134

Opportunities

Questions Asked: Are there activities that you would suggest for helping to support the fish in the Thames? Are there ways that we can involve the public in improving the health of the fishery?

Summary of Responses: Education of the resource and dispelling myths were stated repeatedly. There is a need to target staff, students, landowners, agricultural community, policy makers, municipal staff and the public through various techniques such as posters, demonstrations, presentations, newspaper ads/articles, tabloids, promoting fish monitoring programs, integrating with communities/schools and corporations, developing curriculum units, websites, door to door awareness campaigns, etc.

Creating or expanding partnerships to complete projects such as adopting a stream, cleanups, tree planting and enforcement are necessary especially with interest groups and landowners. Landowner buy in and involvement is crucial in protecting and enhancing the resource. Increase stewardship and incentives for landowners are necessary. Promote and share scientific evidence of benefits of Best/beneficial management practices (BMP’s) such as buffer strips. Perhaps develop sector specific BMP’s for aggregate operations, agriculture, industry, golf courses, and developers.

It is felt that improvements to communications with stakeholders are needed especially a two way means of communicating for receiving input and generating feedback. The public would like more input and information from agencies to be shared with users in order that work can be targeted.

Enforcement is another means of educating the public. Increasing enforcement efforts would improve some of the issues and problems. There is a need for the municipalities to put the “bite” into legislation or prompt change in legislation/acts such as the drainage act to incorporate the protection of habitat.

The opportunity to get people involved in projects in their own backyard will generate a greater respect and appreciation of the resource. Habitat enhancement projects need to be implemented in priority areas in order to observe the results in that location as well as downstream.

Increasing access to the resource/river would assist with promoting the river and potentially identify ways of improving the opportunities.

Consider other programs that increase or improve community involvement, such as the US example of the River Keepers.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-135

TRFMP Public Workshop Rough Notes - Public Input for Trout Creek subwatershed

Resource . Used to be species in certain areas that were never there, or species lost – no longer where they were, or expected to be . Change is noticeable in species - change . Positive and/or negative comments related to above – some people are happy to see new species there, others not – some people are disappointed that some species are no longer where they use to be, others indifferent indicating there’s nothing there now, or it’s not worth the effort . Streams/water is running dry sooner – swamps are drier (noted in MNHS) . Fishing is big business . Education need on how our reservoir system is managed – future of dams . Last 20 years manage reservoir for fisheries . Conflict between habitat and flood/flow augmentation . Balance and better connection between management of reservoirs/fisheries/SAR . Considerations for future . Going elsewhere to fish not in own backyards anymore (access). . Targeting what fishing for – certain species . Increase recreation activities increase fishing pressure

Wildwood . Consistent fishing pressure last 5 years . Bigger bass and more bass (#’s) . 20 years ago was perch fishery, changed to pike, now bass . Fish (pike) below dam now due to aerator . Ice fishing on Wildwood - crowding fish in small area (dam reserves gone, water is lower) . Habitat enhancement in the 80s . Stocking at Harrington . Wide variations in water levels . Increase in carp and perch populations . In last 6 or 7 years have noticed a decrease in size of pike – below Wildwood pike stopped by dam – too many being harvested? (1 dot) . Warmer weather causing algae blooms . Difficult to catch fish at Wildwood in August because the water has become so warm that the fish move to cooler, deeper water . Water clarity changes over season – clearer early May and becomes progressively worse as season moves on (1 dot) . More people are fishing but this isn’t perceived to be having a large impact on the health of the fish community . Ice fishing impacted perch population in past at Wildwood . 30 years ago bass, trout and perch were caught regularly at Wildwood and it was rare to see a pike . See pike here in Trout Creek now not 20 years ago . 22 freshwater springs (1 dot) . Loss of coldwater habitat (1 dot) . Mature and young pike upstream of St. Marys – now more than ever – due to stocking of Wildwood . Perch behind Harrington Pond – everywhere upstream of St. Marys . Now carp remove vegetation

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-136

. Smallmouth bass and brook Harrington ( out back here ) . 60s change . Loss of springs . Used to catch minnows in all drains . Less water everywhere . Mudpuppies - Harmony (stream goes dry) fed by Stratford city dump . Used to be a ton of fish above St. Marys, now just carp (you could walk across the river on them) (more of a comment for North Thames River, but applicable to Trout Creek) . We also own a cottage (#4) on Wildwood Lake near St. Marys and I am actually the only cottager that routinely fishes the lake. I’ve noticed the bass (smallmouth) population diminish and the pike increase; especially a multitude of hammer handles. . Four years ago, we witnessed a couple of bass “nesting” on the small, sandy beach beside our dock and then saw millions of hatched fry seek the shelter of the dock. They were that numerous that there would be a dark cloud in the water. At the end of the season the shoreline was thick with smallmouth 2-3” long. Haven’t seen this abundance since.

. Trout Creek- mid 60s to early 70s –from Cty Road 139 (old hwy #7) downstream to St. Marys Golf Course. There were SpeckleD Trout stocked and provided good fishing. Today no trout. . Harrington Road Creek - Cty Road 28- this small creek meanders down upstream of road and then finally into Wildwood Lake, it always had a good population of wild Speckled Trout. . Harrington Pond back in the 60s and 70s – colder and cleaner pond with some weed patches. Now, apparently, it is full of weeds in the summer. It had Rainbow trout, natural Speckled Trout (also in the creek running into the pond) and the occasional Brown Trout.

Questionnaire Submitted: In an attempt to raise some concerns about the declining fishery at Wildwood Lake I found this questionnaire posted on your website. I hope that this submission is not too late and can be included as feedback for your plan. I will attempt to write this by using the template you had requested as part of your questionnaire. Although, I am not a fisheries biologist, I do have a biology degree from the University of Waterloo and I have a significant amount of angling experience.

I started fishing Wildwood as a teenager with my family in the early 1980’s as we lived only a few miles from the lake. This has continued to the present time so I believe my experience is fairly representative of the fishing conditions and the change to the resource. All of our fishing has been done from a boat in the months of May to September. Primarily, we use artificial lures as bait; however we do have experience using live bait including crayfish, minnows, and worms. I would estimate that we have used a 50/50 split between casting and trolling. Our targeted fish has always been pike and smallmouth. We extensively use catch and release.

I would say until the mid 1990’s and especially in the late 80’s and early 90’s the quality of our fishing experience on the lake was excellent. It was not uncommon to boat 10 to 15 pike each trip per fisherperson and I would estimate that our average was about 4-6 pike per trip per fisherperson. The size of pike on average was varied; however, I would estimate that 50% were between 2 – 5 lbs and between 28 – 34 inches. Large fish tended to be about 6 - 7 lbs and around 36 – 39 inches. Large fish represented only about 3% of our catch. The remainder were small pike between 14-28 inches. Typically, when targeting smallmouth, we would catch between 2 – 5 bass per outing. The average weight was around 1.5 - 2lbs with heavy fish approaching 4lbs. There were a few incidental catches of largemouth bass over the years including my largest to date of 5.25 lbs. I have not caught a largemouth since the mid 1990’s.

Starting in the mid 1990’s until the present time we have witnessed a gradual but steady decline in the numbers and size of both pike and bass as well as a decline to our “fishing experience.” This became very

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-137 obvious last weekend at the family fishing derby when, I believe, we were the only participants to catch a pike (15 inches) and not a single smallmouth bass was caught by anyone participating in the derby. I cannot verify these statistics; however, I do believe they are correct. I believe the OFAH tracks the catches and have done so over the number of years that the derby has taken place. You are, therefore, probably already aware of the decreased catch trend at the derby. I recall a few years when large scale catch and release tournaments were held on the lake with significant catches of both pike and bass. From our own personal experience, we entered a couple of these tournaments in the early 90’s and at one weighed in 4 bass and 4 pike.

We now consider a “good” outing if we catch one or two fish. We have been out three times this year and have caught two pike in total. This includes the one in the derby (15 inches) and one caught (22 inches) a couple of weeks ago. Last year we fished the lake three times and caught three pike and no bass.

Issues . Flood control operations at the reservoirs – raising/lowering lake levels – seen as impacting fish communities (1 dot) . Quick flashes in spring the spring and the draw down all impacting . The design of the dam at Wildwood is drawing cooler water from the bottom of the reservoir and sending it downsteam . Mention of the oxygenator – elbow, below Wildwood . In the upper reaches of the river (Tavistock)an increase in population of herons has been noticed . Fish stocking and introduction of different species is changing the natural fish population . Harrington Pond was drained in past – many carp . Spills have been an issue in the past . Impact of gravel extraction upstream of Harrington Pond (potential) (6 dots) . Lack of enforcement (poaching) (1 dot) . Foam, phosphorus? soap? From Happy Hills area (McCorkadale Drain) (2 dots) . Events – rains – time lag has decreased over the years . Floods immediately after rain event (2 dots) . Loss of retention time (storage) (2 dots) . Fish stranded after floods . Erainage and dredging (2 dots) . Loss of riparian habitat – farmed to edge of watercourse . Landuse . Value of land . Loss of watercourse (tiling/closing) . Rehabilitation . ’52 report . Stop dredging and drainage – clean out . Streams now municipal drains . Pollution . Nutrient load – where coming from . Highway 7 below Wildwood . Poor water quality (stench) . Disconnect between old and new drainage practices . Encourages improved drainage activities – fish friendly . Education required for drainage . Upstream of here (TR&GC) – loss of depth of water . Runoff events . Loss of baseflow in summer retention in wetlands – loss Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-138

. Dams and obstructions (barriers) (1dot) . Silt . Boaters stir up . Increase temperature . Algae blooms – Wildwood, increase temperatures, increase nutrients (1 dot) . Climate change . Loss of slow steady rains . More short rains with lots of rain, heavy and fast . Increase in bait fishing . Fewer fishermen . Raw sewage applications to agriculture lands – loss of cattle . Barriers – removal – what is their purpose . Build structures in stream as kid oxygenating water . Fish there after . Riffle pool sequences lost . Gabions extra rocks in river – better habitat – fish like it there (1 dot) . More structures, not getting rid of water fast . Agricultural practices – cattle in watercourse . Wildwood – every year it gets worse for the fish population, during the season people are cutting up fish right after they are caught (probably the same ones that I just released) . Protection of native species (1 dot) . Brook trout, increase protection . Concerns with introduced trout and competition and effects . Climate change . Success if still Brook trout in 30 years and beyond . Quality of water is mostly at fault and somewhat due to loss of habitat (lower water levels in streams). . There is a serious problem with algae blooms on Wildwood, probably due to manure and fertilizer runoff from farmlands. . Likewise, there are millions of seagulls that flock onto Wildwood during late July on to the end of the season. Where do these seagulls come from? Why do they only come after mid-summer? (rather they didn’t come at all!). . I believe erosion and ag-fertilizers impact the Thames River the most. Erosion fills in the deep pools that the fish need and also is a problem in smothering eggs in the bass nests. Ag-fertilizers of course increase both algae and weed growth. . Another problem has been in the clearing of trees along stream banks to get more land into production of farm crops. This has helped in the increase in water temperature making it difficult for cold water species such as trout. The root systems not only created cover for trout but also played a part in holding stream banks together to prevent erosion. . One of the biggest challenges facing the Thames is proper animal waste management or fertilizing crop land. Over fertilizing and run off directly into waterways and the extensive use of tile draining has the potential for both fish kill and creating weed and algae growth. . Another problem is cattle knocking down creek banks to get access to drinking water and then “crapping” in the water. That should be illegal. . Old farm machinery left to rust on “the back forty” has the potential to leak out oil into the waterway. These should be cleaned up.

I personally trend the decline to the fishery with the explosion of ice fishing. In the late 80’s and early 90’s there never appeared to be more than 2 or 3 people ice fishing at any one time. Now it is not uncommon to see 15 – 30 people ice fishing on a weekend in January and February. As the lake is drained down each fall the fish are forced into the deeper water around the dam and I would suggest that they are

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-139 extremely vulnerable to over harvest. The catch and keep rates for ice fishermen are significantly higher than warm water fishing to begin with and the fact that it is literally a “fish in a barrel” situation further exacerbates the issue. I don’t believe the lake is highly productive for new fish recruitment to begin with and I believe that over harvesting of fish is a significant issue. Belwood Lake, part of the Grand River Watershed, went through the same issue a number of years ago and actually shut down the lake to ice fishing for a few years.

Obviously, smallmouth bass are not typically targeted or caught by ice fishing; however I would suggest that as the pike population crashed, people began to keep more and more bass in an attempt to bring home enough fish for a meal. In the past, these bass may have been released as pike are a better tasting fish to begin with.

In general I have never witnessed much of a “catch and release” mentality at the lake and this has also contributed to the decline. I totally support keeping a few fish to eat but I don’t believe Wildwood can support the harvest pattern that has existed over time.

Plan . Look at different ways of controlling water levels – for more consistent flow (5 dots) . What is causing the algae blooms – what are the impacts on the fish? (1 dot) . Consider fish friendly dams when they are being replaced . Encourage cooling water temperature, improving habitat, let vegetation grow back along streams (3 dots) . Compensate landowners – incentives . Need to do work everywhere . Identify what is salvageable . Clean water . TR & GC – improve here 1st or won’t get better downstream . Identify habitat – substrate – gradient water table (aggregates) . Improve swamps/wetlands in watershed (2 dots) . Increase water retention . Shift in ideas from draining to storing . Grassed waterways . Let low areas flood – renaturalizae - fragile land retirement . Look at hydrology and connect between river and aggregate resources . Spawning grounds – improve for sustainable natural reproduction . Find issues (investigate problems) . Prime habitat – wood debris, large rubble get it back in – don’t remove it . More desirable species . Improve water quality/quantity (2 dots) . Sanctuaries . Prioritize – hierarchy of species (2 dots) . Carp and pike issues in Wildwood (1 dot) . Ducks Unlimited berm – waterfowl pollution probs . Wildwood seagulls in August (2 dots) . Cormorants in Wildwood . Want to see more people use the river/creek/stream, . Ask the public, and /or service clubs to assist with clean-ups, restoration projects – most are more than willing to help. . Upper Thames must learn to cooperate and partner with other groups –such as the NOAH group who is involved in conservation/clean ups. . Let me know if you need anyone to monitor anything at Wildwood. Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-140

. I would like to see a 10 yard buffer zone created along all streams and creeks – to stop soil erosion. Tree planting in this zone would not only help shade the waterway but would also be good for the environment. . I would like to see all cattle fenced from streams, creeks. Perhaps some subsidy for farmers to accomplish this and provide water in an appropriate manner. Too often, farmers believe that a stream that runs through their property is theirs to do with what they want.

The most significant accomplishment of the plan, from the perspective of Wildwood Lake, would be the re-establishment of a good fishery with improved catch rates and an improved fishing experience. Another significant accomplishment would be to introduce and achieve buy-in around a catch and release philosophy at the lake since it will never be able to support high harvest rates.

Opportunities . Harrington – who owns, who operates, etc, details need to be communicated to participants (2 dots) . More study (diagnostic) is needed and would be very helpful . Adopt a stream project has worked in other places . Need to work landowner to landowner and talk about impact on the river and ways that problem can be solved . Problems seen in reservoirs – what can we do about these . Education regarding the impacts on the river and fish community are needed to bring the issue a higher profile (2 dots) . Enforcement is another method to communicate that negative impacts will not be tolerated . There is abuse that is going unchecked (1 dot) . Target the schools . Touch people personally – use messages that explains what is in it for them . Need to create a sense of responsibility . Direct communication to water quality – and fish community health will follow (3 dots) . Need money or funding or some incentives for improvements to be implemented (2 dots) . Flow augmentation is an issue . Look at how other reservoirs are operated for lesson learned (1 dot) . Climate change . Need to emphasize landowner in targeting efforts (4 dots) . Partner landowners with helpers from clubs – connect them with each other (7 dots) . Technical assistance/tact and diplomacy are all needed (1 dot) . Use OMAF contacts . Tree incentive programs for landowners – erosion, rain, wind . Land stewardship (2 dots) . Plant buffers (1 dot) . Quick fix for Harrington Pond (1 dot) . Magic pill . Gain momentum – do small project . Habitat enhancement – incentives . Erosion in Trout creek – riparian planting, combine – fencing, rock placement, trees, shrubs, etc. . Club involvement . Clean up efforts . Get them back in their own yards . Ownership of resource - protect . Tell us where to go fishing, specifically for Trout in the Thames Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-141

. Stock fish – bass, pike above the dam in st mary’s . Want to take the next generation to wildwood to enjoy the same opportunities that I had – fishing for perch, walleye and bass . Implement a catch and release program through a tagging system – ensure that there will be fish left in wildwood – protect fish population (understand that many will ignore this request) . Plans to start a trout species program – steelhead, browns or brooks . Other species plans . Cleanup plans . Involve the public – inform them how . Shape the thames into a viable resource for the future . Farmers must be educated and encouraged to: . Reduce manure/fertilizer near streams/drains etc. . Plant buffer strips of grass and trees along all streams and rivers, even 3 meter width would help. . Build (or re-build) spawning areas suitable for bass . Ministry must monitor the ice fishing harvest and ensure that over-harvesting is not occurring (on Wildwood) . Limit or eliminate the harvest of vulnerable fish during the ice fishing season in an attempt to allow the population to naturally restore itself. . Set your own harvest limits for the lake that are significantly below current MNR levels for both pike and bass. I am assuming you are allowed to do this. . Post signs at the launch ramp, dam and other bridges that encourage catch and release and list your new harvest limits. . Enforce fishing regulations as I have witnessed a number of situations where out of season bass were kept by either unscrupulous or unaware individuals. . Provide education to the campers at the lake about the importance of establishing a strong fishery.

I believe a good stable fishery would increase revenues to the Conservation Authority as more people would angle at the lake. For example, we no longer buy the annual pass as a result poor catch rates we have had over the last 5 – 7 years. On a more positive note, the smallmouth fishing in the Thames River around St. Marys has remained quite good over the last 10 years. We usually have good success and catch some nice sized bass each time we go out. Although the catch rates were low at the derby last weekend it was very well organized and ran quite smoothly.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-142

Appendix 5. Aquatic Ecosystem Categories

The following describes the process developed to categorize aquatic ecosystems in the Oxford Natural Heritage Study (ONHS) (County of Oxford, 2006).

Categories of Aquatic Ecosystems A system of categorizing watercourses suited to the purpose of the ONHS was required. This system also required an approach that would be consistent across different agencies including conservation authorities, upper and lower tier municipalities, and federal and provincial governments. It was evident that the categories needed to follow existing and standardised approaches, and be enhanced where appropriate for the ONHS.

The Municipal Drain Classification Project (MDC), the Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Fish Habitat Protection Guidelines for Developing Areas provided guidance in categorizing the watercourses for Oxford County. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) prepared the Natural Heritage Reference Manual in 1999 and the Fish Habitat Protection Guidelines in 1994. These two documents differentiate between three types of fish habitat. The MDC is a federally funded initiative of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). The purpose of the MDC was to streamline the Fisheries Act Authorisation process for maintenance activities on municipal drains. A classification scheme was developed to identify the type of fish habitat present and to aid the authorization process. All conservation authorities (CA’s) in Southwestern Ontario have completed this initiative and the most current information can be obtained from the respective CA. These federal and provincial initiatives aided in providing consistency between governments and agencies.

Three categories of watercourses were defined to give a general overview of the current aquatic ecosystem conditions found throughout the County. Simply put, more sensitive or complex systems with permanent flow were placed in one category called System Type I, less sensitive systems with permanent flow were placed in another category called System Type II, and watercourses with intermittent flow were placed in the final category called System Type III. These categories allowed for the development of general recommendations and management prescriptions for each category. For example, System Type I watercourses have significant or sensitive features that need to be protected, conserved and enhanced, while System Types II and III might be targeted for rehabilitation and restoration activities.

Several components were used to develop the MDC classifications and were also used to create the categories of watercourses for the ONHS. These components include Species at Risk (SAR), fish community, aquatic and semi aquatic species, habitat, thermal regime/water temperature, permanent flow and the municipal drain classification. The following table, Table5.4 Aquatic Categories Component Summary shows how each component fits into each category.

Additional aquatic and semi-aquatic species such as mussels and plants are included in the system types; however, in the future these species may have additional considerations which could alter the category that they are currently found in.

Currently, the categories do not contain components for threats and issues such as invasive species, and dams or barriers. Water quantity and water quality components were not included as components of the system types. In the future, these components require further consideration for incorporation into the system types of watercourses for the purpose of Oxford Natural Heritage features.

System Type I System Type I is generally considered the most desirable of the 3 system types due to the permanence of water found in these watercourses year round and the diverse habitat that is available in these Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-143 watercourses. Some of the more sensitive species found in these aquatic environments are susceptible to changes in habitat such as fluctuating water temperatures or water levels, pollutants, and a loss of spawning grounds.

As an aquatic natural heritage feature, watercourses identified as System Type I require conservation, protection, and enhancement measures when possible. One should not expect that all watercourses could become this, however, it is an attainable goal to restore some watercourses to this level.

System Type II System Type II watercourses may have water flowing in them all year, or have standing pools of water when flow is lacking during the drier periods of the year or during periods of drought. The species found in this category are usually in many aquatic habitats, as they are more tolerant to habitat changes. All watercourses in this category are warmwater, which by definition means that they have an average temperature of 25 oC (or greater). These watercourses are generally fairly productive and diverse.

Remedial activities would enhance these watercourses. Habitat restoration and rehabilitation has the potential to elevate some watercourses to System Type II and a few others to System Type I.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-144

Table A5.1 Aquatic Categories Component Summary

System Type Components I II III Species at Risk Species with Federal and NA NA Provincial SAR status Fisheries Sportfish / top predators / With or without fish With or without fish when salmonids, sensitive and inundated with water (may indicatory species, their only be seasonally) surrogates/indicator species, and their habitat or spawning areas Species Indicator species sensitive Resilient to habitat Ephemeral to habitat alteration, alteration, disruption or disruption or destruction, destruction and cold/cool water Habitat Identified to support Supports species not - Seasonally supports Sportfish / top predators / identified in the first aquatic and semi-aquatic salmonids, sensitive and category species when wet. indicator species as well as Provides the life - Provides cover and SAR. requirements of aquatic corridors and food source species for terrestrial species Complex, natural, or diverse - Provides the life habitat requirements of aquatic and Supports significant areas semi-aquatic species that provide the life - Provides corridors for requirements of aquatic aquatic, semi-aquatic and species terrestrial species (i.e.: migratory species, spawning areas) MDC A, B, E , & D C F Classifications Thermal Warm, cold/cool Warm NA Regime Permanency Permanent, or if intermittent Permanent, or Intermittent or Ephemeral based on spawning areas or Standing/Pooled water critical habitat

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-145

Appendix 6: Dams and Barriers Year Dam ID Name Watercourse Dam Type Purpose Additional Comments Constructed Ducks Unlimited wetland Dam built to store water to create DU UT21-067 Trout Creek 1977 water storage / UTRCA Dam enhancement wetland. Brook trout know in this system. Earthen Tributary of Trout UT21-065 EHF1 Dam 1970 water storage berm dam with long impound. Outflow culvert Creek is also barrier. Perched outflow 0.3 m. Earthen dam with stop log structure and recreational pond. Kinsmen club maintains UT21-065 KC1 Dam Harrington Creek 1967 water storage dam. Pond closed for swimming in 1991; still used for boating. Harrington CA Dam breached in 1999. Work to restore dam UT21-059 Harrington Creek - water storage Dam and mill as historic site are ongoing. Max depth of pond is approx. 16 feet. Brook UT21-066 MB Dam Harrington Creek 1953 water storage trout present. Never breached or overflowed. Earthen berm dam with long impound. Tributary of Trout Outflow culvert is also barrier. Perched UT21-065 EHF2 Dam 1970 water storage Creek outflow 0.3 m. Brook trout known in this system. Earthen dam with stop log structure and recreational pond. Kinsmen club maintains UT21-065 KC2 Dam Harrington Creek 1967 water storage dam. Pond closed for swimming 1991; still used for boating. Tributary of Trout Stocked with rainbow trout. Reported that UT21-032 B Dam # 1 1954 water storage Creek fish were dying. Tributary of Trout Concerned over gravel deposition in spring UT21-031 M Dam 1961 water storage Creek time. Never stocked but fish present. Small earthen berm with piped outlet. Tributary of Trout UT27-405T VN Dam # 2 - water storage Stocked with rainbow trout. Good flow Creek leaving this impoundment.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-146

Year Dam ID Name Watercourse Dam Type Purpose Additional Comments Constructed Long earthen dam with large impound with Tributary of Trout UT27-070 VN Dam # 1 - water storage island. Stocked with rainbow trout. Very clear Creek water flowing through. Tributary of Trout Small dam and pond upstream of Barton UT21-301T B Dam # 2 1954 water storage Creek Dam # 1. No reason ("just because”) for the Tributary of Trout construction of pond. Pond is groundwater UT21-060 GN 1973 water storage Creek fed only. Has always overflowed. Stocked with small-mouthed bass. flood control, flood control, Wildwood CA UT21-044 Trout Creek 1965 flow flow Dam augmentation augmentation mill dam, flood Evidence of rebuild. Dam in very poor shape. UT21-034 St. Marys Dam N Thames River 1890 run of river control Likely to fail soon.

Appendix 3: Technical Background Summary for the Trout Creek Community-Based Watershed Strategy App3-147