The Lake Plan Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes Background Document

THE LAKE PLAN MALCOLM AND ARDOCH LAKES BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this document is for information purposes only. It has been collected from sources we believe to be reliable, but completeness and accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The Malcolm Ardoch Lake Landowners’ Association (MALLA) and its members are not liable for any errors or omissions in the data and for any loss or damage suffered based upon the contents herein.

Maps are provided only for general indications of position and are not designed for navigational purposes. Boaters and snowmobilers/all-terrain vehicles must take due care at all times on the lakes; users of the lakes are responsible for their own safety and well-being by making themselves aware of any hazards that may exist at any given time.

BACKGROUND

Preliminary work for the Lake Plan began in 2012 when the Malcolm Ardoch Lakes Association executive were asked for information related to the water quality of the two lakes. Some information was available through the Ministry of the Environment Lakes Partner Program due to the efforts of Ron Higgins for Malcolm and Ruth Cooper for Ardoch Lake who conducted water sampling to provide Secchi data. A second source was the five-year sampling rotation conducted by Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority. The implications of water quality and water levels initiated discussions about the need for consistent monitoring on the lakes.

A Committee was formed under the leadership of Ron Higgins and topics beyond water quality were identified. A land development proposal for Ardoch Lake became an urgent matter and the Lake Plan was delayed.

At the Malcolm Ardoch Lake Association Annual General Meeting in June 2013, there was renewed interest in the Lake Plan. Many from the original planning committee committed to contribute; all of these members are seasonal residents. No leader came forward at that time. MALLA executive intended to survey all land owners from the lakes to guide their efforts for the coming term. Thus, a decision about the Lake Plan was postponed until survey results were available.

In the spring of 2014 a Chair who was a permanent resident, was identified and planning began again. Meetings were concentrated between end of May and mid-October. All members use technology as a major communication device; much consultation is via e-mail; deadlines for tasks are set and the process proceeds.

THE LAKE PLAN

A lake plan is a strategic “living” document to identify and implement priority actions and recommendations for the watershed, the environment and the community. It requires the collective action of property owners, community lake users, and government agencies to be successfully implemented. Although it is not a legal document, it aims to influence the decision-makers who have the authority to protect our ecosystems.

At the time of writing, the updated North Frontenac Township Official Plan remains in draft form. In order that the lake plan is accepted by the municipality, public meetings would be required to change zoning by-laws. The lake plan is a multi-year process and will require ongoing updates and revisions.

The Stewardship Committee will prepare a two-part report: 1) A State of the Lake report which provides the scientific data collected; and 2) The Executive Summary which focuses upon priorities and recommended actions to be taken.

PURPOSE OF THE PLAN

The Lake Plan will:

Provide a resource document (a baseline for future comparisons) concerning the present lake capacity as defined by multiple factors such as water quality, social factors, fish and wildlife, recreational use, land use and aesthetics

Foster positive relationships with property owners

Use education to encourage lake users and public to respect and preserve the character of the lakes

Identify environmental concerns and provide recommendations for action

Aim to influence decision-makers to develop and maintain policies and programs that ensure the protection and enhancement of the great natural resources-our lakes.

iii

PRINCIPLES AND VALUES

A lake plan is designed to be a community plan that uses a process of consultation, collaboration and consensus building. Although the Stewardship Committee may facilitate the process, it belongs to all property owners and lake users from the community. It is not a legal document and is not designed to regulate or give authority to individuals. The power and influence of a lake plan comes only with self- regulation. Through education and communication with the public, the process can be open, transparent and meaningful. The main principle for its success is voluntary stewardship.

As expressed in the 2013 survey to property owners, the following are the key values identified:

Protection of the lake for future generations

Peace and tranquility

Precaution in the nature and degree of development around the lakes

Respect for the rights of property owners

An environmentally friendly lifestyle

Participation, collaboration and shared responsibility

TARGET AREAS OF THE LAKE PLAN:

1.0 Sense of Community

2.0 Water Quality and Water Levels

3.0 Fish and Fish Habitat

4.0 Natural Environment

5.0 Land Use and Development

6.0 Social and Recreational

7.0 Municipal Services

PARTNERS IN LAKE MANAGEMENT

The Stewardship Committee appreciated the expertise shared by partner organizations such as:

 Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority

 Township of North Frontenac

 Lake Partners Program of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment

 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

 North Frontenac Lake Association Alliance

 Watersheds Canada

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The preparation of this document would not have been possible without the assistance of staff members from Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority, Love-Your-Lake Team from Watersheds Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Federation.

Malcolm Ardoch Lakes Landowners’ Association wishes to thank those who made a financial contribution for the printing of the Lake Stewardship Plan.

MALCOLM/ARDOCH LAKE STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Brenda Martin, Chair John Cooper Ruth Cooper Mary Gessner Brian Palmer

Bernard Griswold Brian Schonauer

Consultants:

Alyson Symon, Mississippi Conservation Valley Authority (MVCA), watershed planner

Bob Garrett, retired Geologist (Geology section)

Andrea Lee, Mississippi Conservation Authority (MVCA), planner assistant

Erin MacDonald, Ministry Natural Resources and Forestry, biologist

Barbara King, Watersheds Canada

Emily Bacon, Love Your Lake Initiative

Township Rep: Gerry Martin (MALLA)

Pauline Bleeks, MALLA Webmaster

Zachary Baker (Junior Writer) for Wildlife Species at Risk and of Special Concern section

CONTRIBUTIONS

Roy and Sandy Burgess Dave and Sharon Byrd

Clarendon Miller Community Archives John and Ruth Cooper

Mary Graham Marlene Gray

Jeff Green Anne Hamilton

Ron Higgins Pat Jamieson

Lloyd Jones Don and Brenda Martin

Cathy and Trevor Owen Loretta Schonauer

Richard and Carolyn Waclawik Bob and Ina Watkins

Dan and Sheryl Weber Jack and Lois Weber

Dennis Weagant Jim Whitten

Justin and Sylvia Whitten

vii

ACRONYMS

MALLA Malcolm Ardoch Lakes Landowners’ Association

NFLAA North Frontenac Lake Associations Alliance

MVCA Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority

NFT North Frontenac Township

MNRF Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

DOF Department of Fisheries and Oceans

MOECC Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change

TP Total Phosphorous

DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon

EIS Environmental Impact Studies

PWQO Provincial Water Quality Objective

DSL Digital Subscriber Line

CRTC Canadian Radio Television & Telecommunications Commission

TDS Total Dissolved Solids a.s.l. Above sea level

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Malcolm Lake

1.2 Ardoch Lake

2.0 HISTORY OF SETTLEMENT

3.0 THE PHYSICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

3.1 The Lakes:

Ardoch Lake

Malcolm Lake

3.2 Water Quality

3.2.1 Phosphorus

3.2.2 Chlorophyll-a

3.2.3 Water Clarity

3.2.4 pH

3.2.5 Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen

3.2.6 Trophic Status Summaries

3.3 Water Level

3.3.1 History

3.3.2 Description

3.3.3 Dam Operations

3.4 Navigational Hazards

3.5 Physiography of the Lakes

3.6 Geology

3.7 The Shoreline

3.8 Environmentally Sensitive Areas

4.0 BIOLOGICAL FEATURES

4.1 Native Vegetation

4.2 Aquatic Plants

4.3 Fish and Their Habitat

4.4 Wildlife and Their Habitat

4.4.1 Wildlife Habits

4.4.2 Potential Threats to Wildlife & Their Habitats

4.4.3 Mammals

4.4.4 Insects

4.4.5 Birds

4.4.6 Reptiles and Amphibians

4.4.7 Species at Risk and of Special Concern

4.5 Invasive Species

5.0 TOURISM/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

5.1 Recreation

5.2 Services

6.0 NATURAL RESOURCES

6.1 Forest Resources

6.2 Mining

7.0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

7.1 Lake Capacity

7.2 Pollutants Associated with Residential Development

7.3 The Official Plan

7.4 North Frontenac Zoning By-laws

7.5 Land use and Development

8.0 CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT

APPENDICES

Bird Species Checklist

Plants

Ardoch and Malcolm Lakes Fishing Summaries

Identify Your Catch

2016 Dark Skies Events

North Frontenac Dark Sky Preserve Brochure

Boating Card

Septic Checklist

OTF Meeting Mar 2016 for Dr. Vermaire’s Research

Malcolm Aquatic Plant Mapping

LYL- Malcolm Lake Shoreline Assessment Summary Report (July 2016)

LYL- Ardoch Lake Shoreline Assessment Summary Report (July 2016)

List of Tables and Figures

REFERENCES

xi i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Malcolm Lake

Malcolm Lake, is located in Clarendon Township in North Frontenac township, 1.8 km south of the hamlet of Ardoch.

Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes (Photo courtesy of David Byrd)

The shoreline perimeter is approximately 14.6 kilometres with the lake being 3.1 km long and 1.7 km wide; the maximum depth is approximately 4.6 meters giving a surface area of approximately 2.1 square km. With an elevation of 253 meters above sea level, the lake runs southwest to northeast with the water source being Ardoch Lake to the east and drainage northwest into the Mississippi River west of Mud Lake. There is a dam owned by Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry, situated at Malcolm Lake's outlet in the northeast corner.

In 2015, there were 104 assessed properties on Malcolm Lake.

There are several Crown Land islands; no township campsites have been assigned at the time of

1 reporting.

There is a single public boat launch near the culvert linking Malcolm and Ardoch waters.

1.2 Ardoch Lake

Ardoch Lake, with an elevation of 282 metres above sea level, is situated directly upstream of Malcolm Lake flowing east to west. Since the lakes are joined, they respond to fluctuations in water level and water quality as one lake. Mountenay, G. 2001. Mississippi Valley Conservation. Malcolm Lake Dam Operating Guidelines, (6p.); p.4. The shoreline perimeter for Ardoch Lake is approximately 5.8 kilometres with the lake being 1.9 km long and 1.0 km wide; the maximum depth is approximately 17.4 metres giving a surface area of 0.9 square km. In 2015, there were 18 assessed properties on Ardoch Lake.

Ardoch Lake (Photo courtesy of Brenda Martin)

2.0 HISTORY OF SETTLEMENT

A more comprehensive report is available in the book History of The Lakes: Malcolm and Ardoch (2015). This book documents the family histories of early settlers with many photos and stories. The expansion of the settlement at Ardoch is described in terms of services such as medical, mail, telephone, churches, and schools as they became available. A section is devoted to "Social Life" with activities and places noted through photos as well as text. The section entitled "Businesses" describes businesses big and small that made a contribution to the community. The community was built around the lumbering industry with numerous other tangent businesses. Read about: sawmills; the cheese factory; blacksmith shops; flour and gristmill; tanning hides; Ardoch General Store; boarding houses; Malcolm Lake Trailer Park; fishing guides; Camp Alnic; garages; Ed's Place; Weber's Housekeeping cottages; and the only one still in operation - Schonauer Bros Logging.

Archives show that Thomas Prendergast was living on a specific lot in Clarendon, near Fernleigh, in 1836. There were no roads in the area before 1859 implying that travellers had to enter by water or via trails through the forests. Even without the land transport, lumbermen and squatters were in the area around the east end of Kashawakamak Lake (Long Lake) in the 1840's. Since specific lots and concessions were on record, a surveyor and his crew must have travelled the district prior to 1836. It is known that the Algonquins occupied the land for according to C.A. Armstrong in his writing of Away Back in Clarendon and Miller (1976) there were records in the hunting, fishing and other natural resource harvesting prior to European arrival.

Ottawa River and its tributaries were surveyed by R. Bell in 1846. Timber limits or grants were surveyed in twenty-five mile square blocks. Individual limits ran five miles along either side of the Mississippi and back five miles from these rivers. For the Mississippi River, Harper in 1847 surveyed the timber limits. He reported no lumbering activities above the Palmerston /Clarendon boundary and stated that the Mississippi River was unsuitable for river driving because of the perpendicular falls from fifteen to thirty feet high. Limits along the Mississippi in Clarendon were granted to D.M. McMartin, Joseph Porteous and Ed McKay in 1847. Alan Gilmour had these limits in the 1850's and sold them to Gillie and McLaren in 1866.

Lumbermen were active south of the Madawaska River and along the Mississippi River system between 1840- 1860. They were dependent on water transport for the movement of their equipment and supplies but must have had oxen and/or horses to move their timber to water. A settlement of squatters, probably shantymen moved their families into the bush near the east end of Kashawakamak Lake in the 1840's. (Haskell operated a steamboat on Kashawakamak to provide transportation for men and equipment prior to moving to Ardoch in the 1870's.)

Timber was the source of work; there were many dangerous aspects to the job. Long squared timber was transported to the water's edge by loading it on a horse-drawn (or oxen) sleigh or jumper and dragging the other end. The jumper was replaced by sleighs, ox-cart, wagon and then modern vehicles.

With timbers piled along the shorelines during the winter, the next step was to roll them into the water during the spring flood and float them to market. For squared timber it meant floating them all the way to Quebec City for shipment to the shipyards in England. For saw logs they were floated to a saw mill. Before freeze-up in the fall obstructions along the rivers and streams were cleared. In case of rapids where large rocks might create a jam, dams were built. A chute or canal was built through the dam at a point which directed timbers into the clearest channel downstream. Most of the streams had rapid flow including the outlet into the Mississippi River at Ardoch which dropped about one hundred feet from the source at Buckshot Lake. McLaren built improvements along the Mississippi River and believed that he had the rights to making rules and regulations. Boyd Caldwell expected to use the Buckshot Creek and Mississippi River to float his cut. Not all incidents ended peacefully.

When ice was gone out of the lakes and water was at its highest, the log drive began. The shantymen and Natives proved to be the most skilled at this dangerous step. It required strength, agility and fortitude. Henry and Zeb Mitchell and Dick Perry (natives) were reputed to be the best at riding the logs and crossing water. A fall could mean drowning or being crushed by the logs. Critical spots were at the dams; men were on duty twenty-four hours to ensure no logs got crosswise.

From 1840-1880's there was a market for squared timber for the shipyards of England. The pine forests of mature trees in the Ardoch area were very suitable. The market for this kind of timber continued until sometime in the 1880's until steel plates replaced wooden timbers in the construction of ships. What did open up was a market for saw logs. In addition to pine, other evergreens were used and cedar was taken for shingles. During the 1870's railway ties were added to the market. These could be cut to the desired length and flattened on two sides while still in the bush. Hemlock, cedar and tamarack were species used for these ties.

After settlers started moving into the area in the 1860's grants included a proviso that lots in the block where settlers were to be located, should be excluded and that timber on those lots would be reserved for settler use. In 1871 the method of defining limits by individual lots was adopted in Clarendon. Records indicate that the original survey of lots in Clarendon as follows: Lots along the Frontenac Road to T.F. Gibbs, in 1859; and in the township of Clarendon to J. Snow in 1862. Gibbs surveyed lots on both

4 sides of the road designating lots on one side as South-West Range and the other side as North-East Range lots. However, he ignored some concession lines and lots had great variation in size. By March 1, 1858 Gibbs reported to have 90 000 acres of land available for settlement along Frontenac Road. (A further survey in 1862 made by J. Snow showed only a map where he scaled out the water and recorded the acreage of all lots.)

Commencing about 1900 small sawmills were an expansion to the industry. Through the years, mills were owned by: Bramwell Watkins, William Fischer, Jack Breen, David O'Mell, Gordon Jones, Amos Storey, James Derue, Charlie Dennie and Schonauer Brothers. The lumber was sawn and piled to dry, then drawn by sleigh in the winter to the railway at Clarendon Station. Chandler and Jones built what was reputed to be the largest sawmill in Ontario at Ardoch in 1909. This started the movement to hardwoods from the area to market. Hardwoods were floated to Ardoch and pulled out of the water. Softwoods were floated on downstream to reach a mill at Arnprior. Forests that had been cut in the 1840's were again cut for different species of trees. The last drive down the Mississippi River was driven by foreman, Lorne McDonald of Ardoch in 1921. The Chandler and Jones Mill was sold to Armitage and burned down September 6, 1924.

Lumber pile at James Derue's sawmill; see the roof top of Ardoch S.S. #3 School in the background.

Charlie Dennie’s mill at Walter Myer’s farm

One family has maintained their livelihood through the lumber business: Schonauer Bros Logging. Unofficially the business started when George Schonauer and his nephew, Roy Schonauer logged in the late 1940s. Even though they were not “brothers”, the community called them the “Schonauer Brothers”.

George and Loretta (Myer) were no strangers to logging; their parents were involved in lumbering years before. Loretta's parents were Walter Myer and Pearl (Delyea). Their farm was on the Smith Road where they got their logs sawn into lumber with Charlie Dennie's portable mill. Supplies of lumber were available from Myer's farm.

The actual business began in 1980 with George's son, when Morris took a contract to cut off Woodchuck Hill. Next Phil joined; then Carl and Randy. These brothers continue to have the business today.

George, Carl and Morris at Woodchuck Hill in 1980

Early Settlers:

The Watkins and Henderson families were the first permanent settlers in the area. Dave Henderson (1800) and his wife Elizabeth (1800) located first at Coxvale in 1860. They did not stay long but moved to Ardoch where they lived with their son, John. John and his sister had settled in Ardoch in 1860 on the site that became the village of Ardoch. When David died (by 1871) his wife lived with John who remained single. His parents were buried in unmarked graves on his homestead within the village. The daughter moved to Kingston area. When John died a nephew came back to claim the body and take it to Wolfe Island for burial. The Hendersons did not have an extended history in Ardoch.

The Watkins settled at Malcolm Lake in 1860 and descendants continue to live on the homestead sites. Nathaniel (1806-1863) the founder of the Watkins family was born in Monmouthshire, South Wales. He married Anna (18001863). When Nathaniel grew up he was ordained as a minister in the Church of England. He arrived at Crosby northeast of Kingston in 1844, via Washington, D.C. and Albany, New York where his oldest son, Bramwell was born in 1832.The family included a daughter who moved back to New York State and five boys: Bramwell (1833-1901); Piere (1835-1862); Sharp (1860) Delaney (1838-1861) and Nathaniel (1840). Nathaniel Senior died in 1857 and Bram became the head of the family. In 1833 Bramwell married a widow, Mary Alexander (1839-1866) of Cataraqui after which they moved to the township of Clarendon in 1859. He was accompanied by his Mother and four brothers. They all settled into the area at Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes.

During the first four years of pioneer life, he buried and mourned the loss of his wife, one child, his Mother and three brothers. Sharp and Delaney drowned in separate incidents; Piere died of diphtheria. Bram and Mary had five surviving children when she passed away. He then married Maria Watson of Portland in 1866. They had six children together before she passed away in 1879. He remained a widower for two years then remarried the local school teacher whom he hired, Jane O'Shea. Bram and Jane had three children; Jane died giving birth for Sharp, their third child. Bram was the Father of a very large family, many of whom stayed in the area.

In politics Bramwell was a staunch Conservative. He was the first to organize The Board in Council of Clarendon in which he was reeve for seventeen years. He was County Warden in 1879 and had the honour of reading the County's address to Princess Louise upon her visit to Kingston.

Robert (son of Bram) on right , wife Collie o n left , Guy ( grandson of Bramwell) and Evelyn Watkins in the middle leaving milk can f or pickup for the cheese factory

The Big House or White House

Bramwell was responsible for bringing many settlers into the area. Many found lodging at his house near the corner to Ardoch (Green) Lake Road. When this house burnt down Bram built another at the east end of the lake. This second house "the White House" or "Big House" as the neighbours called it, was big enough for his family and workers from the saw mill. On occasion Sir John A. MacDonald stayed overnight while attending to business with Bramwell. (Great-grandson, Bob Watkins and Ina lived here until 2002, then put a prefab on the lot.)

Jas. MacPherson, The Crown Land Agent, in his 1864 report, credited Bramwell for knowing the relative values of lots that were available for settlement, advising them where to locate and directing them to the lots recommended.

As part of his reeve responsibilities, Bramwell was to supervise school construction and hiring of a teacher. In the Ardoch area a patent was issued (1869) for a school, Ardoch S.S. #1 near William Hermer's residence. The school was in operation prior to this in 1867; records show Emily Knowlton was the teacher in 1868. The next school was S.S. #3 Ardoch built on the Smith Road.

Ardoch S.S. #3 newspaper article

Other descendants of the Watkins are: McDonald and Hamilton families. Members of the McDonald family owned McDonald Boarding House and cottages and the Ardoch General Store at one time.

Other early settlers were German families such as the Schonauers and Schwagers who arrived in the Ardoch area by 1860. Joseph (1833-1920) married Mary Ann Schwager (1837-1906); John (1831) married Annie Forhere (1832-1886); Mary Ann Schonauer (1841-1900). John and Annie had eight children. Joseph and Mary Ann had eight children (who lived).

Schonauer family members married members of the Myer and Hermer families. Descendants of these families continue to live in the Malcolm and Ardoch Lake area.

George Hermer and Rose Schonauer (daughter of Joseph Schonauer Senior) seated with children, Herman on the left, Rosalie in centre, and Sylvester at right. In the back row (left to right) William, Victor, Herbert, Frederick, Charles

Members of the Derue family had significant ties to the community. James and Margaret Derue had four children: Margaret Eleanor (1885-1952) who married Robert Munro (1876-1956); James (Jim) Daniel (1892-1965) who married Elsie Schultz (1893); Christena Agnes (1894-1968) who married Robert Martin (1899-1962); and William Alexander (1899-) who married "Nellie" Pawson (1904-). James (Jim) Daniel Derue owned many businesses in Ardoch: Ardoch General Store; a saw mill; the cheese factory; flour and gristmill; as well as operating the post office.

Men at Jim Derue's sawmill: George Schonauer, Nick Weber, Mort Schonauer, Ronnie Myer, Howard Hermer Front: Jim Derue, Wilfred Jeannerett, John Millar, Bill Hermer, Charlie Hermer, Edmund Weber

Ardoch General Store, Jim Derue owner (Photo courtesy of Sue Martin)

The Ardoch Cheese Factory ceased operation in late 1930s. The last cheesemaker was Frank Cassidy. (Photo courtesy of Clarendon-Miller Community Archives)

Lumber camp early 1900s-Martin Farm

Christena Agnes Derue married Robert Martin and operated the Fernleigh General Store and post office. The Derue homestead originally was a lumber camp in the 1800's prior to them living there. The Derue's had a farm that extended along the Mississippi River at Farm Lake. (Presently this is the Martin farm). Descendants of the Derues are Munro and Martin families; Martins continue to live in the Ardoch area.

Derue Homestead- Martin Farm (Photo courtesy of Brenda Martin)

The early pioneers converted a large part of the area into farming communities. It was hard to make a living with short seasons; most crops were raised as food for the table or bartering. Horses and oxen were used for labour purposes. Fields were generally too small and arable land was not sufficiently concentrated to make present day farming profitable. Families who continue to farm are: Webers and Hermers.

Other early settlers were the Hamilton and Smiths. Mrs. George Hamilton was Mother of Geordie who married Mary Smith (1866-1956) in 1890. Geordie worked for lumber companies in the area. He had two homesteading lots along the Smith Road which is still called "The Hamilton Place". During the 1920's they moved to New York for a time, returning in later years.

George and Mary Hamilton with Hazel, Roy and Rowland on Hamilton homestead (about 1902) (Photo courtesy of Anne Hamilton)

Smith Farm

Mrs. John Smith Senior (Janie Connors) came to Canada from Ireland with four sons and a daughter. Her husband was an Englishman reputed to have been disinherited for marrying an Irish girl. He was to follow her to Canada but never arrived. The daughter, Elizabeth married George Munro and they moved to Chicago. She visited the farm in Ardoch frequently. William H. Smith married Bridget and they took up residence in the Kingston area but built a house on the brother's farm on the Smith Road. Charles Elliott Smith Senior (1843-1913) married Elizabeth Tyner (1845-1922) and moved to Ardoch about 1868. They experienced normal pioneer hardships with their six children on the homestead along the Smith Road. Their farm was in the family until recent years.

The Weber family, (John) George (1823-1910) and his wife Annie Mary Schwager (1831-1918) arrived from Bavarian section of Germany in the late 1860’s. They settled near Winchester where older members of the family were born before moving to the Ardoch/ Fernleigh.

Gary Weber Farm still in operation (Photo courtesy of Brenda Martin)

Their children were: Michael (1858-1925) married Margaret Kelly (1863-1944); Catherine (1861-1949) married William J. Fraser; John (1862-1898); George (1866-1947) married Margaret Schwager (1875-1948); Alois (18681962) married Theresa Weiss (1885-1967); Rose (1873-1937) married Henry Gunsinger; Joseph (1870-1876).

Michael and Margaret’s family: Michael George known as M.G. and his brother were killed in a car accident in 1936. A daughter, Florence married Andrew Myer.

George and Ann Margaret’s family: John, a river driver, drowned in the Madawaska River at Colton in May, 1924; Nick (Rachel Jeannerett); Phyllis (Mrs. Wifred Jeannerett); Edmund (Florence Cox); Victoria (Mrs. Thomas Kirkham); Noela (Mrs. Earl Kirkham); Melchoir (Anita Flemming); Fergus (Hazel Wood) and Martina (Mrs. Joseph Schonauer).

Edmund and Florence raised their family on the farm where the present airstrip is located.

Nick and Rachel lived in the village of Ardoch close to Jack and Lois’ present house; they also owned housekeeping cottages on Malcolm Lake.

Original Weber homestead in Ardoch (Photo courtesy of Jack and Lois Weber)

Other descendants of the Webers are Jeannerett and Hermer.

Social life was an important part of building community. The settlers had long hard-working days. Social life revolved around helping neighbours to build barns or shelters, make quilts, church events like picnics, weddings and funerals, and sitting around the store benches to catch up on the local gossip. Food and music accompanied most aspects of social life.

3.0 THE PHYSICAL AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

3.1 The Lakes

Ardoch and Malcolm Lakes are located in the former Township of Clarendon, in the Municipality of North Frontenac, Frontenac County, Ontario. Ardoch Lake is located about 3.5 km east of the town of Ardoch and 48.5 km west of Perth and Malcolm is approximately 1.8 km south of Ardoch and 51.5 km west of Perth.

Ardoch Lake is directly upstream of Malcolm Lake, which drains northwest into the Mississippi River slightly west of Little Mud Lake.

Little Mud Lake is a small body of water located about half way along the river joining Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes.

Channel from drone (Photo courtesy of Justin Whitten)

Physically, the lakes run southwest to northeast, with Malcolm being the larger of the two. Ardoch is 1.9 km long and 1.0 km wide at its broadest point, while Malcolm is 3.1 km long and 1.7 km wide. Characteristics of Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes are summarized in Table 1 below.

The lakes flow east to west with Ardoch flowing into Malcolm from the southeast corner. Owing to the fact that Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes are joined, they respond to fluctuations in water level and water quality as one lake. There is a water control dam situated at Malcolm Lake’s outlet in the most northern point of the lake. The dam is owned by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and operated by the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority. Weekly lake levels are recorded by a gauge installed at this location. Water level information is presented in Section 3.0 of this report.

Table 1: Characteristics of Ardoch Lake and Malcolm Lake Characteristic Ardoch Malcolm Shoreline (Perimeter) 5.8 km 14.6 km Surface Area 0.9 km2 2.1 km2 Drainage Area 6.7 km2 18.7 km2 Elevation 282 m a.s.l. 253 m a.s.l. Maximum Depth 17.4 m 4.6 m Assessed Lakefront Properties (as of 2012) 20 107 Length 1.9 km 3.1 km Width 1.0 km 1.7 km Common Fish Northern Pike, Bass, Walleye, Yellow Perch Flushing Rate Low N/A Average depth 7.6 m 2.2 m

3.2. Water Quality

*The water quality sponsors for 2016 are six local businesses. Please see acknowledgment section for details.

Water quality monitoring first took place on Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes in the 1970’s through the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) Recreational Lakes Program, which ran from 1971 to 1987. More recent measurements were obtained through two separate programs: the MOECC’s Lake Partner Program, through which volunteers sample the lake once each year; and the MVCA Watershed Watch program, through which sampling and analysis are undertaken three times per year on a 5-year rotation. For this program, Ardoch Lake and Malcolm Lake both have one Watershed Watch sampling station situated at the deepest point on each lake. Commencing in 2016 the Lake Partners Program out of Dorset has expanded to water testing each month.

In addition, because of a proposed residential development on the southern lakefront of Ardoch Lake, MVCA also undertook sampling in 2012 and 2013, ahead of the 2014-scheduled sampling, in order to acquire more data for assessing studies related to the proposed development

Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) uses four key parameters to monitor a lake’s water quality: water clarity, total phosphorus level (µg/L), chlorophyll-a concentration (µg/L), and pH level. The total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, and water clarity measurements can be used to determine a lake’s trophic status – a measure of its biological productivity (see Table 2: Lake Trophic Status Classification). The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) also sets Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) for these parameters with the goal to ensure that the surface water quality is satisfactory for aquatic life and recreation.

Table 2: Lake Trophic Status Classification* Trophic Description Total Chlorophyll-a Secchi Status Phosphorus (µg/L) Disc (µg/L) Depth (m) Oligotrophic -Low nutrient levels, limited biological productivity < 10 µg/L < 2 µg/L – low > 5 m -Water often clear and cold with sufficient oxygen algal density levels in entire water column throughout the year -Often supports cool to cold water fisheries Mesotrophic -Moderate nutrient levels resulting in greater 10 to 20 µg/L 2 to 4 µg/L – 3.0 to 4.9 biological productivity moderate algal m -Water often less clear with greater probability of density lower oxygen levels in lower water columns -Often supports cold to warm water fisheries due to variable range of nutrients Eutrophic -Enriched, with high nutrient concentrations > 20 µg/L > 4 µg/L – high < 2.9 m -Poor water clarity, especially in summer months algal density when algal and plant growth peaks -Oxygen levels greatly reduced in lower water columns throughout the year due to excessive decomposition of aquatic flora -Often supports warm water fisheries *(Source: Mississippi Lake Today – DRAFT, 2.3 Trends; Table 3: Lake Trophic Status Classification Parameters, May 2014; p.11)

Since phosphorus is the element that controls the growth of algae in most Ontario lakes, Total Phosphorus (TP) concentration is the key parameter used to interpret lake trophic (nutrient) status. Higher amounts of phosphorus (nutrients) promote increased growth of aquatic vegetation (macrophytes / “weeds” and algae). By stimulating algal growth, increases in phosphorus can decrease water clarity. In extreme cases, algal blooms will affect the aesthetics of the lake and/or cause taste and odour problems in the water.

As outlined in Table 2, lakes with TP levels less than 10 µg/L are considered oligotrophic. Oligotrophic lakes are described as dilute, unproductive lakes that rarely experience nuisance algal blooms. Lakes with TP between 10 and 20 µg/L are classified as mesotrophic and are in the middle with respect to trophic status. These lakes show a broad range of characteristics and can be clear and unproductive at the bottom end of the scale or susceptible to moderate algal blooms at TP concentrations near 20 µg/L. Lakes with TP levels that are greater than 20 µg/L are classified as eutrophic and may exhibit persistent, nuisance algal blooms. Based on this, the interim PWQO for the average phosphorus concentration during the ice free season of a lake has been set at 20 µg/L. This level was chosen to avoid nuisance concentrations of algae. When phosphorus levels exceed 20 µg/L the lake may experience increased growth of aquatic vegetation and algae to levels that could result in oxygen depletion and accelerated eutrophication (Source: MOECC, December 2013)

3.2.1 Phosphorus

Phosphorus is a natural part of our environment and is considered to be the limiting nutrient in regard to plant and algae growth. This makes it a very important component in tracking water quality and assessing the Lake turnover explained: condition of the lake to determine the type of habitat it Lake turnover is related to how water supports. As explained above, Total Phosphorus (TP) is used as density varies with water a key indicator of the overall water quality of a lake. temperature. Water is most dense Ardoch Lake (heaviest) at 4º C and as temperature increases or decreases from 4º C, it The earliest records of total phosphorus (TP) for Ardoch Lake becomes increasingly less dense date back to 1976 and 1980 when the MOECC undertook (lighter). sampling through their Recreational Lakes Program. The average TP in 1976 was 16 µg/L, and in 1980 it was 12.4 µg/L, During the summer most lakes placing it within the mesotrophic range. Sampling for TP in become “stratified” into layers of Ardoch Lake didn’t take place again until 2004 after the MOECC different water temperature: the Recreational Lakes Program was reformatted to the Lake sun warms the top layer (Epilimnion), Partners Program. After that Ardoch Lake was sampled again but the bottom layer (Hypolimnion), in 2010 from which time the lake has been sampled annually. It unable to receive the sun’s radiation, should be noted that in 2002 the MOECC changed the remains cold. In the fall, the laboratory methodology used for analyzing the water samples. Epilimnion begins to cool as air In 2003 they also started filtering the samples to remove large temperatures decline. As the water in zooplankton which can add disproportionate amounts of TP to the upper layer cools it gets denser the sample. It is suspected that some higher TP levels which causes it to sink and as it sinks measured prior to 2003 may be attributed to these differences it forces the Hypolimnion to rise in its in sampling and analysis methodologies. For that reason, the place. The sinking action and mixing pre-2003 data are used only as a general indicator of former of the water by the wind results in the water quality but are not included in the analysis of data exchange of surface and bottom collected since that time. waters which is called "turnover".

The Lake Partner Program sampling is done by volunteers once Winter stratification occurs in reverse a year in May in order to determine the internal load of total – warmer water at the bottom, colder phosphorus concentrations before the lake has “turned over”. water at the top – and leads to spring Lake turnover is a process where layers of water with noted turnover. Therefore, in the spring and temperature differences begin to mix together and the water the fall, phosphorus held at the and debris that has been sitting at the bottom of the lake bottom of the lake gets mixed with begins to mix with the layers of water above. water in the upper euphotic zone.

This causes phosphorus held in the bottom zone to be mixed This describes the general principle; into the water of the upper euphotic zone. The euphotic however, other factors (including zone is the layer closer to the surface that receives enough climate and lake depth variations) can light for photosynthesis to occur, allowing algae and plant cause certain lakes to act differently.

19 growth to take place. The intent of sampling in May is to obtain a sample that represents the lake after winter’s conditions when there has been minimal growth and nutrient uptake by plants. This provides a value for the background phosphorus concentration before the spring turnover and the start of the growing season.

Figure 1 shows the results of the Lake Partner Program spring sampling of the euphotic zone in Ardoch Lake from 2004 to 2014. The green highlighted area represents the range of total phosphorus concentrations for mesotrophic lakes (TP 10 and 20 µg/L) and the blue area represents the oligotrophic range (TP < 10 µg/L). With the TP levels falling well within the oligotrophic range, the eutrophic range of TP levels greater than 20 µg/L is not shown on the graph.

In 2004, the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) Watershed Watch Program also started sampling on Ardoch Lake. The Watershed Watch program monitors lakes on a five-year rotation, sampling Ardoch Lake in 2004, 2009 and 2014. The Watershed Watch Program samples three times per sampling year to represent the lake conditions prior to spring turnover (May), in the summer (July or August) and lastly before fall turnover (end of August or early September) when the lake would be at its most productive.

Water samples are collected in both the euphotic zone (upper part of the lake) and one metre off the lake bed. The euphotic zone is measured as twice the secchi depth and represents the surface waters of the lake where sunlight can penetrate and algae growth can occur. As the ice free season progresses into summer this zone becomes affected by temperature stratification making it a sunny, warm and highly productive environment for aquatic plants and algae to grow and use nutrients such as phosphorus.

Figure 1: Spring Total Phosphorus Results for Ardoc Lake Euphotic Zone, 2004 to 2014

Ardoch Lake - Euphotic Zone Spring Total Phosphorus Levels

18 16 Data from Lake Partner Program 14 12 10 8 6 4

Total Phosphorus (ug/L) Phosphorus Total 2 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Mesotrophic Oligotrophic Phosphorus Level

The samples taken from near the bottom of the lake are intended to provide an indication of the internal nutrient enrichment of the lake. Bottom phosphorus concentrations can be significantly higher than surface water concentrations particularly later in the year as organic matter settles to the bottom, is decomposed, and the nutrients are released. This load provides a continuous supply of phosphorus during the peak growing season when flows into the lake are usually at their lowest and the amount of sunshine is at its highest.

Figure 2 presents the total phosphorus concentrations in the euphotic zone for the 3 annual spring, summer and fall Watershed Watch samples taken on Ardoch Lake. It shows that while there is some variability between the three seasons over the sample years, the TP concentrations are primarily in the oligotrophic and low mesotrophic range. In the Spring of 2014, a TP concentration of 20 µg/L, at the low end of the eutrophic range (area highlighted in orange), may mean that the spring turnover had occurred just prior to the sampling. It could have also resulted from higher amounts of nutrients being flushed into the lake during the spring runoff, or it could represent a sampling or lab error. The considerably lower TP concentration later that year suggests it may have been an anomaly in the sampling.

Figure 2: Spring, Summer and Fall Total Phosphorus Concentration in Euphotic Zone for Ardoch Lake

Ardoch Lake - Euphotic Zone Spring Summer and Fall Total Phosphorus Levels (µg/L) 22 20 18 Data from Watershed Watch 16 14 12 10 8 6 4

Total Phosphorus (ug/L) Phosphorus Total 2 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Eutrophic Mesotrophic Oligotrophic Spring Euphotic Summer Euphotic Fall Euphotic

Figure 3 shows the total phosphorus concentrations one metre off the lake bottom for the 3 annual Watershed Watch samples taken on Ardoch Lake since 2004. It shows the changes in lake bed phosphorus concentrations between spring, summer and fall for the years that sampling took place. As expected the levels are generally substantially higher in the fall as the result of the buildup of nutrients throughout the summer.

Figure 3: Ardoch Lake Total Phosphorus One Metre off the Lake Bottom

Ardoch Lake - Total Phosphorus 1 Metre off Bottom Spring, Summer and Fall 60 Data from Watershed Watch Program 50 40 30 20 10

Total Phosphorus (ug/L) Phosphorus Total 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Spring Summer Fall

Malcolm Lake

The earliest record for total phosphorus (TP) levels on Malcolm Lake dates back to 1976 when the MOECC undertook sampling through their Recreational Lakes Program. The average TP in 1976 was 10 µg/L placing it at the top of oligotrophic range. MOECC sampling for total phosphorus in Malcolm Lake didn’t take place again until 2004 after the Recreational Lakes Program was reformatted to the Lake Partners Program. After that Malcolm Lake was sampled again in 2008, 2010 and 2011.

Figure 4 shows the results of the spring sampling of the euphotic zone, from the Lake Partner Program data collected for 2004 to 2014. The blue area represents the oligotrophic range (TP < 10 µg/L; the green highlighted area represents the range of total phosphorus concentrations for mesotrophic lakes (TP between 10 and 20 µg/L. With the TP levels falling well within the Oligotrophic range, the eutrophic range of TP levels greater than 20 µg/L is not shown on the graph.

In 2004, the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) Watershed Watch Program also started sampling on Malcolm Lake under its five-year rotation, sampling the lake in 2004, 2009 and 2014. The lake is sampled three times per sampling year to represent the lake conditions prior to spring turnover (May), summer (July or August) and lastly before fall turn over (end of August or early September) when the lake would be at its most productive.

Figure 4: Spring Total Phosphorus Results for Malcolm Lake Euphotic Zone up to 2014

Malcolm Lake - Spring Total Phosphorus Levels Euphotic Zone 12 data from Lake Partner Program 10

2 Phosphorus Level (µg/L) LevelPhosphorus 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012*† 2013 2014 Mesotrophic Oligotrophic Phosphorus Level

As described under the results for Ardoch Lake, water samples are collected at each site in both the euphotic zone (upper part of the lake) and 1 metre off the lake bed. The total phosphorus concentrations, in the euphotic zone for the 3 annual (spring, summer and fall) Watershed Watch samples taken on Malcolm Lake are shown in Figure 5. It shows that while there is some variability over the sample years, the average euphotic zone TP concentrations fall mostly within the oligotrophic range of less than 10 µg/L shown as the blue area on the graph. Higher TP Levels were measure in the spring of 2004 and the spring of 2009 where at 21 µg/L it fell within the eutrophic range (orange area on graph). In 2014 the euphotic zone TP levels were within the oligotrophic and low mesotrophic range.

Figure 5: Spring, Summer and Fall Total Phosphorus Concentration in Euphotic Zone for Malcolm Lake

Malcolm Lake Total Phosphorus Euphotic Zone, Spring, Summer & Fall

20 Data from Watershed Watch Program, 5 Year Rotation 15

Phosphorus Level (µg/L) Level Phosphorus 0 2004 2009 2014 Eutrophic Mesotrophic Oligotrophic Spring Summer Fall

Figure 6 shows the total phosphorus concentrations 1 metre off the lake bottom for the 3 annual (spring, summer and fall) Watershed Watch samples taken on Malcolm Lake. The available data from 2004 to 2014 (noting that data for Spring 2004 and Fall 2009 are not available) are not showing the higher levels in the fall that we would normally expect. This may have something to do with the shallowness and flushing rates in the lake. It is likely that because it is shallow Malcolm Lake warms up more evenly throughout the entire water column and doesn’t stratify or experience the spring and fall lake turnover that takes place in other deeper lakes. This would change the way nutrients such as phosphorus mix and settle within the lake.

Figure 6: Malcolm Lake Total Phosphorus One Metre off the Lake Bottom

Malcolm Lake - Total Phosphorus 1 Metre Off Lake Bed 35 30 Spring Summer Fall 25 20 15 10 5 Phosphorus Level (µg/L) Level Phosphorus 0 2004 2009 2014

Discussion

There are several variables that affect phosphorus concentrations in lakes. For instance, there was some inconsistency in the frequency and timing of the sampling each year, which may have influenced the variability of the results. The spring samples may have been taken after spring turnover had already occurred. Phosphorus concentrations can also be influenced by a number of variables including weather related factors such as the rate of snow melt, the frequency of rainfall events in its large upstream catchment area, or a flood event which could each contribute nutrients and sediments from the terrestrial environment to the lake. Other influencing factors include land use, the implementation of stewardship activities, or septic improvements.

Overall Ardoch Lake shows phosphorus levels that have generally stayed within the oligotrophic and low mesotrophic range. The bottom Total Phosphorus levels exhibit the expected increase in the fall, following the build-up of nutrients that have settled on the lake bottom throughout the summer season. Malcolm Lake also shows phosphorus levels that have generally stayed within the oligotrophic and low mesotrophic range. The bottom Total Phosphorus levels are less consistent which is likely due to the shallowness of the lake preventing usual stratification and lake turnover.

3.2.2 Chlorophyll-a

Chlorophyll-a is the green pigment found in algae and aquatic plants that is used for photosynthesis. Chlorophyll-a concentration is used to measure the abundance of algae and potential plant growth in a lake and is therefore directly related to the amount of available nutrients, i.e. phosphorus. Chlorophyll-a and phosphorus are causatively linked to water clarity, i.e. Secchi depth. A higher concentration of phosphorus means more nutrients, which means more chlorophyll-a and algae, leading to decreased water clarity. Also, more phytoplankton and algae means more suspended particles and the scattering of light rays as they penetrate the water column. High concentrations of algae and vegetation can also cause oxygen depletion in the lake. As algae and vegetation decompose, they sink to the bottom of the lake and consume the available dissolved oxygen making it less suitable for fish habitat.

Ardoch Lake

Figure 7 shows the spring, summer and fall chlorophyll-a levels measured by the Watershed Watch program since 2004. It shows considerable variation in chlorophyll-a levels both between seasons and between years. The levels tend to be higher in the spring, falling mostly within the low eutrophic range (orange area) and mesotrophic range (green area). The summer and fall levels fall mostly within the oligotrophic and low mesotrophic range. This is contrary to what we would normally expect where, as the summer progresses, we would expect higher chlorophyll-a levels from increased algae and plant growth. The 2009 average chlorophyll-a measurements are comparably higher than the other sample years, falling within the mesotrophic and lower eutrophic range. With no obvious trends emerging from the limited available data it would be beneficial to undertake more frequent monitoring to properly assess changes in chlorophyll-a levels from season to season and year to year.

Figure 7: Ardoch Lake Annual Mean Chlorophyll-a Levels

Ardoch Lake Spring, Summer and Fall Chlorophyll-a Levels (µg/L) 5 4.5 4 Data from Watershed Watch 3.5 Program

(µg/L) a a

- 2.5 2 1.5

1 Chlorophyll 0.5 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Eutrophic Mesotrophic Oligotrophic Spring Summer Fall

Malcolm Lake

Figure 8 displays the spring, summer and fall chlorophyll-a levels measured by the Watershed Watch program on the regular five-year monitoring cycle in 2004, 2009 and 2014. Given the limited amount of data it is difficult to confirm any obvious trends in chlorophyll-a levels. Overall, the levels fall within the oligotrophic and mesotrophic ranges and were higher in the fall in 2004 and 2009 as we would expect.

Figure 8: Malcolm Lake Spring, Summer and Fall Chlorophyll-a Levels

Malcolm Lake - Spring, Summer and Fall Chlorophyll-a Levels (µg/L)

4 3.5 Data from Watershed Watch Program 3

(µg/L) 2.5 a - 2 1.5 1

Chlorophyll 0.5 0 2004 2009 2014 Mesotrophic Oligotrophic Spring Summer Fall

Discussion

Overall, the results for chlorophyll-a are consistent with the what the secchi disc readings and TP levels are showing in terms of the trophic status on each lake. Depending when samples were collected, seasonal fluctuations may affect chlorophyll-a concentration. Additional more frequent monitoring would be helpful in identifying any trends or changes over time.

3.2.3 Water Clarity

A Secchi Disc is a black and white coloured disc used to determine water clarity. It measures the maximum depth to which sunlight penetrates the water column (also known as the euphotic zone). The disc is lowered into the water, and the depth at which the black and white are no longer visible is called the Secchi depth. The higher the Secchi Disc measurement, the clearer the water.

Secchi Disc measurements have been collected at Ardoch Lake and Malcolm Lake for several decades. The data go back to 1976 and 1980 when depths were recorded as part of the Recreational Lakes Program. In 1999 secchi depths were measured on Ardoch Lake, as part of the MVCA Watershed Watch program. In addition to MVCA’s 5-year sampling rotation, measurements were collected as part of the MOECC’s Lake Partner Program.

Ardoch Lake

Figure 9 shows the secchi disc measurements for Ardoch Lake since 2004 including the spring Lake Partner Program readings and the spring, summer and fall Watershed Watch readings. Most of the secchi disc readings are between 4.5 and 6.5 metres depth, falling within the oligotrophic range (blue area on graph) and lower mesotrophic range (green area). With the exception of the two readings of 11 metres, taken in the spring of 2004, there is little overall variability, showing a relatively stable trend in water clarity for Ardoch Lake.

Figure 9: Ardoch Lake Spring, Summer and Fall Secchi Disc Depths

Ardoch Lake - Spring, Summer and Fall Secchi Disc Levels (Metres) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 0

10 Data from Lake Partner (LP) and Total Secchi Disc Depth (m) DepthSecchi Disc Total Watershed Watch (WW) 12

Oligotrophic Mesotrophic Eutrophic Spring (LP) Spring (WW) Summer Fall

Malcolm Lake

Figure10 shows the secchi disc measurements for Malcolm Lake since 2004 including the spring Lake Partner Program readings and the spring, summer and fall Watershed Watch readings. Malcolm Lake is unusually shallow compared with other lakes in the area which can cause complications in measuring water clarity. In such a shallow lake, the euphotic zone (maximum depth to which sunlight penetrates) can cover almost the entire depth of the lake. When a Secchi Disc is lowered into the water column it is susceptible to drag caused by wind at the lake’s surface. This can affect depth measurements by producing results that are erroneously high. In sample years 1999, 2004, 2008 and 2013, Secchi disc readings measured greater than the maximum depth of Malcolm Lake indicating a problem with drag. To account for this, the records for those sample years have been adjusted to 4.6 meters (lake depth). Also, with a maximum depth of 4.6, it will be impossible for Malcolm Lake to ever achieve the oligotrophic rating (> 5 metres) for water clarity, somewhat skewing the trophic status for this particular parameter.

Figure 10 shows that water clarity in Malcolm Lake has remained relatively unchanged, reaching its maximum depth in 3 out of the 6 sample years. Overall, the water clarity on both Ardoch and Malcolm Lakes remains good showing only minor fluctuations between sampling years.

Figure 10: Malcolm Lake Annual Mean Secchi Disc Depths

Malcolm Lake - Spring, Summer and Fall Secchi Depth (metres)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011 2013 2014 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5 5.2

Secchi Depth (Metres) Depth Secchi 5.4 5.6 5.8 6 Mesotrophic Oligitrophic Spring (LP) Spring (WW) Summer (WW) Fall (WW)

3.2.4 pH

The pH level of the lake water is an important indicator of the suitability of a lake to support aquatic flora and fauna. The pH scale ranges from 1.0 to 14.0, where 1.0 is very acidic, 7.0 is neutral, and 14.0 is very basic or alkaline. Every plant and animal has a pH range in which they are adapted to living, but the majority of species are adapted to a range of 6.5 to 8.5. When a lake has high CO2 content, the pH is lower (or more acidic) because CO2 binds with water molecules to form carbonic acid. The process of photosynthesis removes CO2 from the water, which means that the more productive the lake, the more alkaline it will become. The underlying geology of the catchment basin of a lake may also affect pH. Precambrian Shield lakes tend to have lower pH because igneous rock is resistant to weathering, creating shallow, mostly organic, acidic soils. Conversely, catchment basins that are underlain by carbonate-containing rocks, such as marble or limestone, are easily weathered and eroded by water, making calcium more readily available in the lake environment.

Prior to 1999, pH levels were collected through the MOECC’s Recreational Lakes Program and in subsequent sample years, pH levels were collected through the MVCA’s Watershed Watch monitoring program. Despite being Precambrian Shield lakes, Ardoch and Malcolm are alkaline, having a pH greater than 7.0. The Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) for pH as set out by the MOECC is in the range of 6.5 to 8.5, the same range within which most species are adapted to living.

Ardoch Lake

Figure 11 displays the average pH of Ardoch Lake for the years that it was measured since 1999. For all sample years, the average pH of Ardoch Lake falls safely within the Provincial Water Quality Objective of between 6.5 and 8.5.

Figure 11: Ardoch Lake Annual Mean pH Levels

Ardoch Lake Annual Mean pH Levels 9

8.5

7.5 pH Level pH 7

6.5 1999 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 PWQO pH Level

Malcolm Lake

Figure 12 displays the average pH of Malcolm Lake for the years that it was measured since 2004. In 1999 and 2009, the pH values are slightly higher, but still in close proximity (within 0.1 to 0.3 units) of the upper limit of the PWQO.

Figure 12: Malcolm Lake Annual Mean pH Levels

Malcolm Lake - Annual Mean pH Levels

8.5

pH Level pH 7.5

6.5 1999 2004 2009 2014 PWQO pH Level

Discussion Ardoch and Malcolm’s alkalinity is influenced by the local underlying bedrock which is dominated by calcium rich rock. A geological formation referred to as the Central Metasedimentary Belt of Grenville Province is made up of a number of Late Precambrian metasediments and metavolcanics which forms a series of northeast trending belts east and southeast of the village of Ardoch. The lakes are underlain primarily by a felsic metavolcanic rock unit enclosed entirely by marble. Appendix B shows that carbonate metasediments, namely grey and white laminated marble (as indicated by the blue area marked 6b), dominate the geology surrounding Ardoch and Malcolm Lakes.

The average pH levels of both lakes are either equal to or greater than 7.3 – the minimum threshold for zebra mussel colonization. Zebra mussels are an invasive species that require calcium in order to form their shells, and a higher pH means there is more calcium available for them to thrive. Zebra mussels can be detrimental to the lake environment because they alter the food web by over-filtering the water and removing essential food sources such as plankton. Also, by removing these organisms, light is able to penetrate deeper increasing the growth of aquatic vegetation as well as the occurrence of toxic algal blooms.

Ardoch Lake was sampled for invasive species by the Watershed Watch monitoring team in 2004, 2009 and 2012. In 2009, zebra mussel veliger (larvae) and rusty crayfish were present in the samples collected. Malcolm Lake was sampled in 2004 and 2009. In 2009, as with Ardoch, zebra mussel veliger and rusty crayfish were found to be present. It is important to note that if something was not caught in the plankton haul net, we cannot conclude that the invasive species was not in the lake; it just means that they were not there at the time the sampling took place.

3.2.5 Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen is vital for all aquatic plants and animals to survive. Adequate dissolved oxygen is an indicator of good water quality and is necessary for all life forms. Poor or depleted oxygen levels cause stress on organisms such as fish and may result in fish kills, where mass death of a species occurs in one season. Warm water fish species are better adapted to low oxygen levels than cold water fish species. As water temperature increases, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water decreases. Aquatic vegetation also affects dissolved oxygen as it is consumed in the decomposition process.

Lake turnover, which mixes bottom lake water with top layers in the spring and the fall, replenishes oxygen consumed by decaying vegetation at depth. If the lake does not mix completely, dissolved oxygen levels in the bottom water will remain low or may become depleted. Oxygen concentration is usually lowest in the bottom waters in the late summer months (August to September) as decaying vegetation accumulates at the lake bottom.

Table 3: Ministry of the Environment Dissolved Oxygen PWQO for Cold Water and Warm Water Biota indicates the minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations set out by the MOECC to protect cold water and warm water fish species. Ardoch and Malcolm are warm water lakes, meaning the criteria for warm water biota will be utilized in examining their lake oxygen profiles.

Table 3: Ministry of the Environment Dissolved Oxygen PWQO for Cold Water and Warm Water Biota PWQO Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations Temperature Cold Water Biota Warm Water Biota °C mg/L % Saturation mg/L % Saturation 0 8 54 7 47 5 7 54 6 47 10 6 54 5 47 15 6 54 5 47 20 5 57 4 47 25 5 63 4 48

MVCA takes three dissolved oxygen readings each sample season. A dissolved oxygen meter is used to gather temperature and DO readings. As the probe is lowered into the water, readings are recorded every meter. By doing this, lake profiles that show the stratification and health of the lake are developed.

Lake Stratification is the separation of lakes into three layers. Table 4: Lake Stratification describes each separation.

Table 4: Lake Stratification Epilimnion Top-most layer, typically warmer water with higher DO concentrations Thermocline Distinct middle layer in which temperature changes more rapidly with depth than it does in layers above and below Hypolimnion Bottom-most layer, typically colder and denser water

Ardoch Lake

The dissolved oxygen and temperature profiles in Figure 13 outline the most recently recorded conditions for Ardoch Lake in the spring, mid-summer, and fall of 2014. The blue shading indicates the portion of the water column that contains dissolved oxygen concentrations suitable for warm water fish species (defined as DO > 4 mg/L at temperatures < 25°C).

In the May profile, the entire water column contains adequate concentrations of dissolved oxygen for fish survival. In July, suitable fish habitat can be found between 3 and 13 meters depth, and in September, fish habitat is only possible at depths between 0 and 10 meters.

The July profile shows that at a depth of 14 meters, the dissolved oxygen content drops to 2.25 mg/L, well below the PWQO for warm water biota, and then continues to drop with depth. In the September profile, dissolved oxygen content drops below 4 mg/L at 11 meters depth, and then drops below 0 mg/L at about 2 meters off the lake bottom. These oxygen concentrations are typical for late summer as decaying vegetation increases at the lake bottom prior to lake turnover. In July and in September it is therefore apparent that below 13 meters and 10 meters, respectively, there are insufficient oxygen levels for fish to survive. Each graph also clearly demonstrates how the Epilimnion gets deeper over time while the Thermocline becomes more pronounced.

Figure 13: Ardoch Lake 2012 Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Profiles

Ardoch Lake Ardoch Lake Ardoch Lake Temperature vs DO Temperature vs. Temperature vs. DO Profile May 20, 2014 DO Profile July 10, Profile September 3, Temperature (C) and 2014 Temperature2014 (C) and Temperature (C) and Dissolved Oxygen (g/L) Dissolved Oxygen (g/L) Dissolved Oxygen (g/L) 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0 5 10 15 20 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0 0 0 2 2 2 4 4 4 6 6 6 8 8

8 (m) Depth

Depth (m) Depth Depth (m) Depth 10 10 10 12 12 12 14 14 14 16 16 16 18 18 18 Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

Malcolm Lake

Figure 14 demonstrates the most recent temperature and dissolved oxygen conditions for Malcolm Lake from the spring, mid-summer, and fall of 2014.

The blue shading in all three profiles indicates that throughout the complete sample season the entire water column contains sufficient dissolved oxygen to support warm water fish species (defined as DO > 4 mg/L at temperatures < 25°C).

Due to the shallowness of Malcolm Lake, there is no true stratification of the lake water. Instead, the entire water column is considered the Epilimnion. The profiles demonstrate clearly how temperature remains near constant for the entire depth of the lake. Also owing to the shallow nature of the lake, there is almost always sufficient dissolved oxygen to provide suitable fish habitat.

The September profile shows a depletion of oxygen at 6 metres depth, the bottom of the lake, which is typical at this time of year when oxygen is consumed by the decomposition of aquatic vegetation.

Figure 14: Malcolm Lake 2009 Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Profiles

Malcolm Lake Malcolm Lake Malcolm Lake Temperature vs. DO Temperature vs. DO Temperature vs. DO Profile May 20, 2014 Profile July 10, 2014 Profile Sept 10. 2014 Temperature (C) and Temperature (C) and Temperature (C) and Dissolved Oxygen (g/L) Dissolved Oxygen (g/L) Dissolved Oxygen (g/L) 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 0 0 0.5 1 1 1 2 1.5 2

2 3

Depth (m) Depth Depth (m) Depth Depth (m) Depth 3 2.5 4 3 4 5 3.5 5 6 4

4.5 6 7 Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

3.2.6 Trophic Status Summaries As shown in the table below, water quality data that measure Total Phosphorus (TP), Chlorophyll a and water clarity (Secchi disc measurements) show that Ardoch Lake generally has oligotrophic status, meaning it has low nutrient levels, limiting the growth of aquatic vegetation and algae.

Water quality data for Malcolm Lake show that the trophic status ranges between high oligotrophic to low mesotrophic, meaning that it has low to moderate nutrient levels, providing for some biological productivity in terms of the growth of aquatic vegetation and algae.

Table 5 Summary of Trophic Status Ratings for each Water Quality Parameter Clarity/Secchi Disc Trophic Status Total Phosphorus (µg/L) Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) Depth (m) < 2 µg/L – low algal Oligotrophic < 10 µg/L > 5 m density 2 to 4 µg/L – moderate Mesotrophic 10 to 20 µg/L 3.0 to 4.9 m algal density > 4 µg/L – high algal Eutrophic > 20 µg/L < 2.9 m density

Ardoch Lake -Summary of Water Quality Trophic Status Ratings Total Phosphorus (µg/L) Clarity/Secchi Disc Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) Spring (Euphotic Annual Average (Euphotic Depth (m) Zone) Zone) High Oligotrophic/Low Oligotrophic Oligotrophic Oligotrophic Mesotrophic

Malcolm Lake -Summary of Water Quality Trophic Status Ratings Total Phosphorus (µg/L) Clarity/Secchi Disc Spring (Euphotic Annual Average (Euphotic Chlorophyll-a (µg/L) Depth (m) Zone) Zone) High Oligotrophic/Low Oligotrophic High Oligotrophic Mesotrophic* Mesotrophic * influenced by the shallowness of the lake

3.3 Water Level

The Malcolm Lake dam, owned by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, and operated by Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority, is located at the outlet of Malcolm Lake on the west side of Ardoch Road, approximately 0.5 km south of the village of Ardoch. The dam is on Crown Land and its purpose is to maintain water levels on Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes for recreational uses. A channel dredged for boat access joins the two lakes and water levels are constant in both lakes.

3.3.1 History

(Photo courtesy of Bob Watkins) (Photo courtesy of Brenda Martin)

A dam was originally constructed during the early 1900’s, presumably for logging operations, but was replaced in the 1930’s by a concrete structure erected by local residents. The present structure was built in 1969 by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority assumed operation of the dam in February 1986. Since 1969, several operating methods have been tested, but the dam has been operated predominantly as an overflow weir year-round since MVCA assumed control in 1986. In the summer of that year, MVCA undertook a survey of all structures on Malcolm Lake to determine flood risk. All elevations and water level records were converted to geodetic elevations. Structures included in the survey were docks, shoreline protection works, boathouses, secondary buildings and main residential buildings on the lots. Any building higher than 4 meters above the lake was identified but not surveyed. A total of 41 residential buildings were surveyed.

3.3.2 Description

The dam consists of a single concrete sluice, containing three stop-logs, and a concrete overflow weir. Together, they are approximately 30 meters long. The sluiceway opening is 4 meters wide and about 1.83 m high, while the weir is approximately 20 meters long and 1 meter high. The weir is at an elevation of 253.06 meters above sea level.

3.3.3 Dam Operations

Generally, the Malcolm Lake dam is not operated, but weekly water levels are obtained by MVCA from a staff gauge installed on the upstream, southwest facing wing wall. In addition, MVCA conducts an annual inspection of the dam structure. During the spring, if the level on the gauge exceeds 253.25 meters then one stop-log is removed. Normally, during the summer season, water levels fluctuate between 253.05 and 253.17 meters, but due to the lakes having a small drainage area levels are very dependent on precipitation. In the case that water levels drop below the top of the weir, one end of the top stop-log is raised to allow flow into the downstream channel. Over the course of the fall and the winter, all stop-logs remain in the dam, and the typical winter holding level is 253.05 meters.

The summer of 2016 set new records for water levels throughout the area.

3.4 Navigational Hazards

The Fishing Committee of Malcolm Ardoch Lakes Landowners Association has placed navigational buoys to mark shoals where water levels may restrict the use of outboard motors. In boating season four buoys are placed in key areas on Malcolm Lake and one on Ardoch Lake.

Other areas of concern are the "no wake zones" on each side of the public landing. Water depth through the culvert between the lakes is usually less than one metre and requires boaters to use caution. When water levels are very low, boaters may need to lift their motors to pass through the culvert. Waterflow is sometimes cut off by tree branches placed there by beaver. This can happen overnight so there is little warning. Each fall MALLA members clear the debris from the culvert as part of the Fall Cleanup initiative.

The river between Malcolm and Ardoch Lake requires boaters to manoeuvre around underwater logs and branches, but staying in the middle where it is deepest avoids these hazards.

3.5 Physiography of the Lakes

Two major events shaped the nature of the Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes formation: the last ice age and flooding from the melting front.

The first of these influences was the last Ice Age. By the end of the Cenozoic Era, Canada took on its present shape. In many areas the Precambrian bedrock was scraped smooth by the glaciers gouging the footprints of the lakes and taking away the surface soil.

The Ice Age- Pleistocene (Late Quaternary) Glaciation

Diagram (Source -Frontenac Arch Biosphere web)

About 20, 000 years ago, much of eastern Canada and northeast U.S.A. was covered by the great Laurentide Ice Sheet (several kilometers thick). The eastern part of the ice sheet, known as the Labrador lobe, flowed southerly from its center in Ungava. In the Frontenac Arch region, ice moved southwesterly, roughly parallel to the geological “grain” of the Grenville rocks. Between about 17, 000 and 14, 000 years ago the ice began to melt back to the north. By 12, 500 years ago a large glacial lake called Lake Iroquois had formed to the west of the Arch, forerunner of the smaller Lake Ontario.

The second great influence of geographical importance was the flooding from glacial melting. By 11,800 years ago, the ice melted back to allow seawater of the Champlain Sea to flood most of the area of the present Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Ottawa and St. Lawrence River valleys and Lake Champlain. During this time marine clays and silts were deposited on top of the earlier glacial sediments. As the sea retreated

39 these deposits were reworked by wave action in shallow waters, resulting in a mixture of deposits. By about 9000 years ago the Champlain Sea had disappeared and by about 6000 years ago, the present Great Lakes and the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers drainage patterns had been established.

One such river system was the Mississippi River, a tributary of the Ottawa River. From its source in Upper Mazinaw Lake, it ranged 200 kilometers in length, with drainage of 4450 square kilometers. More than 250 lakes were created in the Mississippi Valley watershed; two of these lakes were Malcolm and Ardoch.

Malcolm from drone (Photo courtesy of Justin/Jim Whitten)

For many centuries after the Ice Age, the climate continued to heat up, encouraging a diversity of animals and plants to migrate and expand northward towards the lakes. These conditions would have encouraged habitation in the region. About 9000 years ago there was evidence of ancient people who hunted based on stone tools found in the Eastern Ontario region. Stone tools and clay pottery representative of the time period 5000 years ago has also been found in parts of Eastern Ontario. According to some written history these people were believed to be ancestors of some First Nations people. When European settlers arrived in the area in the early 1800’s First Nations people were present.

3.6 Geology of Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes and their Watershed

Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes are underlain by Precambrian age rocks of the geological Grenville Province, forming the southeastern part of the Canadian Shield. The rocks are dominantly metasediments and metavolcanics of the Mazinaw Domain1, and part of the Province’s Central Metasedimentary Belt. The prefix meta- indicates that the original sedimentary and volcanic rocks have been metamorphosed. This implies that their original minerals have been modified, they may have been recrystallized to form larger crystals, or completely new minerals may have grown in the rocks that were stable at the increased temperatures and pressures in the roots of the mountain chain built in the Grenville orogeny some 1020 to 1140 million years (Ma) ago. Most of these new minerals remained stable as the mountains eroded and their roots were exposed on later land surfaces.

There is geological fabric to this part of the Central Metasedimentary belt. The major rock units occur in southwest to northeastern trending belts, and are folded along similar trending axes, such that the rocks repeat on either side of the axes. One such fold, an anticline, runs along the northwestern side of Ardoch Lake, with younger rocks, marbles, lying to the northwest and southeast. The area is also cut by much later northwest-southeast trending faults associated with the early development of the Ottawa – Bonnechere graben (≈ 590 Ma) at the close of the Precambrian. The movement on these faults appears to have been dominantly vertical in most instances.

8 Calcific Carbonate Metasedimentary Rock

16 Intermediate Intrusive Rock

4 Calc-Alkalic Mafic to Felsic Metavolcanic Rocks

7 Silicerous Clastic Metasedimentary Rocks

22 Myer Cave Formation

23 Fernleigh Formation

21 Bishop Corners Formation

1 Easton, R.M. 2006. Precambrian geology of the Cloyne-Plevna-Ompah area, northern Mazinaw Domain, Grenville Province. Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 5454, 165 p.

6 Calc-Alkalic Mafic to Felsic Metavolcanic Rocks (See note)

Note - Calc-Alkalic Mafic to Felsic Metavolcanic Rocks may include felsic and intermediate metastuffs and Metasedimentary Rocks of Mainly Volcanic Provence

The oldest rocks in the Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes watershed are found in a narrow (≈ 200 m) belt2 that runs from southwest to the northeast and passes through the northwest shore of Dennies Lake, parts of the southeast bay of Malcolm Lake, the southeastern shore of Ardoch Lake, and immediately to the northeast of Ardoch Lake. These Kashwakamak Formation (1276 ± 2 Ma) rocks are quartz and feldspar- rich schists and gneisses; the schists retain some of the original layered fabric, which is lost in the more highly metamorphosed gneisses. They were most likely volcanic ash falls (tuffs) and lava flows of felsic to intermediate composition, the latter containing some biotite; and the volcanic centre, source, was to the west-southwest between Harlowe and Kashwakamak Lake.

Following this volcanic event, a sea formed where layered sediments consisting of volcanic ash-fall rocks rich in biotite mica, hornblende and feldspar were deposited alternately with limey carbonate sediments. These now fine grained schistose ash-fall rocks, some containing up to 1.5 cm ‘blades’ of dark green to black hornblende, and marbles weather in a characteristic way; the volcanic component to a brown colour and the carbonate, now a dolomite marble, recessively to yield a very ‘craggy’ surface. These rocks, locally known as ‘para-amphibolites’, occur in a southwest to northeast belt that cuts through the northwestern part of the watershed. On a broader scale the ‘para-amphibolites’ alternate with marbles, which may be either fine or medium to coarse grained. It is these calcite-rich rocks that dominate the shorelines of Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes, and underlay about half of the watershed.

Locally, at the east end of Ardoch Lake, a fine-grained quartz and feldspar-rich gneiss lies between the oldest Kashwakamak Formation rocks and the marbles. These rocks were laid down as sediments more distantly from the volcanic centres active at the time of their deposition. In some places they are rusty weathering, indicating they are iron-rich, and may contain from 10 to 35% biotite.

This package of rocks was laid down in a volcanic marine environment. They were buried deep in the Earth’s crust as the Grenville Orogeny developed. No evidence of life has been reported in the rocks of the watershed; however, to the northeast the marbles around Sunday Lake contain stromatolites, fossil algal mounds that developed in shallow marine environments.

Evidence of one of the earliest phases of the complex Grenville orogeny, that involved rocks from the southern Appalachians in the United States, up through Canada and across to northern Europe (there was no Atlantic Ocean at that time) lies in the Northbrook - Cross (Crotch) Lake pluton that outcrops along much of the southeastern limit of the watershed. The tonalite, also known as a trondjhemite,

2 Easton, R.M. 2006. Precambrian geology, Cloyne-Plevna-Ompah area. Ontario Geological Survey Preliminary Map P. 3443, scale 1:50,000.

42 which forms the pluton is a ‘grantitoid’ rock rich in quartz and plagioclase (soda-rich) feldspar, and notably poor in orthoclase (potash) feldspar. A sample from the Ardoch Road close to the southern limit +10 of the watershed has been radio-metrically dated to 1250 ( /-15) Ma, at the end of the Elzeviran Orogeny, a sub-event of the main Grenville Orogeny.

Following the Grenville Orogeny the resulting mountain range was eroded away during the next half billion years, resulting in a peneplain, a relatively flat rolling land surface, by Palaeozoic time some 540 Ma ago. A few remnants of the sedimentary rocks deposited at that time occur to the north-northeast near Palmerston and Redhorse Lakes.

There is then another gap of one half of a billion years in the geological record, and the next event to be recorded is the Wisconsin glaciation. Evidence of the ice advance, which reached its maximum southern extent some 25,000 to 21,000 years ago, can be seen in the striations on flat ‘polished’ rock surfaces left by rocks frozen into the base of the ice sheet being scoured across the bedrock. These indicate the ice moved across the landscape from north to northeasterly directions3, with variations due to local topography. During the retreat of the ice sheet some 11,000 years ago the parent material of the current soil melted out of the ice to cover the land surface. In many parts of the watershed the glacial till deposited was thin or absent, or has been eroded into the stream system, leaving largely bare rock. Amongst this material were rocks and boulders of varying size, the largest, known as ‘glacial erratics’, were often carried 100s or 1000s of kilometers from their source and bear no geological relationship to the bedrock they lie on. In a few areas, notably the east end of Ardoch Lake and west of Malcolm Lake well sorted gravels and sands were deposit in glacial lake features associated with the ice retreat4. South of Malcolm Lake, crossing the Ardoch Road, there are glaciofluvial gravels and sands that were deposited at the retreating ice front.

A number of uranium mineral occurrences, once of economic interest, have been reported in the watershed and immediately surrounding area. The only one within the watershed lies southwest of Malcolm Lake in the marbles2; two more lie in the Cross Lake tonalite pluton near Pine Lake2, 3. In the northwest of the watershed a pyrite, iron sulphide, occurrence was noted during mapping2. Similarly, an occurrence of muscovite mica with calcite and feldspar was noted north of the west end of Ardoch Lake during mapping, as was marl, a calcium carbonate mud, on the eastern shore of Ardoch Lake2. The occurrence of marl in lake underlain by marbles is common in the region, and indicates the high pH of the lake waters; generally good for the environment, but favourable for zebra mussels should they become established.

3 Kettles, I.M. 1992. Glacial geology and glacial sediment geochemistry in the Clyde Forks – Westport area of Ontario. Geological Survey of Canada Paper 91-97, 34 p. and 21 maps. 4 Henderson, P.J. and Kettles, I.M. 1992. Surficial Geology, Sharbot Lake, Ontario. Geological Survey of Canada Map 1799A, scale 1:50,000.

3.7 The Shoreline

The Shore Primer: A Cottager’s Guide to a Healthy Waterfront written by Ray Ford promotes waterfront stewardship by educating property owners about the important role that the shoreline plays in the lake's lifespan. Saving our lakes from premature aging requires everyone's commitment.

Diagram of Shoreline Zones

The natural shore has four components, beginning underwater and extending upland. Shore experts call these components the littoral zone, the shoreline zone, the riparian zone, and the upland zone, and each plays a critical role in keeping your lake healthy.

The zone where water meets the land is one of the richest and most ecologically productive places on earth, making shorelines “Ribbons of Life”. The littoral zone is the area from the water’s edge to roughly where sunlight can no longer penetrate to the lake bottom. The shallow waters and first 10-15 metres of shore form an area that provides food and habitat essential to the survival of many species. As much as 90% of the species in the lake either passes through or lives in this zone. This habitat supports plants, micro-organisms, insects, amphibians, birds, mammals and fish. It has been found that healthy shorelines help filter pollutants, protect against erosion and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. According to naturalists, keeping shorelines natural is the easiest way to protect water quality, the fish resources and the value of your property.

Shorelines of Lakes in a Temperate, Mixed Forest Biome

Shorelines may be described as the interface between land and water; as such the two regions interact and, over time, may alter the other region. For example, wave action may erode the shore or erosion of the shore may affect the amount of mineral and nutrient composition of the water and ultimately the overall water quality.

Vegetation in both the aquatic habitat and the terrestrial habitat will have a major effect on the size of populations of plant and animal species and on the diversity of these species. Generally, a high diversity of species is considered to be desirable as long as the species are not alien or worse, alien and invasive.

As with any ecosystem there are abiotic and biotic factors but throughout Ontario there are often human induced factors. Any ecosystem that has been affected by humans has been altered from the natural state often but not always in a negative way.

Abiotic Factors

The angle of the shore may be nearly level, such as with a beach, gently sloping, steeply sloping or a bluff or cliff. The entry at the water's edge may be level, abrupt or undercut.

In the littoral zone, the bottom of the water body may be level, gently sloping, steeply sloping or a drop off.

The material of the ground is another abiotic factor that will be considered. It may be soil, sand, clay or loam, or a combination of these, or gravel, boulder or solid rock. The solid rock may be smooth or rough. These descriptors may be applied to both the soil in the terrestrial element or at the bottom of the aquatic element.

Other abiotic factors will include the exposure. North facing shores will be shaded if there is a significant height of vegetation such as shrubs or trees or if the geomorphology of the land shades the water. The exposure of the shoreline will also determine the amount of wave action and possible erosion of the shoreline depending on the type of material and the angle of the shore.

For example, a west to southwest facing shore will be subject to strong wave action unless there is a significant landform protecting that shore. East facing shores will receive morning sunlight and little wave action to erode the shore.

Biotic factors will include the type of vegetation both on land, at the water's edge, emergent vegetation and aquatic vegetation. An effort will be made to note the species of plants or a description of the type of vegetation as nearly as possible.

Anthropogenic Factors: Humans alter ecosystems; they build houses, docks, patios; they cut trees; they fill in marshy areas or swamps; they bulldoze shorelines to make beaches. When humans cut trees, plant lawns, gardens or trees, they reshape their environment to meet individual likes and needs. Each of these activities, changes the environment but not all human changes are harmful and some may even be beneficial. It is not the intent to judge or malign individuals who have altered their property but rather to record and describe the changes that have been made so the present state of the shore can be evaluated and the effects of those changes described. These data can enhance our understanding of how human induced changes affect the lake and hopefully, form the basis for educating property owners in our lake community so they can make wise environmental choices.

(Photo courtesy of Brenda Martin)

Most landowners want to manage their property in ways that maintain property value and lake quality. Because the skills, knowledge, capacity, resources to develop, implement and maintain a program to respond to lake issues are beyond the Malcolm/Ardoch Lakes Stewardship Committee, it partnered with Watersheds Canada and Canadian Wildlife Federation (CWF) to participate in shoreline evaluation. The program called “Love Your Lake” was presented at a public meeting in October 2014 and attended by representatives of eleven local lakes. The Malcolm Ardoch Lakes Landowners Association began this program in the summer of 2015.

The Love Your Lake Program begins with the individual property owner and draws together the lake community to work together to address lake health issues. Introductory letters are prepared for each property owner; a presentation was made at the MALLA Annual General Meeting in June 2015; a survey questionnaire asked for their environmental concerns, values, needs and recommendations. Survey responses will be assessed and summarized in a report shared with the Stewardship Committee. Education packages were created by the project team of Love Your Lake to encourage positive action to protect the lakes and encourage owners to make environmentally friendly choices.

3.7.1 Love Your Lake Shoreline Data Summary

In 2015, 104 properties were assessed totaling about 11km of shoreline on Malcolm Lake. On Ardoch Lake 18 properties were assessed from about 6 km of shoreline. The Love Your Lake (LYL) report summarized the information on shoreline classifications, development, runoff, invasive species, habitat and recommendations and restoration opportunities. The report was used as a source of information on the current physical conditions of Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes, as a baseline to compare future surveys and as suggestions for restoration, education and stewardship on a lake wide level. Owners can review reports for their individual properties on-line using a code sent to them by mail or purchase a hardcopy from Watersheds Canada.

Shore Classifications:

The Shoreline Classifications described were Natural, Regenerative, Ornamental and Degraded. Natural is promoted as the most desirable for a healthy lake, while Degraded indicates that work should be done to reduce erosion and vegetation loss. Properties were assigned an overall category corresponding to the classification that made up the largest portion of the shoreline.

On Malcolm Lake, 48 shoreline properties were classified as majority natural, 34 majority ornamental and 20 were considered majority regenerative. On Ardoch Lake, 16 of the shorelines were classified as majority natural, 2 majority ornamental and 0 were considered majority regenerative. It is recommended that shoreline property owners engage in naturalization projects to further decrease the ornamental percentage and increase the regenerative and natural percentages.

This presents an opportunity in particular for residents of Malcolm and to some extent residents of Ardoch Lake, to increase the overall quality of the lake by maintaining, protecting and enhancing natural shorelines. To restore shorelines to a more natural state, property owners are encouraged to take action. Regenerative properties should also be encouraged to maintain their properties in a natural state by allowing their vegetation on their property to continue to regenerate and grow naturally.

Buffers:

One important way to improve water quality in lakes and rivers is to ensure that there is a natural buffer of vegetation along the shoreline. Natural and vegetated buffers are some of the most productive and diverse habitats on the planet. Vegetated areas are also important for filtering contaminants and sediments before they enter the lake. Deep rooted trees and shrubs help to capture excess nutrients moving through the surrounding landscape.

The LYL assessment assigned a “buffer recommendation”; each shoreline could receive more than one recommendation. It is recommended for the health of the lake that 75% of the shoreline remain natural, leaving 25% for shoreline development opportunity. On Malcolm the buffer recommendations were: 65 were great, 49 could expand buffer, 12 would have difficulty to achieve the 30m buffer, 5 should create a buffer. Of these 54 properties would benefit from naturalization and 12 or 22% should

47 make it a top priority. For Ardoch Lake the recommendations were: 16 great as is and 4 to expand buffer. Of these 4 properties would benefit from naturalization but 0 were a high priority.

Building Setbacks:

Information on building setbacks was useful to describe what presently exists but was also needed as the Township Official Plan unfolds. The primary issue associated with building setbacks less than 30 metres, is the limited area to buffer or filter contaminated runoff and wastewater from the main dwelling. Property owners can reduce potential problems by ensuring that they have rain barrels or eave troughs with downspouts directed at natural or stone catch basins. Buildings can also disrupt animal habitats near shore. While moving presently located buildings is not an option, by-laws for new construction is of utmost importance. To some extent naturalizing the shoreline would at least help to address the problem.

The range of building setbacks for properties on the lakes, did not include vacant properties, buildings under construction and unidentifiable properties. Building setbacks for shoreline developments in Ontario should be at least 30 metres from the high water mark; however, older cottage buildings were permitted closer to the high water mark. On Malcolm Lake, 64% of the properties surveyed were observed to be closer than 30 metres to the shoreline. On Ardoch Lake 39% of the properties were closer than 30 metres.

A potential area of concern with building setbacks is having septic systems installed close to shore. Regular inspections and maintenance of septic systems can help prevent excess nutrients from entering the lake. Nutrients entering the lake can contribute to eutrophication, resulting in increased aquatic vegetation, low oxygen levels, turbid water and algal blooms. As septic systems do very little to process nutrients, it is important to use phosphate free products. Excess nutrient loading is one of the largest threats to water quality in lakes and rivers; it is everyone’s responsibility to do something to help protect the lake.

Shoreline Development:

Shoreline development is defined as the presence of man-made structures in the water or along the shore within three metres of the shore. Development can be done sustainably and in an environmentally sensitive fashion. On the average 14 % of the shoreline for each lake has been developed. Small floating or non-permanent post docks are the most environmentally friendly choice.

A summary of the docks by type is provided. On Malcolm Lake: 18 floating, 11 post permanent, 5 raft, 7 crib/wood, 1 dock system, 35 post non-permanent. For Ardoch Lake: 2 floating, 1 post permanent, 1 crib/wood, 6 post non-permanent.

The numbers of structures on Malcolm’s shoreline were: 20 decks, 3 buildings,5 sheds, 2 boat ramps, 1 boat launch, 4 beaches, 15 stairs, and 2 retaining walls. For Ardoch: 1 building, 1 shed, and 1 stairs.

When shoreline development structures are present, structures should be kept clean and organized to prevent possible soil and water contamination. Planting native species will provide additional habitat between man-made structures and the shoreline. If an older structure is present and no longer functioning, consideration should be given to removing the building, shed or other man-made structure, and this will provide more habitat potential for wildlife.

When creating shoreline access, there are a few things to take into account. Limiting access to one area of the shoreline can help maintain a healthy buffer for wildlife habitat and runoff filtration. By creating a well formed pathway that follows the contours of the slope or constructing raised, open-backed stairs, you can direct the foot traffic leading to the waterfront. This will limit possible erosion in high traffic areas. Covering pathways with wood chips or gravel and allowing vegetation to grow under open- backed stairs is also helpful.

On Malcolm Lake, the number of properties with lawns, either mowed or regenerative, was observed. 19% of properties had lawns that were mowed to the water’s edge. For Ardoch Lake, 11% had properties mowed to the water’s edge. When lawn is maintained to the water’s edge, natural ground cover and native vegetation are no longer present to slow runoff and allow nutrient filtration. Nutrients, contaminants, pollutants and other harmful substances can be easily carried into the lake by runoff and can harm water quality and local ecological integrity. Lawn grasses also have short root systems and do not bind the soil well, which can lead to problems with erosion and increased sediment deposition.

In areas close to shore, a lawn is generally not a good choice of ground cover. Half of precipitation runs off a mowed lawn directly into the lake, instead of returning to a natural groundwater source. If shoreline property owners wish to mitigate this, they could consider allowing vegetation to regenerate on its own or by actively planting native trees, shrubs, grasses, or alternative ground cover. The roots of the vegetation will grip the soil which can help prevent erosion. Allowing mowed lawns to regenerate to a more natural state promotes water conservation and protects surface and groundwater resources. Properties with regenerative lawns are encouraged to allow this natural process to continue and to enhance regeneration by planting native trees and shrubs.

Aquatic Plants:

Malcolm Lake, shorelines were surveyed for the presence of aquatic plants. The presence of aquatic plants was further summarized into aquatic vegetation types; emergent, submergent, floating, and algal blooms. The number of properties on Malcolm Lake that had aquatic plants along their shoreline properties: 20 emergent, 47 no cover, 1 submergent, 12 floating. For Ardoch Lake: 3 emergent, 5 no cover, 1 submergent. The majority of aquatic vegetation that was present on both lakes was categorized as emergent vegetation. Floating vegetation and submergent vegetation were found less frequently, but are still an important part of the aquatic ecosystem- giving habitat to birds, frogs, dragonflies and other wildlife.

49 are some easy steps that can be taken to help protect and restore your shoreline. By planting native species and allowing natural aquatic vegetation to grow, it helps to provide habitat for wildlife to flourish.

Sediments:

On both lakes, the type of sediment present on the lake bottom was observed. The benthic zone which is located on the lake bottom is classified as the ecological region at the lowest level of a body of water. It starts at the shoreline and continues down until it reaches the floor, encompassing the sediment surface and subsurface layers. Although this zone may appear barren, it plays a vital role in the health of aquatic ecosystems. Tiny, microscopic organisms which cycle nutrients live in this zone and act as a source of food for bottom feeding animals.

Property Slopes: On both lakes, 90% of properties assessed, had flat, gentle, or moderate slopes. The average slope towards the lake was observed as approximately 3:1. The steepest slope is greater than or equal to 45˚ while some properties had no slope.

The slope of shorelines can influence the energy of runoff and its ability to transport sediment. Steeper shorelines often suffer greater erosion problems. While shoreline buffers of healthy trees and shrubs are important on all properties, steeper properties would yield even greater benefit from well- vegetated slopes to reduce the impacts of erosion from runoff.

Invasive Species:

Phragmites is identified on Malcolm Lake, but not Ardoch Lake. Invasive species can have large negative impacts on an ecosystem by significantly altering food chain dynamics, reducing native species populations, and degrading water quality. It will be important to prevent the spread to Ardoch Lake.

Invasive Phragmites is a non-native perennial grass. It grows rapidly, robbing native plant species of essential water and nutrients. It crowds out native vegetation and produces toxins, hindering plant growth and killing surrounding plants. It typically grows taller than native Phragmites; its stems are tan in colour with blue-green leaves and they have large dense seed heads. Help reduce the spread of Invasive Phragmites by planting only native grass in gardens. Avoid areas that are known to contain Invasive Phragmites and if you come into contact with the plant, brush off clothing and clean equipment to prevent seeds from spreading.

Wildlife Habitat:

The most common type of nearshore habitat on both lakes was identified as aquatic logs, followed by overhanging vegetation. Wildlife provides us with many enjoyable and beneficial activities from bird watching and wildlife photography to pest control, seed dispersal, nutrient cycling and pollination, just to name a few. It is important for there to be a rich and diverse range of habitats along the lakeshore in order to ensure a healthy lake environment.

Habitat observed on Malcolm Lake: 11 wetlands, 3 brush piles, 80 aquatic logs, 25 terrestrial logs,39 dead standing trees, 6 upland forest, and 80 overhanging vegetation. Ardoch Lake habitats included: 3 wetlands, 15 aquatic logs, 5 terrestrial logs, 11 dead standing trees, 5 upland forest and 12 overhanging vegetation.

It is important to leave large trees that are dead and dying in place, if it is safe to do so. They provide important habitat for a number of different wildlife species. In Ontario, more than 50 species of birds and mammals depend on cavity trees for nesting, rearing young, roosting, feeding, storing food, escaping predators and hibernating. Fallen logs on land provide habitat for small mammals such as moles, woodpeckers, toads and insects. As the log decomposes, reptiles and amphibians lay their eggs in the moist wood. A decaying log is also great habitat for beetles and ants that burrow under the bark and lay eggs. In the water, logs provide important fish habitat by providing refuge for small fish and spaces for ambush predators such as pike to conceal themselves. By leaving dead and decaying brush and logs in place, you are helping contribute to a healthy and vibrant species community.

For full report See Appendices -LYL Malcolm Lake Shoreline Assessment Summary Report (July 2016) and LYL Ardoch Lake Shoreline Assessment Summary Report (July 2016)

Issues related to shoreline have been identified through the Environmental Impact Study completed in relation to the Ardoch Lake Condominium Project and specifically the heron rookery. As stated in the report presented by Gordon Neilsen of Michalski Neilsen Associates Limited (August 21, 2014), the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry management guidelines outline the responsibilities for activities prohibited in minimum buffer zones. It states that: Activities that would necessitate the removal or disturbance of trees or ground vegetation in the minimum buffer zone and in the colony proper should be prohibited at all times. The vegetation should remain intact to serve as a deterrent to man and predators. Trees in the buffer zone are also needed as nesting sites, should the colony increase in size, and to shield existing nests from the elements.

The use of all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles is prohibited since these activities create trails through the vegetation making access to the colony easier, and they may also initiate erosion.

3.8 Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Wetlands - Wetlands provide many functions valuable to the ecosystem and lake landowners, including: water purification, flood control, shoreline stabilization and storm protection, nursery areas for fish, waterfowl, amphibians and other wildlife, and provide for recreation and tourism. Wetlands, which are amongst the most biologically diverse of habitats, are an ecologically important part of the lake ecosystem and must be protected. Bass, walleye, yellow perch, sunfish, crappies, pike and gar all use wetlands at various stages in their lives, as spawning and nursery areas, to find food or hide from predators.

It would be beneficial for MNRF to map all wetlands within the watershed so that they can be adequately protected.

Riparian buffers – Vegetated buffers along the shorelines of the lakes are a critical component of a healthy ecosystem. Maintenance of a vegetated buffer on a developed lot is particularly important because runoff from a typical cottage lot can include fertilizers, pesticides, seepage from septic systems, bacteria from pet wastes, oil and gas from automobiles, ATVs, snowmobiles and boats with trailers on driveways and nearby roads. Phosphorous is a naturally occurring nutrient, but runoff of phosphorous from fertilized lawns or seepage from leaking septic systems often results in excessive growth of algae and rooted aquatic plants. As plants die and decompose, oxygen that is needed by fish and other organisms may be used up and, in severe cases, can result in fish kills. Soil runoff can bury spawning beds and suffocate fish eggs and aquatic insects that provide valuable food for fish. The network of tree, shrub, wildflower and grass roots along a vegetated shoreline filters pollutants, reduces runoff and prevents erosion. The tree and shrub canopy provides shade and reduces water temperatures, thereby protecting important fish habitat. Leaf litter, fallen pine needles and broken twigs capture rain and slow runoff, allowing water to be absorbed into the ground, thus reducing flooding and erosion.

(Photo courtesy of Cathy Owen)

Steep Slopes – It is important to maintain vegetative cover on shoreline slopes to prevent erosion and runoff of soil, fertilizers and other potential contaminants to the lakes. Clearing, road building and other construction activities should be conducted in a manner to minimize removal of trees, shrubs and other vegetation on slopes along the edge of the lake.

Heron Rookery – A great blue heron (Ardea herodias) rookery exists in the wetland on the eastern shoreline of Ardoch Lake. The Environmental Impact Study for the proposed condominium development on Ardoch Lake states that this nesting colony contains at least 40 nests. According to the EIS, counting nests was difficult due to dense trees, which suggests that more nests may be present. In comments to the Township of North Frontenac, regarding the proposed Ardoch Lake development, Mr. Gord Nielsen reported that “The Ministry of Natural Resources’ Management Guidelines for the Protection of Heronries in Ontario indicates that previous surveys found only 44 colonies with more than 50 active nests throughout the entire province of Ontario, “and that these 44 colonies alone contained 37% of the province’s total estimated population of great blue herons. Accordingly, the heronry within the subject property is important not only at a local scale, but also at a provincial scale.”

The Ministry of Natural Resources& Forestry recognizes the significance of heron rookeries and their management guidelines call for maintenance of a 300 m buffer, within which “activities that would necessitate the removal or disturbance of trees or ground vegetation in the minimum buffer zone and in the colony proper should be prohibited at all times.”

4.0 BIOLOGICAL FEATURES

4.1 Native Vegetation

The North Frontenac area lies in the Plant Hardiness Zone of 4b. (According to Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada's Plant Hardiness Zones of Canada 2000 Map) This means that generally, the average lowest temperatures are between -34 and -29 C. (Warmer zones have higher zone numbers and 4a is colder than 4b)

Although 64% of North Frontenac Township is Crown land, this is not representative of Ardoch and Malcolm Lakes. Ardoch Lake has no crown land touching its shores, and Malcolm Lake has only a very small portion that being the islands and where the dam is located (less than 5 %). This means that most of the lands around the two lakes have or can be developed and the vegetation altered.

The native vegetation around Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes is a mixture of mixed deciduous and coniferous tree species, old field meadows, from abandoned farming, and a flooded swamp area, on the south-east shore of Ardoch. Some selected logging has been done in the distant past in some areas, but older white pines and cedars can be found nearer the lake shores where land ridges have prohibited logging.

(Photo courtesy of Cathy Owen)

“SPECIES AT RISK” TERMINOLOGY: (From “Species At Risk” Act, Government of Canada (www.laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-15.3/page- 1.html#h-1) Species at risk - means an extirpated, endangered or threatened species or a species of special concern.

Extirpated Species - means a wildlife species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in the wild.

Extinction - no longer any living members of a particular species.

Species of Special Concern - means a wildlife species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats.

Threatened Species - means a wildlife species that is likely to become an endangered species if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction.

Endangered Species - means a wildlife species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction.

Ground covers:

One can replace planted grass with native ground covers, which thrive in shady areas, where grass will not. They are maintenance free and more drought-resistant than grass as well. Some good native groundcovers would be:

• Bearberry (pinkish flowers in spring; red berries in summer) • Bloodroot (white flowers in spring) • Bunchberry (white flowers followed by red berries) • Canada Mayflower (white flowers in spring) • Foamflower (clusters of white flowers in spring) • Partridgeberry (evergreen with red berries) • Violets, including Canada, Northern White, Yellow or Common Blue • Wild Ginger (purple flowers in spring • Wild Strawberry (white flowers in late spring, edible berries in summer) • Wintergreen (aromatic evergreen leaves and red berries). AVOID periwinkle, goutweed, lily-of-the-valley, as these are non-native and can become very invasive, choking out smaller, less-aggressive native groundcovers.

Wildflowers and Ferns:

There are many native wildflowers and ferns that provide food for wildlife and natural beauty. Care should be taken not to purchase commercial wildflower seed mixes, as many contain plants non-native

55 to our area. Aster, Blue-Flag Iris, Canada Anemone, Cardinal Flower, Columbines and Trilliums, Jack-in- the-Pulpit are common native beauties. (See a more extensive list in Appendix-Plants). Native wildflower plants are adapted for this climate and usually require the least care.

In the appendix list are common and uncommon native plants. Note the following for North Frontenac Township:

Woodland Pinedrops (Pterospora andromedea) SPECIES AT RISK

Houghton's Umbrella Sedge (Cyperus houghtonii) THREATENED

Drooping Bluegrass THREATENED

Purple-stemmed Cliff-brake (Pellaea atropurpurea) THREATENED

Limestone Oak Fern (Gymnocarpium robertianum) THREATENED

Ram's-head Lady's-slipper (Cypripedium arietinum) THREATENED

Broad Beech Fern (Phegopteris hexagonoptera) SPECIAL CONCERN

Pale-bellied Frost Lichen (Physconia subpallida) ENDANGERED

Blunt-lobed Woodsia (fern) (Woodsia obtuse) ENDANGERED

Shrubs and Small Trees:

Shrubs and small native trees are great for shoreline protection and privacy, but still allow light and some sight lines, through to the lake. Some often found near shorelines are:

• Alternate-leaved Dogwood • Blue-beech • Hawthorn • Pin Cherry • Serviceberry  White Cedar  Staghorn Sumac  Common Juniper Some of these are fruit-bearing trees, which attract birds, such as Black Cherry, Chokecherry, Common or Canadian Elder, Downy Serviceberry, Flowering Raspberry, Red-berried Elder, Red Osier Dogwood, Staghorn Sumac and Pin Cherry.

Large Trees:

The most common trees in Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes region are:

American Beech (Fagus grandifolia)

Balsam Fir (evergreen) (Abies balsamea)

Birch, either White or Yellow (Betula papyrifera or B. alleghaniensis)

Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis)

Black Cherry (Prunus serotina)

Maple- Red, Silver, or Sugar (Acer rubrum, A. saccharinum, A. x freemanii or A. saccharum)

Oak, either Red or Bur (Quercus rubra or Q. macrocarpa)

Tamarack (Larix laricina)

White Pine (evergreen) (Pinus strobus)

White Spruce (evergreen) (Picea glauca)

White Cedar (evergreen) (Thuja occidentalis )

A more detailed list can be found in Appendix -Plants, with some less common trees noted, as well, that are found in the area. Note the following native tree:

Butternut (Juglans cinerea) ENDANGERED

4.2 Aquatic Plants

What They Are

Aquatic plants are those that may, under normal conditions, germinate and grow with at least its base in the water (Fassett, 1966). Submerged aquatic plants grow for the most part underwater. Emergent aquatic plants have leaves and flowers that float on the surface or protrude above the water’s surface.

Why They Are Important

Aquatic plants are an essential part of any lake ecosystem. By fixing energy from the sun through photosynthesis and converting energy and nutrients to forms usable by other life forms, they provide the basis of the aquatic food chain. In the process of photosynthesis, oxygen is also produced. Aquatic plants provide critical habitat and food for many types of wildlife, including fish, waterfowl, shorebirds, amphibians, mammals, and aquatic insects. Fish are dependent on aquatic plants for shade, shelter,

57 food and spawning habitat. Vegetation also protects the bottom from currents and boat wakes that stir up sediments, protect shorelines from waves, and soften water by removing lime and calcium.

Plant growth and distribution throughout the lakes is determined by such factors as water depth, available light, lake bottom substrate, availability of nutrients (primarily phosphorous), wave action and competition with other plants. Excessive plant growth, often caused by high levels of nutrients from runoff or faulty septic systems, can be detrimental to the lake ecosystem and adversely affect recreational uses. Thick patches of aquatic vegetation can interfere with boat motors and can make fishing, canoeing and swimming difficult. As plants die and decompose, oxygen that is needed by fish and other organisms may be used up and, in severe cases, can result in fish kills. Winter-kill may be a problem in shallow lakes, as oxygen is depleted under the ice.

(Photo courtesy of Cathy Owen) (Photo courtesy of Pat Jamieson)

Aquatic Plants in Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes:

Although a comprehensive list of aquatic plants occurring in Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes is not available, the following plants are known to occur in one or both of the lakes.

 Large Leaf Pondweed (Potamogeton amplifolius) .Cattail  Floating Leaf Pondweed (Potamogeton natans) . Arrowhead  White waterlily (Nymphaea odorata)  Yellow Waterlily (Nuphar variegate)  Water Smartweed (Polygonum amphibium) Aquatic Plant Mapping Project 2015 was the first year that our lakes participated in the Aquatic Plant Mapping procedures. The mapping was successful for Malcolm Lake, but Ardoch Lake results were not available due to technical difficulties with the computer download. With only one year of data, stating specific results for our lakes is unreliable. We have enrolled for the 2016 year of data collection. See Appendices – Malcolm Lake Aquatic Plant Map and OTF meeting Mar 2016 for Dr. Vermaire’s Research

4.3 Fish and Their Habitat

Background:

Malcolm Lake is a relatively shallow, productive mesotrophic lake with a maximum depth of 6.7 meters (22 ft.), average depth of 2.2 meters (7.2 feet) and surface area of 207 hectares (512 acres). It has 12 islands of various sizes that create a relative large natural shoreline development, and it contains several mid-lake rocky shoals and large areas of rooted aquatic vegetation.

Ardoch Lake is a smaller, fairly narrow, deeper lake with a maximum depth of 17.4 meters (57 feet), average depth of 7.6 meters (24.9 feet) and surface area of 95.5 hectares (236 acres). It is upstream of and connected directly to Malcolm Lake via a natural shallow channel about 800 meters long which provides direct fish passage between the lakes. There is only one small island with insignificant added shoreline, but the lake shoreline areas contain many sections of rocky cobble and rocky shelves sufficient for fish spawning. The shoreline is relatively undisturbed.

Water clarity in Ardoch Lake is significantly greater than in Malcolm Lake, and its summertime surface temperature is cooler. Both Lakes stratify in summertime and dissolved oxygen levels are significantly reduced in the bottom layer, although the stratification in Malcolm Lake is quite small in area due to the extent of its shallow profile. As should be expected, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources & Forestry index of potential fish production in Malcolm Lake is about 3 times that of the colder, deeper, less productive Ardoch Lake.

(Photo courtesy of David Byrd)

Both lakes have identical fish species lists (see Appendix-Identify Your Catch for most common fish)

Smallmouth Bass Largemouth Bass Walleye Northern Pike Yellow Perch Pumpkinseed Sunfish Rock Bass White Sucker Common Shiner Northern Redbelly Dace (2006 test netting)* Burbot (1979 test netting)* * Current occurrence is questionable.

(Photos courtesy of Bob and Ina Watkins)

Management History

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) provided a brief history of their fisheries management operations on Ardoch and Malcolm Lakes since the original lake surveys done in 1969. In Ardoch Lake, that original survey produced six times more walleyes than smallmouth bass, the principal game species. Rock bass, white suckers, and northern pike were also relatively abundant in the catch. In 1978, a 24-hour net survey yielded significantly fewer numbers of fish, but the species relationships appeared about the same as 1969. That effort was the last targeting of Ardoch Lake by the MNR. In 2012, the volunteer Walleye Watch that observes activity on spawning shoals recorded 384 walleye sightings over 7 nights, but documenting repeat individual walleye observations over successive days was impossible.

MNR fishery management on Malcolm Lake has been more active. In mid-20th Century, walleye, smallmouth bass and largemouth bass were stocked “heavily”. The original fisheries survey was conducted in 1975. Walleye and rock bass were the most abundant species in the catch. Only one yellow perch (now the most abundant species) was recorded. Again in 1985, walleye samples were the most abundant in the MNR index sets, followed by smallmouth and largemouth bass and MNR followed up in 1986 by stocking 19,000 walleye fingerlings. Large numbers of adult walleyes were observed in spawning assessment surveys through the early 1990’s. That marked the end of active MNR fisheries management activity on either lake.

Walleye shoal enhancement in 1980’s (Photo courtesy of Bob Watkins)

Since then, species composition has changed drastically. In 2002, the fall walleye index consisted of 80% yellow perch and the remainder was primarily walleye and smallmouth bass. The perch population has continued to grow with the relative decline of walleye; perch are currently extremely abundant with slow growth. The Malcolm Ardoch Lakes Landowners’ Association (MALLA) has on three occasions (1990, 2010, and 2012) distributed a considerable amount of rock (4-8 inches) upon several historic

61 walleye spawning shoals (with MNRF supplied rock). Walleye spawning activity on these shoals is monitored by Association volunteers. These observations have shown the shoals do support some natural spawning activity, although counting success varies with ice out conditions, weather, and unknown number of recounted fish. There is little indication that the lakes have supported a good year class of walleyes in the last 15 years, let alone two or three good year classes to support a stable sustainable population.

Unofficial observation of sport fishing activity over the years mirrors the index data. Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes supported a relatively large and successful walleye fishery into the early 21st Century. The activity was enhanced by large numbers of day trip fishermen using the public access ramp and clients at the large trailer park on Malcolm Lake. With the relative decline of the walleye fishery, the lakes have transitioned into a relatively successful smallmouth bass fishery. Total fishing activity has declined with the closing of the trailer park and a reduced number of day people who target the fishing of bass primarily. Winter walleye fishing occurs to a limited extent, but MNRF studies indicate winter harvest is insignificant. Large shoals of common shiners are regularly observed and the overabundant population of small yellow perch provides an ample food supply for game fish.

Walleye reproduction

As discussed elsewhere in this plan, walleye stocks have been historically important to the sport fishery and to preserving balance to the fish community of Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes. Over the last decade, the population has declined in the face of over-exploitation and lack of active management by resource managers. This has led to the emergence of smallmouth bass as the most important sport fish species and they have maintained a reasonably successful sport fishery. However, major interest remains in rehabilitating the walleye stock in both lakes, and recent attempts to enhance spawning habitat, which was not naturally abundant especially in Malcolm Lake, have shown to support, at least limited walleye spawning activity. Small numbers of yearling walleyes were appearing in the sport fishery in 2015 for the first time in many years. Unfortunately, that program has been terminated for the last 2 years at least temporarily, despite its apparent success.

Walleyes are random spawners and scatter their eggs over gravel, stones, or rubble on the lake bottom in early spring at the time of ice-out. Incubation is 12 – 18 days, depending on water temperature. This process requires a combination of natural processes to be particularly successful in setting a good year class. 1) While a variety of bottom substrate materials have been used by natural lake populations of walleyes, river rock bottom material of 3 – 8 mm in water 40 – 100 cm deep is preferred. Spawning beds of this type of material allow for penetration of eggs into the interstices of the rock material for protection from predators and storm events. 2) Spawning beds located on open points or shorelines are preferred to provide good water movement for insuring clean bed material and good oxygenation of eggs, but strong wind storms occurring at this time can be detrimental to egg survival. And 3) rapidly and steadily rising water temperatures are required following spawning to accelerate a rapid hatch to limit egg mortality and to provide a good and growing plankton population as a food source for the fry.

As noted above, MALLA, in cooperation with MNRF, has recently provided for introduction of 4 spawning reefs of optimal type material. There remain several desirable locations for reef building. Active spawning has been observed on these beds, and given good early spring weather conditions they

63 should enhance walleye reproduction over time. It will be beneficial to continue the reef building activity on other optimal shoreline sites in Malcolm Lake. Natural spawning reefs are limited but available in Ardoch Lake, but future enhancement there would also be desirable.

In partnership with Watersheds Canada, MALLA was successful with a grant from Department of Oceans and Fisheries for the enhancement of spawning beds on Ardoch Lake in 201 Approval of a permit from MNRF is next step in the process. In addition, MALLA will continue to submit the appropriate MNRF permits to maintain existing structures. We will continue to annually monitor spawning activity on the existing spawning beds. These data are supportive of the increased numbers of walleye and hopefully convince MNRF that our efforts in walleye enhancement needs their assistance and cooperation.

Management Plan

The current MNRF walleye management plan eliminates stocking walleye in bodies of water that support natural reproduction. Ardoch and Malcolm Lakes inarguably do that, but on a very limited hit or miss basis. MNRF support for supplying materials to create and expand walleye spawning shoals, a program used to potentially good effect by MALLA, is also no longer available. Rather, for lakes that support natural walleye reproduction, MNRF management plans focus on public awareness, increasingly stringent regulation, encouraging shared responsibility with volunteers, and building partnerships with constituent groups.

There are two options for the management of Ardoch/Malcolm Lakes sport fish in the future:

1) Basically maintain the status quo with primarily a smallmouth bass fishery while sustaining a problematic walleye fishery based on good reproduction and strong year class on a hit or miss basis, and 2) Try to develop a relatively stable walleye fishery while maintaining a stable bass population as well.

No matter the management strategy, preservation of habitat and water quality is first and foremost.

4.4 Wildlife and Their Habitat

4.4.1 Wildlife Habitats

Many natural habitats occur around our lake shores to attract wildlife species. Some such habitats are outlined in the Love-Your-Lake Shoreline Property Report. These include:

Cavity Trees- Large trees with hollow cavities are a vital source of food, shelter and safety for many species. In Ontario, more than 50 species of birds and mammals depend on cavity trees for nesting,

64 rearing young, roosting, feeding, storing food, escaping predators and hibernating. By retaining cavity trees, you provide important habitat for wildlife.

Fallen Logs- These are essential habitat for small mammals, such as moles, certain woodpeckers, toads and many insects. as the log rots, reptiles and amphibians lay their eggs in the moist wood. A decaying log is also a habitat for beetles and ants that burrow under the bark or lay eggs.

Coniferous Forest- Conifer forests are comprised of pine, hemlock, cedar, and spruce offering habitat to deer especially in winter. The canopy provides shelter, ease of movement and protection from predators. The land surrounding the core area is usually mixed or deciduous forest.

Mast Producing Trees- Mast is fruit and seeds produced by maple, elm, and ash, and nuts from oak, black walnut and beech. Mast is the primary fall and winter food for most forest wildlife species as they build fat reserves for hibernation.

Vernal Pools- These temporary wetlands formed in depressions by rain and melting spring snow. Short- lived, they last anywhere from a few days to a few months before drying up. They are important breeding habitats for amphibians because they are free of predators.

Reptile Hibernacula- These sites are often found in large forested areas with rocky outcrops. Rocky habitats provide nesting, den sites and cover for many species such as birds, amphibians, snakes, foxes, skunks, squirrels and rabbits.

Brush Piles- These can be constructed from tree clearing or pruning by piling the brush on a stump, log or boulder or along fencerows. These are habitats for hares, cottontail rabbits and others.

Dying Material- When it is safe to do so, leave deadfall to attract wildlife. The exception to this is dead elm trees which should be removed because they can habitat for elm bark beetles, the carrier of Dutch Elm disease.

4.4.2 Potential Threats to Wildlife and Their Habitats

According to World Wildlife Federation, global biodiversity is being lost faster than natural extinction due to such factors as: changes in land use, climate changes, pollutants, impact from human activity and invasive alien species. Scientists generally acknowledge that species dependent upon freshwater ecosystems are the world's most endangered group of plants and animals.

Habitat loss poses the greatest threat to species. Habitats continue to disappear as humans make way

65 for roads and housing. Municipal regulations need to be in place and monitored with respect to land use planning and environmental protection. Natural cover areas that buffer adjacent lands are important for wildlife conservation.

The World Wildlife Federation reports that our planet is warming faster than at any time in the past 10 000 years. With these changes species have to adapt to new climate patterns (examples would be variations in rainfall, and longer, warmer summers). Climate changes such as weather patterns disrupt habitats. Water level fluctuations disturb nesting areas and homes of mammals such as beaver, muskrat, and otter. For example, in late fall as amphibians prepare for winter hibernation, they burrow into the shallow sediments on the bottom. A reduction in the water levels could leave them exposed to winter conditions. Global warming changes the species ranges and the patterns for seasonal breeding. Some species migrate long distances and need resting spots. From year to year they may expect to use the same area only to find that it has disappeared due to development.

World Wildlife Federation scientists have estimated that most species will have to "move" faster than 1000 meters per year to keep within the climate zone which they need for survival. Many species will not be able to redistribute themselves fast enough to keep up. These species may become extinct.

The introduction of silt and other contaminants to shorelines causes disturbances to life in the littoral and riparian zones. Many amphibians and reptile species, especially turtles, seem to be in decline.

(Photo courtesy of Ruth Cooper)

Most reptiles and amphibians lay their eggs in the littoral zone, nest and hibernate along the shoreline and riparian zone, and feed and nurse their young in the wetland areas. Removal of shoreline vegetation or the buffer strip allows erosion of these soils into the water and disturbs habitats.

Conflict between people and animals is one threat to survival. With an increase in lake property owners, natural habitats tend to shrink. Animals are increasingly running into conflict over living space and food. Black bears and raccoons seek out compost and garbage, making themselves nuisances to landowners.

HOW TO PREVENT CONFLICT WITH BEARS

To avoid habituating bears in your area, follow these steps:

Make trash cans inaccessible; bring them in at night or use a bear-resistant lid or secure container. Enclose your compost especially if it contains kitchen scraps. Burying it won’t work as bears will dig it up. Recycle wisely by placing items in an enclosed bin. Keep your BBQ grill clean from drippings and away from the house when you are not using it. Rethink your bird feeders; in summer birds can usually find naturally available foods.

Watercraft that disturbs nesting areas with noise and wake is a potential threat as well. Loons are particularly sensitive to human activity during breeding and nesting. Increased boat traffic and water- centered recreation will have a negative impact on populations. Even outdoor lighting that spills into natural habitat for local flora and fauna can be an issue for wildlife. Lack of awareness with respect to

67 human impact on nature continues to be an issue. Stewardship actions which include an educational component are needed.

Although human activity is responsible for much of the pollutants; other sources are also factors. Physical pollutants to lakes include materials such as particles of solid that erode from the landscape. The fine particles fill in the spaces between natural sand, gravel and stones, thereby changing the sediments of the benthic (bottom) habitat to a finer grained silt and mud. This can cause bottom- dwellers to be smothered.

Chemical pollutants bound to the particles are also incorporated into the sediments where they may be buried or carried by water currents to other locations. Chemicals resulting from human activities that increase the concentration of specific compounds above natural levels may cause pollution problems. Too much of a plant nutrient may lead to excessive plant growth, while synthetic organic compounds may cause physiological changes in aquatic organisms.

Mutations in fish have been linked to such compounds. Plants and organisms that become contaminated from these sources can pass the contamination up the "food chain" as predators consume them.

Another type of pollutant is heat. The over-clearing of shade trees along the shoreline may permit sunlight to warm water above the normal temperature range thereby altering the habitat for organisms within that ribbon of life zone.

Although living organisms are not generally thought of as pollutants, bacteria and plants that grow to nuisance proportions can impact fresh water. Such problems arise when the plants die and decay, which is when bacterial decomposition consumes oxygen needed for other aquatic organisms. An overabundance of algae or other plants, provides decaying material and further reduces oxygen to destroy habitat. Moreover, non-native plants and animals introduced as a result of human activity can change the basic ecology of the lake to great detriment.

The second biggest threat to biodiversity after habitat loss is invasive alien species. Invasive alien species become predators, competitors, parasites, hybridizers and diseases to our native and domesticated plants and animals. The impact on native ecosystems, habitats and species is severe and often irreversible. Invasive alien species generally show common characteristics which make them difficult to control and contain. These characteristics are:

* higher rates of reproduction; it has been established that one Purple Loosestrife plant can produce 3 million seeds.

* fewer natural predators; newly introduced often free of disease and predation; two major factors that keep native plant and animal populations in balance

* an ability to survive in different environments; most invasive alien species are "generalists" meaning they can survive in a variety of habitat types and climate regions.

Zebra Mussel Quagga Mussel Invasive alien species can be threats to wildlife and habitats. Control and management costs can be significant. They:  Can negatively impact biodiversity  Can cause species extirpation and even extinction  Can cause soil degradation and erosion  Can cause disease  Can cause animal suffering  Can reduce land and water opportunities  Can reduce productivity in forestry, agricultural, and fishing sectors.

4.4.3 Mammals

The most common mammals sighted in our lake area are: beaver, black bear, black squirrel, chipmunk, coyote, fisher, fox, grey wolf, groundhog, lynx, mink, moose, muskrat, otter, porcupine, rabbit, red squirrel, flying squirrel, small brown bat, skunk, vole, weasel, white- tail deer

Otter Family on Malcolm Lake White-tail Deer (Photos courtesy of Don Martin)

Red Fox (Photo courtesy of Sylvia Whitten)

4.4.4 Insects

Insects of Ontario (info from Toronto Entomologists' Association)

Insects are found in all types of environments though species diversity (not necessarily numbers) tends to decrease as you go north. Some major groups of insects are:

Dragonflies and damselflies- Order Odonata- These insects are good indicators of healthy freshwater habitats as they will disappear when water becomes polluted. Adults eat mosquitoes and other insects.

Mayflies-order Ephemeroptera- These are small insects that spend most of their lives in the water. Adults emerge in great numbers but live only a day. Mayflies are an important food source for many fish.

Grasshoppers, mantises and crickets-order Orthoptera- Many insects of this order produce sounds by rubbing body parts together.

Bugs- order Hemiperta, suborder Homoptera- These are the true bugs; their lower lip is modified into a sucking tube that the insect inserts into plant or animal tissue in order to feed. Aphids and plant hoppers are bugs.

Butterflies and moths-order Lepidoptera- These are the familiar beautiful insects that we readily welcome to our gardens. Besides being beautiful to look at they are important pollinators.

Beetles- order Coleoptera- This order includes the familiar June beetle, ladybird beetle and fireflies. Beetles are also pollinators but play an extremely important role in the recycling of animal dung and dead animals.

Flies-order Diptera- True flies have a single pair of wings; their hind wings are reduced to stalked knobs called halteres that they use to keep stability while flying. Flies are important pollinators and also feed on dead carcasses so that nutrients are recycled back into the environment.

Ants, wasps and bees-order Hymenoptera- We are all familiar with these insects and often consider them to be a nuisance. However, they are very important pollinators of many of our agricultural plants including apples, tomatoes, beans, peas, oilseed and fibre crops.

Canadian Gardening provides a list of their top ten insect pests. These are: aphids, birch leaf miner, Colorado potato beetle, Crucifer flea beetle, gypsy moth, Japanese beetle, spider mite, Red lily leaf beetle, scale insects and spruce budworm. Some of these are major pests in our area.

For landowners at Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes trying to enjoy the outdoors, the most noted pests have been: blackflies in May and early June, mosquitoes, deer and horseflies for summer months. Some information is provided about horse flies and deer flies to help people better understand the life cycle and how to deal with them.

These are bloodsucking insects that can be serious pests. Attack by a few of these flies can make outdoor work and recreation miserable. The number of flies and the intensity of their attack vary from year to year, with this year being reported as intense.

Female horse flies and deer flies are intermittent feeders. (Male flies feed on nectar and are of no consequence as animal pests.) Females of the species are apparently attracted to such things as movement, shiny surfaces, carbon dioxide, and warmth. Once on a host, they use their knife-like mouthparts to slice the skin and feed upon the blood pool that is created. The irritation and swelling usually disappears in a day or two unless secondary infections occur. Skin creams may help relieve pain. Their painful bites generally elicit a response from the victim so the fly is forced to move to another host with the potential of spreading animal and human disease.

The larvae of horse and deer fly species develop in the mud along wetlands. Some are aquatic and some develop in relatively dry soil. Females lay 25 to 1000 eggs on vegetation that stand over water. The larvae hatch from the eggs and fall to the ground or into the water where they feed upon decaying organic matter or small organisms in the water. The larvae stage usually lasts one to three years, depending upon the species. Mature larvae crawl to pupate and ultimately emerge as adults.

Deer flies are usually active for specific periods of time during the summer. When outside, if using repellents caution should be considered as allergies can develop and age restrictions may apply. Light coloured clothing and protective mesh outdoor wear may be of some value. These flies are particularly attracted to the shiny water surface or the movement of swimmers. They like sunny areas so shady spots may be better.

4.4.5 Birds

Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes are blessed with a largely natural shoreline with lots of trees still surrounding the lakes. This provides a variety of habitats along their shores. The lakes are host to a large number of bird species both on and off the water. Flat-water lake, marsh, reeds, hardwoods, mixed forest, mature pines, brushy undergrowth all support birds which are specialized to that habitat. The lakes have had over 60 species of birds observed during the last few years. See Appendix –Birds for lists

Some birds live here year-round; others arrive in the spring and only stay while breeding and raising offspring during the warmer months. Still others are seen in North Frontenac only during migration on their way north to the boreal or tundra breeding grounds and then again in the late summer and fall as they make their way south to USA, Central America and the Caribbean, or South America.

Birds are a certainly a joy to listen to in the spring after a long winter, but birds are very beneficial in many other ways as well. Many of our summer birds are insectivores that feed on insects that cause harm to crops or are seen as a cottage nuisance. Birds help pollinate plants, spread seeds, dispose of carrion, and provide an indication of the general health of our immediate environment.

Common Loons have bred on Malcolm Lake in the last few years. To help maintain an environment where Common Loons can breed here, boat wakes should be kept to a minimum during loon breeding season. Loons nest at the water’s edge or on floating platforms and boat wake can have a serious detrimental effect on breeding success. Another major threat is the use of fireworks.

(Photo courtesy of Marlene Gray)

One of the most significant bird features of the lakes is the Great Blue Heron rookery near the southeast end of Ardoch Lake. This provincially significant rookery houses over 40 heron nests. According to “Management Guidelines For The Protection Of Heronries In Ontario”, Great Blue Herons can be extremely susceptible to even minor disturbance during their breeding period, so it is important not to disturb them during their breeding period, 15 March – 01 August.

Threats to bird survival:

 Habitat loss is the most serious threat affecting nesting and migration

 Pollution of water and soils, including oil and gas spills which destroy waterproofing of water fowl

 Predators such as house cats, raccoons,

 Hybridisation which damages gene stock eg. American Black Duck with the mallard has caused a slow decline in the species

 Climate change where water temperatures and weather conditions have greater fluctuation

 Glass windows, communication towers, electric power lines, and wind farms

Wild turkeys in winter 2013 (Photo courtesy of Ina Watkins)

Chickadees at the feeder

(Photo courtesy of Brenda Martin)

4.4.6 Reptiles and Amphibians

There may be other reptiles and amphibians in specific habitats, but the ones in the list below have been sighted in recent years. Amphibians and reptiles tend to be wary creatures and will avoid human contact, which makes it particularly sensitive to human intrusion, especially in shoreline development areas.

Reptiles: Common Snapping Turtle, Midland Painted Turtle, Blanding's Turtle, Eastern Musk Turtle, Northern Ribbon Snake, Black Rat Snake, Eastern Milksnake, Eastern Garter Snake, Northern Water Snake, Smooth Green Snake, Northern Brown Snake, Five Lined Skink

http://www.ontarionature.org/protect/species/reptiles_and_amphibians/eastern_musk_turtle.phpTop: Common Snapping Turtle, Midland Painted Turtle, Blanding’s Turtle, Eastern Musk Turtle

Below: Northern Ribbon Snake, Eastern Garter Snake, Northern Water Snake, Smooth Green Snake

Five Lined Skink

Amphibians: American Toad, Northern Spring Peeper, Gray Tree Frog, Green Frog, Wood Frog, Northern Leopard Frog, Pickerel Frog, Bull Frog, Red-spotted Newt, Northern Red-back Salamander, Four-toed Salamander, Northern Two-lined Salamander, Spotted Salamander

American Toad Northern Spring Peeper Northern Leopard Frog Pickerel Frog

Green Frog American Bullfrog Northern Red-back Four-toed Salamander

Red-spotted Newt Spotted Salamander

4.4.7 Species at Risk and of Special Concern

In this section, a short description will be provided for animals that may be at-risk, endangered or threatened around our lakes and nearby. “Special Concern” means the species lives in the wild in Ontario, is not endangered or threatened, but may become threatened or endangered due to a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. They are listed as “special concern” so landowners will be watchful, report sightings, and where appropriate take steps to preserve.

Mammals

Cougar

Although rare, cougars have been spotted near Malcolm Lake and Ardoch Lake in 2012 and again in 2013 in Fernleigh and Ompah areas. The cougar was on the Endangered species list in 2008. The cougar is Canada's largest and most powerful wild cat. Males can reach up to two metres in length and weigh up to 90 kilograms. Adult cougars have short fur that is brown or grayish (sometimes reddish) over most of their body. They have a white chest and belly. The cougar has a long, black-tipped tail and black markings on the ears and muzzle. Kittens have spotted coats until they are about six months old. Cougars live in forests that have white-tailed deer because that is their number one food.

Little Brown Bat

The little brown bat is a flying mammal which eats its weight in insects. Because they are so useful, Malcolm Ardoch Lakes Landowners’ Association started a bat house project in 2012 to add habitats around the lakes. In 2014 these bats were put on the endangered species list. The bat population has dropped by over 90%. Bats have become threatened by a disease known as white nose syndrome, caused by a fungus. The fungus causes them to come out of hibernation too early; without insects for their diet, starvation begins. Their body fat supplies are used up and they quickly die.

Little brown bats have glossy brown fur and weigh 7-9 grams. Bats are 4-5 cm long and have a wingspan of 25-27 cm. They feed mostly on insects at night-by late summer catching 1000 insects an hour while they are preparing to hibernate. The female only gives birth to a single baby; in just three weeks the baby is on its own.

Bats are nocturnal and during the day they roost in trees and buildings. Building and installing bat houses can help bats find a suitable resting place during the summer months. Also, when caring for your lawn use no pesticides, since they get into the bats’ system through their diet. In good conditions, little brown bats can live as long as 34 years.

Insects of Special Concern

Monarch Butterfly

The Monarch butterfly is on the “concerned” list. For many years on the shores of Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes you could find monarch caterpillars on the milkweed plants (the only source of food for these butterflies). Ontario used to have the most milkweed of any of the provinces. Monarchs are disappearing because milkweeds are being destroyed with herbicides. Farmers try to rid their crops of milkweeds because it is toxic to many creatures. The long flight for hibernation is also too difficult for many butterflies.

The female monarch butterfly puts her eggs on the underside of a milkweed leaf. In about 5 days, a caterpillar (larva stage) hatches. For three weeks the caterpillar eats milkweed, then enters the pupa

78 stage. Within two weeks, a beautiful butterfly emerges from the cocoon. The adult butterfly feeds off nectar from flowers. By the way, butterflies taste their food with their feet.

Monarch butterflies live only 8-9 months if they hatch in early fall. They get ready for a long migration (4500 km) to Mexico for a warm winter climate. They have the ability to glide on air currents which allows them to travel great distances.

Bees (Photo and info courtesy of Canadian Wildlife Federation)

Bees come in a variety of shapes and sizes. Canada has approximately 800 species. About one-third of all human food is prepared from plants that depend on animal pollinators such as bees. Honeybees were introduced from Europe almost 400 years ago; they are the most well known pollinators, but native bees such as bumble bees are actually more effective and more efficient pollinators.

Unlike the social honeybee, which lives in a colony and shares the work, most of our native bees are solitary. Each female prepares her own nest, provides food (nectar and pollen) for the young, lays her eggs and cares for them. Solitary bees do not have a colony to defend; they tend to be less aggressive, stinging only if trapped or handled.

Bumble bees are the most social of our native bees. They form a temporary colony that starts with a queen bee in spring and breaks up when winter comes. She produces workers, with males and young queens. Bumble bees aggressively defend their nest if disturbed. Away from the nest, they are unlikely to sting unless threatened.

With the great reduction in the bee population, food crops, garden plants and wilderness areas will be affected. Pesticides known as “neonics” sprayed in agricultural areas have caused a significant decline of pollinators.

You can help bees and other pollinators by providing a garden spot, even a patio garden, adapted for their survival.

Zebra Clubtail (Photo courtesy of Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program)

The Zebra Clubtail is a dragonfly which generally inhabits flowing waters, though it can be found at pools and lakes. The Township of North Frontenac has this species posted on their website as an insect of special concern in this area.

The name clubtail refers to a swelling section of its abdomen that resembles a club. The Zebra Clubtail is a very striking insect with black and yellow patterning, and bright green eyes. The face is green with black cross stripes on each side. The dark brown thorax has two large buff stripes on each side. The black abdomen is marked with pale yellow rings. The three sets of powerful legs are jet black and lined with spines which aid in catching small aerial insects which they feed upon. Zebra Clubtails perch horizontally (like an airplane) on rocks, logs, vegetation or the ground.

Adult Zebra Clubtails range from 2 to 2.3 inches (52-59 mm) in length. Although male and females appear similar in colour, the female is slighty larger with a reduced "club".

Zebra Clubtails inhabit medium-sized sandy-bottomed streams with some rapid moving water, but generally slow to moderate flow.

Dragonfly and damselfly nymphs are unique in their mode of prey capture. They have a hinged labium (lower lip) which can extend rapidly to secure their prey. The victim can then be moved back to the manibles to be eaten. The wide variety of prey includes aquatic insects, small fish and tadpoles. While in the nymph stage the dragonfly will molt up to ten times, growing each time. Although it is not known how long it takes for the nymph to fully develop, it is estimated to be a year.

The final stage is the flying adult. The nymph usually emerges on the bank of streams (no more than three feet above the water) during the middle of the day. During the first few hours the dragonfly is soft and therefore very vulnerable to predators. To avoid predators, they often spend a week in nearby woodland, maturing and feeding on flies and mosquitoes.

Zebra Clubtails breed in late summer, mid-July through August. The male patrols the stream, flying low over the water searching for females. When found, they breed on shore usually in a wooded area. The female returns to the water and dips her tails into the water many times as she zigzags across the surface.

One of the biggest threats to Zebra Clubtails is water quality; pollution, salt from road run-off, construction and erosion are culprits. The disruption of natural flooding by dams may also have a negative impact. Extensive use of power boats and jet skis is a serious concern particularly during breeding periods.

Birds of Special Concern

Bald Eagle (Photos and info courtesy of Ontario.ca)

The Bald Eagle is a well- known bird of prey with a bright white head, tail, and neck, and a dark brown body. Its massive beak is bright yellow, as are its powerful legs. Adults have piercing very pale eyes. Young eagles are mostly brown, variably speckled with white. Bald Eagles have a wingspan of just over two meters. They soar on flattened wings. The cry of the Bald Eagle is a watery, gurgling trill that does not sound like it suits the bird.

Bald Eagles nest in a variety of habitats and forest types, almost always near a lake or river where they do most of their hunting. While fish are their main source of food, Bald Eagles can easily catch prey up to the size of ducks, and frequently feed on dead animals, including white-tailed deer. They usually nest in large pine or poplar trees. During the winter, Bald Eagles sometimes congregate near open water in high deer population areas.

Historically, the decline of the Bald Eagle was related to trophy hunting or being pests to farmers. Present declines are due to continued development of shoreline habitats, pollution and the use of pesticides.

Bobolink

(Photo and info courtesy of Ontario.ca)

The bobolink is a medium-sized songbird found in grasslands and hayfields. In the summer breeding season, male Boblinks are black with white and yellow collar. By late summer, males lose their breeding plumage and resemble the female’s tan colour with black stripes.

Historically, Bobolinks lived in the tall prairie grass or open meadows. With continued clearing, Boblinks moved to hayfield and boreal forest areas. They build their small nests on the ground in dense grasses. Both parents usually tend to the young, sometimes with a third Bobolink helping.

Boblinks spend much of their time out of sight on the ground feeding on insects and seeds. They seem to appear out of nowhere and can be spotted flying in the sky over top of vegetation.

The Bobolink population has declined significantly over the years. Along their migration route, they are considered a pest to farmers of grain crops. Mowing of hay during the breeding season may inadvertently kill and disturb nesting adults, and destroy eggs and nests. Cutting hay early in summer coincides with the time that young birds are in nests and unable to fly. In addition, the quality of the nesting habitat has declined due to modern hay production practices such as earlier maturing seed mixture and shorted crop rotation cycles.

Eastern Whip-poor-will

This bird’s loud call sounds just like its name. You have to look carefully to see a whip-poor-will because they are perfectly camouflaged. The male has gray and brown feathers with a white ring around its neck and white patches on its tail. The female also has gray and brown feathers but no white markings. Both male and female have long rounded tails and wings. Whip-poor-wills are nocturnal with most of their activity at dawn and dusk when their vision is the best. In the daytime they sleep on the ground or in low branches of trees near fields or open spaces.

Females lay one or two eggs in leaves on the ground. Both male and female take turns setting on the eggs for 20 days. Whip-poor-will chicks hatch just before full moon. This gives parents extra light to search for food.

Whip-poor-wills eat flying insects like moths, beetles, and mosquitoes by swooping down with their mouth open and grab insects in mid-air.

The province reports that the whip-poor-will population has dropped by 30 % in the past ten years. One

82 of the biggest threats is loss of habitat. Another reason may be its food source of insects has been treated with pesticides.

Henslow's Sparrow (Photo and info courtesy Ontario.ca)

Henslow's Sparrow was named by James Audubon in honour of John Stevens Henslow, a botanist, minister, good friend of Audubon, and teacher of Charles Darwin.

Originally the distribution of the Henslow's Sparrow was concentrated in two areas: the central prairies in the United States and the coastal marshes of the Atlantic Coast. As the forests were cut down, this species moved into newly created grasslands. The Henslow's Sparrow has been identified as the highest priority for grassland bird conservation in eastern and midwestern North America by Partners in Flight (PIF)

This bird measures 4.3-5.1 inches (11-13 cm), with a wingspan of 7.9 inches (20 cm), and weighs 0.4-0.5 ounces (1015 grams).

It sings most actively at dawn and dusk, but sometimes sings all night. The Henslow's Sparrow takes flight only with great reluctance, preferring to flee from threats by running through the grass. It is not widely observed due to feeding on the ground for grasshoppers and beetles.

This sparrow prefers large, flat fields with no woody plants, and with tall, dense grass, a dense litter layer and standing dead vegetation. It makes a nest (which looks like an open bowl) of loosely woven dry grasses, placed in a layer of grass litter just off the ground. Two to five eggs are generally laid. They appear glossy white, with speckles and blotches. When the chicks hatch, they have eyes closed and are covered with brownish-gray down.

The Great Blue Heron

(Photo courtesy of Marlene Gray)

The Great Blue Heron usually breeds in colonies; the male adults return to the colony site in March. Heronry sites are usually difficult to reach in order to protect eggs and chicks from predators. Nests are re-used each year but individuals choose different new mates and nests. Females arrive in late March or April. They lay 3 to 6 pale blue eggs weighing (60-80 grams). There is only one brood each year with an incubation of 27 days. The male takes a turn in the daytime (about 10 hours) to sit on the eggs; the female does the rest of the day and the night. Both parents feed the chicks. Parents have to eat four times as much food when they are feeding their young. Reproduction is negatively affected by human disturbances, particularly while nesting. It can lead to abandonment of the eggs and chicks.

The most common predators are: turkey vultures, ravens, crows, red-tailed hawk, black bears, raccoons, bald eagles, great-horned owls and humans. The primary source of disturbance and breeding failures at heronries is human activities, mostly through human recreation or habitat destruction.

The primary food items are: small fish, frogs, aquatic insects, rodents (like mice), reptiles and small birds. Herons locate their food by sight and usually swallow it whole. They can choke on prey that is too large. In order to catch food, a solitary heron stands in the water (about 50 cm deep), usually at dusk and dawn.

Reptiles of Special Concern

Five-Lined Skink (Photo courtesy of Ontario Wildlife Org)

The five-lined skink is a smooth, shiny scaled lizard that is at-risk of disappearing from Ontario. It can live up to 6 years. The main reason they are disappearing is because of loss of habitat due to land development. They usually live in wooded, sandy or rocky areas, and hibernate below the frost-line in winter. The young skinks are blackish with five cream- coloured stripes and a bright blue tail. Adults turn bronze with faded stripes and tail. They can be 12-20 cm long.

To attract females, the jaw of the adult male turns orange during breeding. Females lay 6-10 eggs in May or June. She guards the eggs until they hatch in July or August. The skink feeds on insects and worms. Skinks have been spotted on Malcolm Lake shoreline.

Gray Rat Snake (formerly called Black Rat Snake)

The gray rat snake has a life span of 25-30 years, but they are disappearing. Skunks and raccoons steal snake eggs.

The gray rat snake has the record for being the longest snake in Canada (about 100 inches). A gray rat snake’s skin does not stretch so they have to shed their skin to grow. Young snakes have blotchy marks and darken with age. Adults become blackish with lighter chins.

If startled the gray rat snake will coil, hiss and vibrate its tail. That is rather scary, but it is not venomous. The gray rat snake kills mice and rats by squeezing with its body. These snakes make their nests in cottagers’ compost piles or wooded areas. Also, they love to climb trees. The gray rat snake hibernates for all the cold winter weather. Many snakes snuggle together in underground shelters.

Milk Snake

This is a slender snake that can grow to a length of one metre. Its distinctive dorsal blotches are usually red with black borders. The belly has a black and white checkerboard pattern.

The Milksnake can be found in rocky outcrops, fields, or edge of forests. It hibernates underground, in rotting logs or foundations of old buildings.

Like all snakes in Ontario, except for the Massasauga rattlesnake, the Milksnake is not venemous. It captures its prey, usually mice and small ground-nesting birds, with its mouth, and subdues them by constriction. It hunts for prey at night and remains hidden in the daytime. If surprised or threatened, the Milksnake takes an aggressive posture by raising its head in the air and vibrating its tail. It may attempt to bite in defence, but only if attacked.

The Milksnake breeds in the spring. Females lay from three to 24 eggs, often in rotting logs, stups, or the burrows of small mammals. The eggs hatch in 7 to 10 weeks, and the snakes mature in three to four years.

Human persecution is a significant threat to the Milksnake. People kill it on sight, mistaking it for a venemous Massasauga rattlesnake due to its colour and tendency to vibrate its tail when disturbed. Many are killed by vehicles on roads. Habitat loss due to urbanization, road construction, and conversion of natural areas further threatens the population.

Blanding’s Turtle (Photo courtesy of Royal Museum of Ontario)

The bright yellow throat and jaw of the Blanding Turtle make it easy to identify. It has a smooth, domed shape shell that looks like a helmet. This medium -sized turtle prefers shallow wetlands with abundant vegetation. It also spends considerable time moving between wetlands, or searching for food or a mate.

Adult turtles begin to reproduce when they are about 25 years old, so adult turtles are very important to population maintenance. Nesting success is greatly reduced as a result of egg destruction by raccoons and skunks, parasites from fly larvae, and summer weather that is too cool for hatching. Other threats include road mortality, habitat destruction, and collection for pet trade.

Snapping Turtle

Ontario’s oldest, most pre-historic turtle makes its home along our shores. Many live to the age of 70 years. The upper shell (up to 47 cm) is tan or olive to black in colour, coarsely serrated edge, and three ridges. Often it is covered with algae. The snapping turtle has a long tail with triangular spikes along the top. The lower shell is very small. The snapping turtle is most often found in slow-moving water with a soft mud or sand bottom and lots of vegetation. It hibernates in the mud on the bottom of lakes, not too far from shore.

Once females are 17-19 years old, they begin to breed. In late May or June, they dig a nest in loose, sandy soil usually along a road, embankment or shoreline. There will be 40 to 50 eggs which hatch in the fall. The gender of the hatchlings is determined by the incubation temperature of the eggs.

Snapping turtles do not bask in the sun often. They do not swim well but simply walk on the bottom. They are omnivores, feeding on aquatic plants, fish, frogs, snakes, small turtles, and aquatic birds. This species plays an important role in keeping lakes and wetlands clean. About 90% of their diet consists of dead animal and plant matter.

Otter and mink are predators of young adult turtles. The very small shell does not allow for the turtle to withdraw into its shell for protection. On land, the turtle’s only defense is to snap repeatedly and scare the enemy away. In water, it can swim away. Raccoons, foxes, and skunks often eat the turtle eggs shortly after they are laid.

A late age of maturity and slow reproduction rate affect the decline in population. The biggest threats to snapping turtles are road mortality, poaching and hunting. The Ontario Multi-Species Turtles at Risk Recovery Team has strongly urged the Ontario government to remove the snapping turtle from the list of game species in Ontario. Since the snapping turtle bio-accumulates many toxins from their environment, it makes them unsafe to eat anyways.

4.5 Invasive Species

An invasive plant is an alien species whose introduction or spread negatively impacts native biodiversity, the economy and/or society, including human health. Second to habitat loss, invasive species have been identified by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as the most significant threat to biodiversity. www.ontarioinvasiveplants.ca/files/GMI_Booklet_spreads_2011_Final_web.pdf (http://www.invadingspecies.com/)

The Federation of Ontario Cottagers’ Associations (FOCA) states that: An invasive species is an exotic, or alien, species that negatively affects the environment (native species or an ecosystem), the economy, or society. Invasive plants tend to be hardy, fast at reproducing, and have no natural predators in their adopted homes.

In North Frontenac, and in particular the Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes area there are several invasive, or non-native, and aggressive plants, that can totally choke out and kill off native species, if left unchecked. These are described below:

Giant Hogweed (Heracleum mantegazzianum): non- native plant that is spreading across North America and has now made its appearance in Ontario. It is huge, 2.5- 4m (8 – 14ft) tall, with large, compound leaves (up to 1m (3ft) across). It has a purple-flecked, hairy stem and umbrella-shaped clusters of white flowers (up to 1.5m in diameter). Giant Hogweed is member of the carrots, dill, fennel, and Queen Anne’s lace (wild carrot) family. It is very caustic if you touch its juices!

Invasive Phragmites (European Common Reed) is an invasive plant causing damage to Ontario's biodiversity, wetlands and beaches. Invasive Phragmites is a perennial grass that has been damaging ecosystems in Ontario for decades. It is not clear how it was transported to North America from its native home in Eurasia. Invasive Phragmites is an aggressive plant that spreads quickly and out-competes native species for water and nutrients. It releases toxins from its roots into the soil to hinder the growth of and kill surrounding plants. It prefers areas of standing water; its roots can grow to extreme lengths, allowing it to survive in relatively dry areas.

Purple loosestrife (Lythrum sallicaria) Purple loosestrife is a wetland plant native to Europe and Asia that was brought to North America the early 19th century. This highly invasive plant was likely introduced when its seeds were included in soil used as ballast in European sailing ships and discarded in North America. The plant was also spread by early settlers and is still used in flower gardens and occasionally sold in nurseries today.

Since it was brought to North America, purple loosestrife has become a serious invader of wetlands, roadsides and disturbed areas. The plant forms dense stands with thick mats of roots that can extend over vast areas. The stands reduce nutrients and space for native plants and degrade habitat for wildlife. Each plant can grow as many as 30 flowering stems that can produce up to 2.7 million seeds each year. The tiny seeds are easily spread by water, wind, wildlife and humans.

Norway Maple (Acer platanoides): is a tree from Europe. It has the largest leaves of all the maples and its dense, shady canopy will cut out the sun from any other type of maple seedlings trying to grow beneath it. It is a prolific producer of maple seeds and can take over a forest stand, if left.

* Poison Ivy (Toxivodendron radicans): is a poisonous North American and Asian flowering plant that is well known for causing an itching, irritating, and sometimes painful rash in most people who touch it, caused by urushiol, a clear liquid compound in the sap of the plant. Urushiol, however, is not a defensive measure; it helps the plant to retain water. It is variable in its appearance and habit, and despite its common name it is not a true ivy (Hedera). T. radicans is commonly eaten by many animals, and the seeds are consumed by birds, but poison ivy is most often thought of as an unwelcome weed.

* Although poison ivy is not invasive, it is highly toxic and widespread in our area.

Photo courtesy Ruth Cooper

There are numerous subspecies and/or varieties of T. radicans,which can be found growing in any of the following forms, all have woody stems:  as a trailing vine that is 10–25 centimetres (3.9–9.8 in) tall  as a shrub up to 1.2 metres (3 ft 11 in) tall  as a climbing vine that grows on trees or some other support The deciduous leaves of T. radicans are trifoliate with three almond-shaped leaflets. Leaf color ranges from light green (usually the younger leaves) and dark green (mature leaves), turning bright red in fall; though other sources say leaves are reddish when expanding, turn green through maturity, then turns back to red, orange, or yellow in the fall. The leaflets of mature leaves are somewhat shiny. The leaflets are 3–12 cm (1.2–4.7 in) long, rarely up to 30 cm (12 in). Each leaflet has a few or no teeth along its edge, and the leaf surface is smooth. Leaflet clusters are alternate on the vine, and the plant has no thorns. Vines growing on the trunk of a tree become firmly attached through numerous aerial rootlets. The vines develop adventitious roots, or the plant can spread from rhizomes or root crowns. The milky sap of poison ivy darkens after exposure to the air. T. radicans spreads either vegetatively or sexually. It is dioecious; flowering occurs from May to July. The yellowish- or greenish-white flowers are typically inconspicuous and are located in clusters up to 8 cm (3.1 in) above the leaves. The berry-like fruit, a drupe, mature by August to November with a grayish- white colour. Fruits are a favorite winter food of some birds and other animals. Seeds are spread mainly by animals and remain viable after passing through the digestive tract. The following four characteristics are sufficient to identify poison ivy in most situations: (a) clusters of three leaflets, (b) alternate leaf arrangement, (c) lack of thorns, and (d) each group of three leaflets

90 grows on its own stem, which connects to the main vine. Various mnemonic rhymes describe the characteristic appearance of poison ivy: "Leaflets three; let it be" is the best known and most useful cautionary rhyme. It applies to poison oak, as well as to poison ivy, but other, non-harmful plants have similar leaves. "Hairy vine, no friend of mine." "Berries white, run in fright" and "Berries white, danger in sight."

The Issue of Invasive Species

Non-native species introduction into Ontario freshwater systems has become a major environmental issue over the last decade. Both aquatic plants and animals have been introduced in numerous locations and they tend to come with very negative environmental consequences. They may provide competition for food or habitat and thus reduce or displace native species, or they may negatively affect the habitat and/or water quality.

Zebra and quagga mussels, the spiny water flea, and the round goby are examples of species that have been introduced into the Great Lakes in bilge water of cargo vessels from Europe and have had great economic and biological impact on ecosystems. All these animals have now been recorded in many Ontario lakes and are introduced in two ways. They can be introduced by boaters transporting their boats from the Great Lakes or other affected inland lakes, or fishermen dumping minnow buckets containing eggs and larvae at the end of a fishing trip.

Currently, Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes are not supporting viable populations of invasive aquatic animals. Since most potential introductions come from the boating and fishing public, especially those who frequent other lakes, a visible education (signage) program should be initiated at the boat landing, stressing the importance of maintaining clean hulls, dry bilges, and non-dumping of excess bait and bait bucket contents. Residents should be vigilant in maintaining awareness of this issue by guests and visitors at the boat landing and elsewhere.

5.0 TOURISM

5.1 Recreation

Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes provide the opportunity for various recreational activities. Twelve families have permanent residences on Malcolm and there are no permanent residences on Ardoch Lake at the time of writing. Therefore, most recreational activities are seasonal in nature: happen in summer, on holidays or weekends.

In summer, swimming happens at individual properties as there is no public beach. The township sponsors swimming lessons for two week sessions (daily) with the location being north of Plevna at Sand Lake. Several families have taken advantage of these lessons through the years.

Boating has become a much more social activity with the increase of several pontoon boats to the lake. Others use their boats to go fishing on either Malcolm or Ardoch Lake. Fewer fishing boats are noted since the close of the trailer park in 2011. A more leisurely approach is the use of paddleboats, sailboats, canoes and kayaks. Each of these has seen an increase this decade. Speedboats for skiers, wakeboards and tubes are increased on long weekends. Ardoch Lake's size naturally restricts these activities. Even Malcolm Lake tends to be too small for this type of activity as it interferes with other shoreline activities.

Richard and Carolyn Waclawik (Photo courtesy of Waclawik Family)

(Photo courtesy of Ruth and John Cooper) See Appendix- Boating Card

Family barbeques, picnics by the water, reading a good book, and lounging on the beach or deck suit many of the cottagers. Some enjoy nature trips for bird-watching or plant identification; for others, non- working gives a time to play cards or board games, paint landscapes or make creative crafts. Anglers from the lake and community try their hand at fishing; smallmouth bass, largemouth bass and walleye are the most common catches. Recreation for some is a time to visit their cottage neighbours and catch up on the news while sharing a meal and a drink, or two.

North Frontenac Township has created a Dark Sky viewing area which is a public space with amenities, including parking, washrooms, electrical service and a concrete pad, where anyone can setup their telescope and enjoy the dark skies. See Appendix- Star Gazing Events 2016; and North Frontenac Dark Sky Preserve brochure

North Frontenac has one of the darkest skies in southern Canada, providing an excellent view of the night sky and the Milky Way.

In winter some take the opportunity to ice fish, mostly on Malcolm Lake or trout lakes through the township. Snow conditions often prevent travel to or on Ardoch Lake. Some use snowmobiles for day time trips; trails are groomed in North Frontenac and tend to be well maintained. Travel on groomed trails requires a permit so avid snowmobilers are usually the only ones participating. In the past decade four- wheelers have been popular for winter travel on lakes or through the countryside. To improve the four- wheelers capabilities in tough snow conditions, owners can add tracks.

(Photos courtesy of Don Martin)

Winter fishing from their ice huts – Dan Weber and Roy Burgess

When lake conditions are right, snowshoeing, cross country skiing, or skating are possible. Maintaining a cleared spot on the lake to skate can be regular activity in its self. An alternative is the township rink in Plevna which is usually available end of December through March.

Malcolm Ardoch Lakes Landowners' Association sponsors several social activities where property owners are invited to meet others on the lakes and have some fun, too. At the Annual General Meeting (AGM) usually held the second Saturday in June, there are organized sessions of an informative nature pertaining to enhancement and maintenance of the lakes, news from the township about changes of which property owners should know. MALLA social activities for the year are announced. These may include: barbeques, Boat Flotilla, Fishing Derby/ Fish Fry, nature sessions, Winter Family Day, Dark Skies viewing sessions, fundraising events. (Photo courtesy Sheryl Weber)

For a more complete list of recreational activities, there is a yearly guide published by the combined townships of North Frontenac and Central Frontenac. Most clubs, community services and artisans have provided their location, hours of operation, schedule of events and contact information.

(Photo courtesy Ruth and John Cooper)

5.2 Services

Basic services provided through agencies are: hydro, telephone, internet, television, fire and rescue, OPP, ambulance, air ambulance, waste disposal, septic inspections.

HYDRO: Most property owners have Hydro One provide their electrical services. The rules for new installations depend upon your location on the lake; whether there is already service to the site, if it will be underwater cable or overhead wires, and other individual details. Some in the area have chosen off the grid service. The Hydro One maintainers travel from Tweed Office for repair service; head office is Markham. When phoning for a power outage, you will need the hydro outage number, your account number, and your 911 address. Keep all this information on site and readily available as it may be dark when you really need it.

In the early 2000’s there was a large cutback in staff at the Tweed Station. As a result of cutbacks more effort was put into preventative measures such as tree trimming and spraying under hydro lines and towers. Electrical storms continue to pose challenges to the power supply; many permanent and some seasonal residents have generators.

TELEPHONE: Bell Canada wires continue to provide the service lines in the area; however, residents have numerous options for long distance service. In recent years many property owners have turned to cell phones. With the installation in 2013 of a Bell Tower at the end of Malcolm Lake, many more cell phone users have been noted. After testing out the reliability of the cell service for the past year several households no longer have a landline, only cell phones.

INTERNET: There are three types of internet service #1 is satellite with a dish; #2 is DSL which comes over the phone line; and #3 is a cell phone hub device.

#1) Options for satellite providers are limited to a few companies.

#2) DSL service is limited to 7 km from a fibre optic hub. There are two hubs in the township: one located at Fernleigh and the other in Plevna. This service is deemed to be the best at this time as it is the cheapest and relatively high speed.

#3) The cell phone device is a product of Bell hub. At this point Rogers has not invested in this part of the township despite township requests. Telus has partnered with the Bell tower system so their service is also available in our area. The internet cell service is fast but also expensive.

TELEVISION: The CRTC are trying to remove the free channels from TV antennas and force rural people to use satellite service. Cable TV infrastructure is too expensive for a rural area and is not a viable option.

FIRE AND EMERGENCY: The Township of North Frontenac has a number of services to access in case of emergencies. The Township continues to upgrade their services to the public; of particular concern is the great increase in the volume of residents in the summer months. Being aware of the services and how to access them should be studied in advance.

The first responsibility lies with the property owner to have a road that is accessible to emergency vehicles. The property access road must be at least 6 metres wide to allow fire and service trucks through. Also, it must be sufficiently maintained- free of trees and snow or other obstructions.

In an emergency call 9-1-1 and the appropriate services will be notified.

Fire: There are four fire halls in North Frontenac. The nearest one to Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes is located at 6648 Road 506 on the way to Plevna. Fire fighters are volunteers from the immediate area. They are also trained to respond to emergency medical situations until the paramedics arrive.

Medical: Frontenac Paramedic Services operate eight ambulance stations and headquarters to serve nearly 200 000 people. One station in North Frontenac is located at Roberstville at 15405 Road 509. This location is deemed to be central to the northern area as the vehicle can quickly reach Ardoch Road if the incident is on the west side of the township where our lakes are.

Defibrillators: A number of Automated External Defibrillators (AEDs) are located throughout the township. This is not such a reliable service as the buildings where they are contained are not always open to the public BUT they do have the potential for saving lives. Presently, there are AEDs at the Township Office, and the community halls in the various communities. Our nearest one would be Township, Plevna.

Helipad: Should the medical emergency be severe, there is air ambulance service out of the Helipad site at 5816 Road 506. The Township owns, operates and maintains two emergency helipads that can service emergency air transport should circumstances require immediate hospital attention.

Ontario Provincial Police: The closest detachments are Sharbot Lake and Kaladar and officers from either of these locations may respond. At this time there is controversy over the budget requirements that the Township must expend in order to have reasonable OPP service.

Waste Disposal Sites: While the Ardoch site is closed, the closest one for property owners in this area is located north of Plevna on the Buckshot Road. It has all the recycling possibilities available. For a detailed list of materials to be recycled go to the North Frontenac Township website. Compost bins are also sold at the Township Office. Composting is encouraged in each household to reduce the amount of waste that goes into landfills but also to convert the material to a useful product for gardening and landscaping. See Appendix- Waste Management Brochure

Septic System Re-inspections: The township of North Frontenac entered into a voluntary septic re- inspection program in partnership with Mississippi Rideau Septic System Office in 2005 with a preliminary program of 30 properties inspected. Since then the goal has been to complete 100 voluntary inspections each year.

A properly functioning sewage system is an integral part of a healthy shoreline environment. Improperly maintained systems can be a significant contributor of nutrient and bacteriological contamination into our lakes. The key to proper maintenance and operation of an on-site sewage system is education. The Septic Re-inspection Program is aimed at achieving a better understanding of system function, owner intervention and preventative measures. The costly implications of poor maintenance are significant to the owner and to the community.

According to the Septic Inspection Officer, the percentage of the lake population that gets letter depends on the size of the lake and the age of the systems. On larger lakes they generally focus on one end or another to make the program more efficient. The Program focuses on properties that either do not have sewage system permit information or have a sewage system that is 10 years or older. It is their experience that the operation of a system is related to how well it is maintained and not necessarily age.

For the 2014 year, the mail outs were very late in the season-last week of August. Since a high percentage of owners are seasonal only, re-inspection numbers were low. To correct this communication problem packages will be scheduled to go out in early to mid-May.

In 2014 it was the first year for re-inspections on Malcolm Lake; ten properties were inspected. For Ardoch Lake no properties have been inspected by the MRS Office. For this service contact the township office or a municipal councilor.

Most properties have a septic tank and conventional leaching field (trench bed or filter media if installed mid 1980’s to present). Many properties have an outhouse (privy) as a backup if power is out or the water system is off. On Malcolm Lake five properties had no concerns at the time of the inspection; five other properties required remedial work. The definition of “remedial work” is: “At the time of the inspection operational and/or maintenance issues were identified, but generally do not require a permit to remedy.” See Appendix- Rural Septic System Checklist and Septic Smart! Understanding Your Home’s Septic System Resource Booklet

See the Table 6 below for examples of common issues. In the 2014 season report for the area these were noted. Some systems had more than one issue. Full report available @ www.malla.ca

TABLE 6

Pump Out 11

Concrete Corrosion 12

Greywater concern 2

Baffles require maintenance (broken/roots) 10

Privy concern 6

Vegetation (Trees within leaching bed/tank area) 1

Effluent level high or low 3

High level alarm recommended 2

Total 47

2015 Sewage System Re-inspection Program Report for Township of North Frontenac Prepared by Eric Kohlsmith (Mississippi Rideau Septic System Office) Types of Septic Systems Inspections for Inspections for Ardoch Lake Malcolm Lake Class 1: Earth pit, vault, pail/portable 5 0 privies/composting toilets Class 2: Greywater 1 0 Class 3: Cesspools 0 0 Class 4: Septic tank & leaching bed 10 0 Class 5: Holding tank 0 0

Results of Inspections Malcolm Lake Ardoch Lake No concerns 6 Not applicable Remedial work 4 Not applicable

6.0 NATURAL RESOURCES

6.1 Forest Resources

This region lies within the Mississippi Valley Watershed and the St. Lawrence Forest Region. Since Crown Land is limited to five islands in the middle of Malcolm Lake, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry has no option for commercial logging. Private landowners may log their properties if they so wish or by contracting to a harvesting company. Schonauer Brothers Logging (since 1980) is one such company still in the Ardoch area.

Many landowners practice limited selective logging for their domestic fuel use. Families with sufficient acreage may cut firewood for sale in addition to their own use. When landowners are choosing trees by themselves in the absence of trained tree markers, they need to be cognizant of the wood volume being removed. If it is significant removal (more than 5% of a stand) it should be considered for marking prior to harvest. Tree cutting along the lakeshore must comply with the Township by-laws. See North Frontenac Zoning By-Laws Section 4.22.

The historical perspective is presented extensively in the History of The Lakes-Lumbering section. Peak logging activity was between 1901 and 1921; Lorne McDonald of Ardoch took the last river drive down the Mississippi in 1921. The harvesting of hardwood in volume did not start until the advent of portable mills.

The tree cover for Malcolm Lake tends to be lawn and shore variety. The exception is the west end of the lake where over 80 acres of mixed forest exists. Ardoch Lake has more extensive forest coverage with one property approximately 100 acres and others along the Schonauer Road have sections of forested land.

Trees in this area are predominantly cedar, white pine, hemlock, balsam fir, white spruce, sugar maple, red pine, tamarack and some white birch.

100

Around Malcolm Lake there are sufficient sugar maple trees for several families to produce maple syrup each year. Although most families produce only enough for family use, the Weber and Watkins families sell syrup locally.

6.2 Mining

Little is reported about mining in the Clarendon-Miller Township and none specific to Malcolm /Ardoch Lakes. There was a brief entry written by C. A. Armstrong in his book Away Back in Clarendon-Miller (1976).

A mining product from the area was exhibited at the Centennial Exhibition in Chicago in 1893 which celebrated the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America by Columbus. The exhibition featured developments in the field of electricity and structural steel and the Province of Ontario's exhibits included a block of mineral used in the production of steel. This was a piece of molybdenite the size of a milk pail taken from the mine on Lot 5 N.E.R. Miller-Playfair Corner community.

The mineral rights on this lot were sold to a syndicate around the end of the 1800's. The type of activity was not known except that three miners operated the mine during World War I. They drilled shallow holes with hand drills and blasted them out with dynamite and then handpicked the mineral which was in pockets- not disseminated throughout the rock.

101

Jack Weber at Boerth Gold Mine (Photo courtesy of Sheryl Weber)

The most important mine in the area, based on expenditures and development, was the Boerth Gold Mine on the west side of the Frontenac Road immediately south of Swamp Creek. A tunnel was cut into the side of the hill, a shaft was sunk and stopes were cut underground. A complete mining plant was installed to operate a gold mine. Production was inadequate to pay operating costs and the mine folded in 1904. This was followed by the usual rumours of highgrading and a gold brick being found in a woodpile. Several years later the mine was sold to Jas. Warner of Smiths Falls who broke up the machinery and sold the scrap.

One of the geologists from a large mining company had studied the reports on the area and found that, while there were numerous deposits of commercial grade ore containing gold, silver and molybdenite, these deposits were too small and too widely disseminated to be of commercial value.

Under the Mining Act of Ontario, “The System of Free Entry”, individuals and mining companies had the right to crown owned minerals from the surface of the claims downwards. Three rights came with free entry:

 Right of entry and access on the majority of land in Ontario (normal trespass laws do not apply)  Right to locate and record a claim without consulting land users;  Right to acquire a mining license with no discretion on the part of the Crown.

These rights were challenged in the courts and led to some changes. Private property must now be respected by licensed prospectors; they can no longer stake claim or work on private property without

102 permission from the owner of the land. The idea of Surface Rights was changed after the residents of Tay Valley took the mining company all the way to Ontario Superior Court. The area around Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes is not zoned for mineral extraction. Therefore, it is not an issue at this time. Also, aggregate resources are now protected from development by Provincial legislation. They believe gravel is a non- renewable resource and needs to be protected.

As recently as 2007 Frontenac Ventures Corporation attempted to open a new mine in North Frontenac. It was a privately owned uranium mining and exploration company which staked a vast sweep of land in Clarendon-Miller Township for uranium exploration. Members of the Shabot -Obaadjiwan and Ardoch First Nations, along with non-native cottage owners and an array of concerned citizens, barricaded the entrance to the Roberstville site. Protest issues ranged from the unceded land to concerns about taking uranium out of the ground, and defensive car bomb testing being done on the land for the military.

On October 12, 2007 the protesters left the blockade after Frontenac Ventures agreed to a mediation process with representatives of the First Nations groups along with representatives of the Canadian and Ontario governments. President of Frontenac Ventures, George White, agreed to stay off the land until mediation was completed.

After a year and a half of protests, some aboriginals struck an agreement with the mining company and the Ontario government to allow exploratory drilling. On Dec.1, 2008 representatives appeared in Superior Court, Kingston to finalize the details of the deal. This deal making did not sit well with Bob Lovelace who went to jail during this period to exemplify the First Nations’ stand and that property rights of all Ontario residents were being threatened by archaic mining laws. It is believed that the time has lapsed for the staking rights of Frontenac Ventures project.

Presently, the Provincial Policy and the Mining Act both protect mining interests.

103

7.0 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

North Frontenac Township has over 200 pristine lakes, many forested areas, an abundance of wildlife and the darkest skies in southern Canada for observing the Milk Way. These features make the township attractive to waterfront buyers. Waterfront property values continue to grow relative to other rural lands. With a finite number of lakes, waterfront property is under increased pressure to be developed which will provide a larger tax base to the township. Of huge concern to property owners is the maintenance of environmental lake capacity. Prior to development the Municipality needs to have a plan that considers all the factors that affect future sustainability of the lake.

North Frontenac is faced with the issue of providing services to an aging population. Property tax revenue is the source of funding for services; with seasonal residents making up about 72% (in 2011) of the population, the township must pay attention to this sector. According to the North Frontenac and Central Frontenac Recreation Guide (2015) “the tranquility and outdoor sports is what most residents and visitors love about the area.”

Waterfront property owners of Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes in the 2013 survey identified these key values: peace and tranquility; protection of the lake for future generations; precaution in the nature and degree of development around lakes; respect for the rights of property owners; and environmentally friendly lifestyle; and participation, collaboration and shared responsibility. Residents, both seasonal and permanent, must assume shared responsibility with the township to achieve their expectations of waterfront life.

Unlike many of the other township lakes, Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes have little provincially owned Crown Land: Ardoch (0%) and Malcolm has (less than 5%) the five islands and the site where the dam is located. North Frontenac Township controls development through its Official Plan and Township By- laws.

7.1 Lake Capacity

Federation of Ontario Cottagers’ Association defines lake capacity as: the maximum allowable development that can occur on the shorelines of a lake without impairing water quality. What this definition does not state is the distance beyond the shoreline that is impacted- referred to as second tier or backlot development. The MOE states that environmental work completed within 300 metres of a lake must be considered under MOE requirements; thus backlot or second tier development will have considerable impact on lake capacity as well.

In the MOE presentation by Victor Castro, to NF Township on June 30, 2016 he referred to the present model of determining lake capacity as outlined in the Lakeshore Capacity Assessment Handbook (2010) produced by FOCA. This model uses only the Total Phosphorus and dissolved oxygen data to make the

104 determination. Mr. Castro was clear that this model only works within 20 % accuracy range. Also, many lakes will not model properly using this formula. When questioned about the other factors that contribute to lake capacity, he noted that input from the public wants consideration given to areas such as lighting, density, noise and recreation such as boating. With additional information provided since 2010, the Handbook is being revised and updated to include other factors; however, it will not be available this year.

FOCA states that the model was not intended for application to the following lakes:

1) Off-Shield lakes; 2) The Great Lakes 3) Shallow lakes 4) Tea-stained lakes (where dissolved organic carbon is greater than 10mg/ L -mostly northern lakes 5) Small lakes (with a surface area less than 25 hectares).

Within this document our concept of lake capacity is measured by multiple factors such as water quality, recreation, impacts to fish and wildlife and social impacts. It is this expanded definition that we propose NF Township utilize when determining lake capacity within its jurisdiction. As a beginning, lake capacity determination should consider: [total shoreline in metres minus (developed areas) minus (wetlands) minus (Crown Lands) minus (sloped shorelines where construction would be questionable)] divided by (minimum water frontage) and then also consider recreational and environmental factors such as those listed below.

With respect to residential development these factors need to be considered with respect to the determination of lake capacity:

 Minimum lot size  Minimum water frontage  Back lot designs  Shoreline setbacks  Seasonal /permanent  Location and size of shoreline structures  Water quality  Public access points to water  Loss of vegetation at shoreline  Boating and docks  Road access  Drinking water supply  Sewage disposal  Archaeological resources  Resource management  Impact on community service

105

 Fish habitat  Wildlife impact  Capacity for future development  Pollutants associated with residential development

Some jurisdictions, such as the Township of Sequin, have defined recreational carrying capacity in their OP and have provided guidelines for measuring such. Their definition is: Recreational carrying capacity is an estimate of the number of users that can be accommodated on the surface of the lake while maintaining the recreational amenity of the waterbody. For this reason, estimates of recreational carrying capacity shall be based upon the size of the lake. In order to minimize the impact of development, the Municipality may impose limitations on the size of docks, public access to the lake or seek voluntary restrictions on the power of boats using the lake.

No carrying capacity formula is right for every lake. The size of the lake, the demand for various activities and the condition of the lake must be considered when setting realistic goals and standards. One factor to consider is the ecological or aesthetic value of the lake. For example, the carrying capacity on a fishing lake, would have a lower capacity than a lake used primarily for boating.

Sequin guidelines for the calculation of recreational capacity are based on the following formula: i) Net surface area is calculated by reducing the total surface area within 30 metres of shoreline. ii) A density of one residential unit for every 1.6 hectares lake surface area and one tourist accommodation unit for every .8 hectares of net surface area will be permitted. iii) Distinct bays having connections to a larger portion of the waterbody less than 60 metres wide shall be considered as a separate waterbody for the purposes of the carrying capacity.

7.2 Pollutants Associated with Residential Development

Human activities have a large impact on the natural environment. Wildlife reproductive success and habitat choice are influenced by factors such as noise, lighting, boating and contaminant from septic systems. Be a considerate landowner at the lake by making respectful choices.

Noise: Reduce noise from fireworks and parties as these disturb wildlife and the peace and tranquility that many landowners value.

Lighting: Help keep the sky full of stars; reduce bulb wattage for floodlights. Use motion detectors and/or direct lighting downward. Check that your lighting is not a disturbance to your neighbours or others on the lake. Excessive lighting affects wildlife by changing foraging, mating, hibernation and migration.

Use of Boats: Most boat operators are familiar with boat safety and etiquette but are less familiar with the impact of boat wakes. Boats moving through the water create waves- "wake". The larger the wake the greater the potential for increased erosion, disturbed sediments, and drowning the nests and young loons. People impacts include danger to swimmers, other boaters, and damage to docks or moored boats. For a more extensive explanation go to:

106 http://foca.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Watching_Your_Wake_for_use_by_other_lakes.pdf

(Diagram courtesy of Pike Lake Association)

The Federation of Ontario Cottage Association provided the following tips for “How You can be Wake Wise”.

1. Beware of the size of your wake during displacement, transition and planing speeds.

2. Position your passengers through-out the boat in order to reduce the time spent in transition speed.

3. Look behind you to see and understand the impact of your wake on shorelines, docks or other structures. Adjust your speed and direction to minimize the impact.

4. Respect the shoreline zone. Reduce your speed to less than 10 km/h within 30 metres of any shore including the narrow channels between islands.

5. Water-ski, tube, and wake-board well away from all shorelines. Try to make use of the entire length of the lake.

6. Consider the size of the wake produced when purchasing a new boat. (*Some activities are not appropriate due to the size of Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes)

Septic: The most serious pollutant for our lakes is the improper functioning of a septic system. All owners should have their septic systems inspected regularly; recommended every 3 years for year- round residents and every 5 years for seasonal sites. Be mindful that leaching from septic poses greater health risks as water temperatures rise due to climate change. Contact Mississippi Rideau Septic (MRS) to participate in the voluntary re-inspection program. See the Health Unit resource booklet -Septic Smart! Understanding Your Home’s Septic System

107

7.3 The Official Plan

The Malcolm Ardoch Lakes Association sub-watershed is in Clarendon and Miller- district of North Frontenac Township. The current Official Plan (OP) for North Frontenac was approved in 2003; in the summer of 2016 a draft of the new OP was posted for public input and followed-up with public meetings. Guided by the Provincial Policy Statement and public input, the OP is a legal document providing objectives and policies that describe how land can be used and how the character of the water bodies will be protected. Zoning by-laws set out specific requirements that include minimum setbacks from water, lot coverage and maximum building height. The Official Plan is established to guide the growth and development of the Township while having regard for relevant social, economic and environmental matters.

The Provincial Policy Statement (2014) places a greater emphasis on the protection of surface water. Under Section 2.2 Water, the Provincial Policy Statement requires planning authorities to: protect, improve or restore the quality and quantity of water. Under section 2.2.1 (g), this includes ensuring considerations of environmental lake capacity, where applicable.

In keeping with the Provincial Statement requirements, section 4.10.1 of the NF-OP states: It is the intent of this Plan to ensure conservation and preservation of water resources. For the purpose of this Plan, Lake Development Areas shall generally include all lands extending 150 metres (500 feet) from the ordinary high water mark of any lake, river, or waterway. The policies of this section of the Plan are intended to govern development within 150 m (500 feet) of these water bodies and islands with the intent to protect water quality, shoreline amenities and natural habitat areas ...It is Council’s intent that the water quality of all water bodies within the Municipality will be maintained at their present level or enhanced. Any new development must be considered in light of its effect of the impacts on the environmental quality of any lake or river.

The Official Plan sets out the requirements for any development in this specified section, but also outlines a number of principles focused upon protecting and maintaining environmental attributes, aesthetic qualities and character of the waterfront areas. These guiding principles are fundamental to the beliefs and values expressed by MALLA members and we look forward to seeing evidence that the Township is upholding them.

“The following principles will apply to growth and development within the waterfront designation:

i) The waterfront area of the Township is an important resource, which will be protected; ii) The integrity of the natural environment, landscape, shorelines and water quality will be protected; iii) Natural and cultural heritage, and habitat will be preserved; iv) The aesthetic qualities and scenic features of a waterfront area will be preserved; v) The character of the waterfront will be maintained; vi) The traditional mix of uses in the waterfront will continue;

108

vii) Development on the land and at the shoreline will be compatible with abutting uses and the surrounding area and where possible will enhance and protect those qualities that contribute to the area’s character; viii) Development will not have a negative impact on the municipal fiscal situation;”

In the 2016 draft of the OP, the Township has introduced “Lake Development Area Concept” which aims to guide development of lands around its lakes in an environmentally sustainable manner. If implemented, this “conservation design” approach is intended to achieve a balance among land, water, vegetation, wildlife and human activity. These particular points described in section 4.10.1F s are valued by our lake association: 1) consideration of “yield” 2) a conservation inventory prior to development 3) consider permanent rather than seasonal occupancy 4) water access points to conserve shoreline 5) cluster design if backlot development is requested 6) consideration of the many factors which impact lake capacity such as wildlife habitats and wetlands as described below.

With respect to the Lake Plan wildlife habitat is an important aspect. The Endangered Species Act (2007) is designed to protect the habitat of endangered or threatened species and to provide for the protection and recovery of Ontario’s species at risk and their habitats. The NF-OP has given such protection: “No development or site alteration shall be permitted within the significant habitat of endangered or threatened species. Development and site alterations shall not be permitted on adjacent lands of endangered or threatened species unless it has been demonstrated through the preparation of an impact assessment as required in Section 4.2.12.F –Environmental Impact Assessment of this Plan, that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on the ecological functions. This is of particular concern for the protection of the well- established heron rookery on Ardoch Lake and for the continued efforts to enhance walleye spawning beds in both Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes.

Should any wetlands be defined, “no development shall be permitted that does not otherwise comply with Ontario Regulation 319/09, with respect to development interference with wetlands and alterations and watercourses, as administered by the Conservation Authority” Section 4.24(f). In the case of Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes, the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority is the administrative body.

The Lake Development Plans section of the draft OP is very encouraging to lake associations. The North Frontenac Lakes Alliance Association should provide input into decisions made for lakes in this Municipality. Lake Plans developed by Lake Associations have invested many hours into research and data collection; they have the potential to contribute significant data for decision-making at the Municipal level.

109

7.4 North Frontenac Zoning By-Laws

LEGEND: RW (AQUA GREEN) WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ----(dotted line) INFLUENCE AREA H (DARK PINK) HAMLET ZONE WMF (red dot) WASTE MNGMT FACILITY TC (GOLD) TOURIST COMMERCIAL MR (TURQUOISE) MINING MI (YELLOW) LIGHT INDUSTRY R (PALE YELLOW) RURAL MX (RED STRIPED) MNERAL EXTRACTION LSR (WHITE) RURAL & LIMITED DEVICE RURAL EP (LT GREY) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EP-1 (DK GREY) OPRGANIC SOILS

110

Waterfront/Residential North Frontenac North Frontenac Central Frontenac By- Proposed By-law law By-law 2003

Lot Sizes

Lot area (minimum) 0.4 ha (0.98ac) .6 ha (1.48ac) 1 ha (2.47 ac)

Lot frontage (minimum 45m (147.6 ft) 61 (200 ft) 91 m (298.5ft) shoreline)

Lot frontage (road) 45 m (147.6 ft) 61 (200 ft) 46 m (150.9 ft)

Lot coverage (main 15% 15% 15% building)

Lot coverage (accessory 5% (max 140 sq m) 5% (max 140 sq m) 2% buildings/uses)

SETBACKS-MAIN BUILDING

Shoreline setback main 30 m (20 m for lots of record 30 m (98.4 ft) 30 m (98.4 ft) building as of July22/04

Front Yard (backlot) 7 m (22.9 ft) 7 m (22.9 ft) 7 m(22.9 ft)

Rear yard main building 7.5 m (24.6 ft) 7.5 m (24.6 ft) 7.5 m (24.6 ft)

Side yard main building 3m ( 9.84 ft) 3m (9.84 ft) 3m (9.84 ft)

SETBACKS-ACCESORY USES

Shoreline setback 20 m (65.6ft) 30 m (98.4 ft) 30 m (98.4ft)

Gazebo/viewing 1 m from shoreline 1 m from shoreline platform

111

Docks max structure 2.4 * 10 m 2.4 * 10 m

Septic System 30 m (98.4 ft) 30 m (98.4 m)

7.5 Land Use and Development

A unique feature in the Municipality of North Frontenac is the large amount of provincially owned Crown Land that surrounds many of the lakes in the area. For instance, Crotch Lake, immediately east of Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes, has approximately 98% of waterfront that is Crown Land, and Kashwakamak Lake, just southwest, has roughly 35% Crown Land fronting the lake. The benefit of Crown Land is that it buffers the impact of shoreline development by reducing the overall density of development around the lake. Unlike neighbouring lakes, Malcolm and Ardoch do not have significant quantities of Crown Land along their shorelines. All Crown Lands on Malcolm are islands and Ardoch has no Crown Lands. This is a significant factor when calculating lake capacity.

Waterfront land on Ardoch and Malcolm Lakes is used primarily for residential purposes, with both permanent and seasonal dwellings comprising the majority of shoreline structures. The Township of North Frontenac Zoning By-Law No. 15-04 sets out provisions for new waterfront development and ensures minimum setbacks from the lake are obeyed. Responsible land use on Ardoch and Malcolm Lakes is important for the overall health and sustainability of the lakes.

To this end, the Township should enlist an independent consultant to obtain Environmental Impact Study data prior to making decisions about multi-lot shoreline developments and to determine the lake capacity for smaller lakes in the township.

The report by Gord Neilsen (August 21, 2014) pointed out some considerations for land development:

1) The occupancy rates for dwellings, if higher than seasonal, would significantly increase phosphorous levels. 2) Existing cottage owners may take the opportunity to convert their cottage to year-round residences, or existing lots may be developed, or lots severed for estate planning. Each of these situations contributes to lake capacity. 3) Overland run-off associated with development, impacts on lake phosphorous concentrations. 4) Of high priority to land use development is the ability of the landowners to monitor and maintain septic systems such that they are always working properly. Given that the township does not have mandatory septic inspection, responsibilities lie entirely with the owners. 5) Decisions made with respect to Ardoch Lake have the potential to impact water quality on Malcolm Lake as well. 6) The scale of development for shorelines has an impact on the aesthetic and recreational

112

qualities of a lake. In particular, there is potential to have a negative impact on the fish community depending upon the level of development. 7) With respect to land use and residential development, planning authorities need to consider factors such as: building envelopes, leaching bed locations, driveway locations, docking envelopes, and shoreline access points. In addition, we would add: 8) Second-tier or backlot development for small lakes with shoreline perimeters of less than 8 kilometres be restricted.

With respect to backlots causing density of the proposed development on Ardoch Lake, Mr. Neilsen pointed out in his presentation that it is extremely unusual for an application to be advanced which would see an increase of 25% or more in the number of residential units on a lake, let alone the approximate 400% increase in the number of dwellings as a result of backlots.

In 2009 lot inventories on Ardoch and Malcolm Lakes were conducted to determine the current state of land use around the lakes and to assess the proximity of existing waterfront structures to the shoreline. The current provisions within the North Frontenac Zoning By-Law No. 15-04 (draft 2011) state that the “minimum setback from the shoreline for a habitable structure (dwelling), a non-residential building or on-site sewage disposal system shall be 30 m (98.4 ft.) for all water bodies,” excluding marine facilities.

The lot inventories on Ardoch Lake indicated that only one property contained a main building structure within 15 meters of the shoreline, while 3 structures were identified between 15 and 30 meters from the shoreline, and one property had a farm located more than 1 kilometer from the waterfront. Altogether, of the 20 assessed lakefront properties, 7 lots contain main building structures. A summary of the lot inventories taken on Ardoch Lake is presented in Table 7.1: Development Status of Property on Ardoch Lake. able 7.1: Development Status of Property on Ardoch Lake (2009)

Development Status of Property Number of Properties

Structure Beyond 30 m from Shoreline 2

Structure Between 15 m and 30 m of Shoreline 3

Structure within 15 m of Shoreline 1

Multiple Structures on Property 0

Vacant Property 13

Farmland 1

Total Properties 20

113

On Malcolm Lake, the lot inventories determined that approximately 10 properties contained main building structures within 15 meters of the shoreline, while the majority of structures (42) were found to be between 15 and 30 meters from the shoreline. Beyond 30 meters, 22 structures were identified, plus one property identified as farmland located more than 400 meters from the lakefront. Overall, the inventory accounts for 75 lakefront lots, of a total 107 assessed properties, which have main building structures. A summary of the lot inventories taken on Malcolm Lake are presented in Table 7.2: Development Status of Property on Malcolm Lake.

Table 7.2: Development Status of Property on Malcolm Lake (2009)

Development Status of Property Number of Properties

Structure Beyond 30 m from Shoreline 22

Structure Between 15 m and 30 m of Shoreline 42

Structure within 15 m of Shoreline 10

Multiple Structures on Property 0

Vacant Property 32

Farmland 1

Total Properties 107

Data were updated through the Love-You-Lake Shoreline Assessment in 2015.

114

115

8.0 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Environment Canada records indicate that in eastern and southern Ontario, most climate change has occurred in winter, with present average winter temperatures about 1.5°C higher than they were 50 years ago. Summer temperatures are approximately 0.5 to 0.7°C higher, while spring temperatures have increased by roughly 1°C. Conversely, autumn temperatures exhibit no trends.

Evaporation is increasing in the Great Lakes region at a rate of about 6% per 1°C rise in temperature, which means future annual evaporation rates will likely continue to increase as air temperature rises. Transpiration rates (evaporation through plant tissues), linked to air temperature and the length of the growing season, will also likely increase. These forecasts imply that future soil moisture levels, water levels and river discharge could decrease during snow-free seasons. In fact, low summer flows are already now occurring three times as frequently as they were 40 years ago. Lower summer stream flows will reduce flushing rates and waste assimilation capacity and will increase the risk for low dissolved oxygen levels in rivers and lakes.

In the Mississippi watershed area, rainfall has been increasing at a rate of 1-3% per decade since 1970 and climate models suggest that this rate will continue to increase, likely becoming 10-20% higher than present by the year 2050. Although rainfall is expected to continue to increase, it will most likely be in the form of more intense, heavy rainfall events, meaning the occurrence of events will be fewer and further between, but greater in magnitude, and conditions between events will be drier. Higher intensity precipitation events such as these will have negative impacts on the watershed by increasing nutrient loading to the river system, and increasing the occurrence of shoreline erosion and regional flooding.

Warmer winters have meant greater winter discharge because increased snow melt is occurring during winter months. This has resulted in less snowmelt for the spring freshet, which now occurs earlier than before, causing water levels to decline earlier in the year and remain low more frequently throughout the entire summer. Since 2009 MALLA has recorded the weeks of ice in/ice out for Malcolm Lake to look for trends. (Data provided by Ron Higgins)

116

117

Climate change will have a noticeable effect, in particular, on the fisheries of the Mississippi watershed as it is located at the southern range for cold water species such as lake trout and within the northern limit for warm water species such as bass. Even a small increase in water temperature can cause very significant (15 times or more) shifts in recruitment success of warm water fish species and similar declines in cold water fish species. Higher temperatures will favor the growth rates of mature warm water fish, while, at the same time, having detrimental effects on the growth rates of mature cool walleye and cold water guilds. In addition, as water flow and discharge patterns in the Mississippi watershed evolve, disturbances at critical periods in the growth cycle of many fish species, caused by water level fluctuations in lakes, will negatively impact recruitment. In fact, reports show that recruitment rates in lakes studied within the watershed are already shifting and that these changes will continue.

Overall, climate model reservoir simulations suggest that average annual stream flow will decrease by 10% between the base period of 1972-2003 and the future period of 2070-2099. Stream flows in the fall and winter months will increase by approximately 74% and 70%, respectively, but they will decrease by 43% in the spring and 66% in the summer. Greater stream flows in the fall and winter will result in greater flood risks during these seasons with the probability of increased shoreline erosion and less ice generation. According to projections, minimum summer flows will persist 28% longer and will decrease by about 44%. Sixty years from now, spring freshets are expected to occur 6-7 weeks earlier than

118 present and peak stream flow will be roughly 33% lower. The reservoir system on the Mississippi River, developed close to a century ago, uses historic runoff characteristics of the watershed and the storage of spring snowmelt to supplement stream flow during summer low-flow periods. Projected shifts in future runoff patterns will increase the length of time in which stream flows may require augmentation, exceeding the capacity of the Mississippi reservoir system and ultimately resulting in lower water levels throughout the watershed.

The impacts of climate change will be both positive and negative. Longer summer seasons will provide extended enjoyment of swimming and outdoor activities such as camping, but lower water levels may impact boating and water clarity. Another concern is that pathogens, such as E. coli and Giardia lamblia, will multiply faster in warmer water making the lake less suitable for recreation. Also, shorter winters will reduce cold-weather activities like ice fishing, as winter fisheries and safe ice conditions will become more limited. Fortunately, some of these climate change impacts may be reduced through adaptation and integrated planning. Continued awareness and community coordination at a local level will help in achieving long-term goals for mitigating the costs and impacts associated with an evolving watershed.

119

APPENDICES

Bird Species Checklist

The following checklist is for all of North Frontenac County. It lists most breeding birds and many transient species seen only during migration. It has been assembled from several resources but is not a complete list of all of the birds you might see in North Frontenac. In the Confirmed Breeding column letters indicate the following with regard to the species breeding in North Frontenac:

- “X” => breeding confirmed (Atlas of the Breeding Bird of Ontario, first edition) - “pr” => breeding probable - “ps” => breeding possible - blank column => species does not breed in North Frontenac

The breeding status is taken from the Atlas of the Breeding Bird of Ontario, first edition.

Species Confirmed Observed @ Notes Breeding M&A Lakes Canada Goose  Wood Duck pr American Black Duck X Mallard X  Redhead  White-winged Scoter  Long-tailed Duck  Hooded Merganser pr  Common Merganser X  Ruffed Grouse X  Common Loon X  Pied-billed Grebe pr Double-crested Cormorant  American Bittern ps Least Bittern ps Green Heron ps  Great Blue Heron X  Turkey Vulture X  Osprey X  Northern Harrier pr Sharp-shinned Hawk ps Cooper’s hawk ps Northern Goshawk ps

120

Bald Eagle  Red-shouldered Hawk ps Broad-winged Hawk X  Red-tailed Hawk pr  Virginia Rail pr Sora ps Common Gallinule ps Killdeer X Rock Pigeon X Spotted Sandpiper pr Common Snipe pr American Woodcock pr  Bonaparte’s Gull  Ring-billed Gull  Herring Gull X  Mourning Dove pr  Black-billed Cuckoo pr Eastern Screech Owl ps  Great Horned Owl pr Barred Owl ps  Northern Saw-whet Owl ps Common Nighthawk pr Eastern Whip-poor-will ps  Sept 7, 2015 BJM Ruby-throated Hummingbird X  Belted Kingfisher X  Yellow-bellied Sapsucker pr  Downy Woodpecker X  Hairy Woodpecker X Northern Flicker X  Pileated Woodpecker X  Olive-sided Flycatcher ps Eastern Wood-Peewee pr  Alder Flycatcher pr Least Flycatcher pr  Eastern Phoebe X  Great Crested Flycatcher pr Eastern Kingbird X Blue-headed Vireo ps  Warbling Vireo ps  Philadelphia Vireo ps Red-eyed Vireo X  Blue Jay pr  American Crow pr  Common Raven pr 

121

Purple Martin ps Tree Swallow X Bank Swallow X Cliff Swallow ps Barn Swallow X  Black-capped Chickadee X  Red-breasted Nuthatch X  White-breasted Nuthatch pr  Brown Creeper X  House Wren ps Winter Wren pr  Golden-crowned Kinglet  Ruby-crowned Kinglet ps  Eastern Bluebird ps Veery pr  Swainson’s Thrush ps  Hermit Thrush X  Wood Thrush ps  American Robin X  Gray Catbird pr  Brown Thrasher ps European Starling X Cedar Waxwing pr Nashville Warbler X Yellow Warbler pr Blackburnian Warbler ps  Chestnut-sided Warbler pr Magnolia Warbler ps Black-throated Blue Warbler ps Pine Warbler pr  Black-and-white Warbler X  American Redstart pr  Ovenbird pr  Northern Waterthrush ps  Mourning Warbler ps Common Yellowthroat X Yellow-rumped Warbler ps  Canada Warbler X  Scarlet Tanager ps Eastern Towhee X Chipping Sparrow pr Field Sparrow pr Song Sparrow X Lincoln’s Sparrow ps

122

Swamp Sparrow pr White-throated Sparrow X  Dark-eyed Junco X  Rose-breasted Grosbeak pr  Indigo Bunting pr Bobolink ps Red-winged Blackbird X  Common Grackle X  Brown-headed Cowbird pr Baltimore Oriole X Purple Finch pr Red Crossbill ps White-winged Crossbill ps American Goldfinch pr  Evening Grosbeak ps House Sparrow

Wild turkeys X

123

Plants

Within the charts plants are sorted by species to be identified within the Malcolm and Ardoch Lakes watershed by MALA members. The Lake Plan requests on-going input from those in the Malcolm/Ardoch area to make the species list (plants and animals) for the sub-watershed, wetlands, and forests more complete.

Key To Tables: Family Common and or scientific name; Name Common name; Key Type of sighting (P - Photo of sighting; S - Sighting, with positive identification) Comments Additional descriptive information - varieties, other names, or

Status (Special Concern; Threatened; and Endangered)

Spotter Initials of observers. (eg. RJC - Ruth and/or John Cooper; other observers to be added.)

FAMILY NAME KEY COMMENTS SPOTTER Berries Purple Flowering S CO Raspberry Red Elderberry Swamp Dewberry Wild Highbush Blueberry Wild Raspberry SP RJC Fragaria vesca Wild Strawberry S RJC Winterberry aka ‘Black Alder’ Bushes Rosa acicularis Wild Rose P CO Steeplebush Bellflower Bishop’s Cap Ferns Blunt-Lobed Woodsia ENDANGERED Bracken Fern SP RJC Broad Beech Fern SPECIAL CONCERN Common Polypody Fern Crested Shield Fern Wood Fern Limestone Oak Fern THREATENED Purple-stemmed THREATENED Cliffbrake Royal Fern Onoclea Sensitive Fern SP CO sensibilig Lichens Pale-Bellied Frost Lichen ENDANGERED

124

FAMILY NAME KEY COMMENTS SPOTTER Wildflowers (native) Vicia cracca Bird Vetch P CO Rublbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan SP CO Bladder Campion SP RJC sanguinaria canadinis Bloodroot P CO Sisyrinchium montanum Blue-eyed Grass S CO Aster nemoralis Bog Aster P CO Sparganiaceae Bur Reed Bushy Aster S CO Anemone Canadensis Canada Anemone SP CO Maianthemum Canada Mayflower S Wild lily of the valley CO canadense Cirsium arvense Canadian Thistle S RJC Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal Flower P CO Climbing Bittersweet Viola sororia Common Blue Violet S CO Ranunculus acrio Common Buttercup P CO Typha lalifolia Common Cattail PS RJC Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed PS RJC Verbascum thapsus Common Mullein PS RJC Plantago majol Common Plantain S RJC Hypericum perforatum Common St. John’s Wort SP CO Echium valgure Common Vipers Bugloss P CO Coreopsis Lance-leaved Campanula Creeping Bellflower S CO rapuneuloides Hemerocallis fulva Day Lily (orange) P CO Drooping Bluegrass THREATENED Dicentra cucullaria Dutchman’s Breeches SP CO Oenothera biennis Evening Primrose False Solomon’s Seal Nu=auabtgenyn Fireweed P CO racenisya Tiarella cordifolia Foamflower Nymphaea odorata Fragrant Water Lily S Creek RJC Fringed Polygala Hypochaeria radicate Hairy Cat's ear P CO Hairy Vetch

Aster cordifolius Heart- leaved aster P CO equisetaceae Horsetail SP CO Houghton’s Umbrella THREATENED Sedge Solidago canadensis Goldenrod SP RJC

125

Heliopsis Medeola virginiana Indian Cucumber Root Monotropa uniflora Indian Pipe S No chlorophyll in plant RJC Iris vericolour Iris Blue Flag S aka ‘Iris versicolour’ or RJC ‘Slender Blue Flag’ Cypripedium calceolus Lady’s Slipper (Ram’s- SP SPECIES AT RISK CO head) (yellow) Lambs Ear S RJC Lambs Quarters Trillium grandiflorum Large-Flowered or S White RJC WhiteTrillium Uvularia grandiflora Large Flavered Bellflower Mitella nuda Mitre Wort Galium boreale Northern Bedstraw Hieracium auruntiacun Orange Hawkweed SP aka ‘Devil’s Paintbrush’ RJC Chrysanthemum Oxeye Daisy S CO leucanthemum Anaphalis margaritacea Pearly everlasting S CO (Immortelle) Sonchus arvensis Perennial Sow-thistle Lathyrus latifolius Perennial sweet-pea Philadelphia Fleabane Phlox Pickerelweed Pitcher Plant S RJC Queen Anne Lace Wild Carrot Red Baneberry Trillium erectum Red Trillium S Wakerobin RJC Rough-fruited Cinquefoil Round-lobed Hepatica Cypripedium acaule Showy Lady's slipper P CO Spring Beauty Eupatorium maculatum Spotted Joe-Pye Weed P CO Apocynum Spreading Dogbane P CO androsaemitoliun Sundew S RJC Swamp Milkweed S RJC Tall Corydalis Aster umbellatus Tall flat-topper Aster P CO True Solomon’s Seal Trout Lily aka ‘Dogtooth Violet’ Two-leaved Bishop’s Cap Trillium teratologic Variegated trillium Violet Water Hemlock White Campion White Clover S RJC

126

Wild Columbine S RJC Wild Raisin aka ‘Witherod’ Wild Sarsaparilla S RJC Wintergreen Woodland Pinedrops SPECIES AT RISK Wood Lily Yarrow Yellow Goatsbeard Yellow Hawkweed aka ‘Kings Devil’ Nuphar variegata Yellow Pond Lily S Creek RJC Scrubs Cornus alternifolia Alternate Leaved P CO Dogwood Diervilla ionicera Bush Honeysuckle P CO Viburnum trilobum High bush Cranberry Lonicera dioica Honeysuckle P CO Viburnum acerifolium Maple leaved Viburnum P CO Viburnum lentago Nannyberry P CO Salix discolor Pussy Willow Amelanchier laevis Smooth Serviceberry Rhus Sumac (Staghorn) Vine Parthenocissus Virginia Creeper inserta Ferns Dryopteris marginalis Marginal Wood fern CS Trees and Shrubs FAMILY NAME KEY COMMENTS SPOTTER

S Beech American Beech RJC

Bur Oak

Red Oak

S White Oak RJC

Green Alder

Grey Birch

Birch S RJC Hop-Hornbeam aka ‘Ironwood’

S RJC Paper Birch aka ‘White Birch’

127

Speckled Alder aka ‘Tag Alder’

Yellow Birch

Buckthorn European Buckthorn

S Eastern Red Cedar RJC Cypress S Eastern White Cedar RJC

Dogwood Alternate Leaf Dogwood Green osier

Red Osier Dogwood

American Elm aka ‘White Elm’

Common Hackberry Elm

Rock Elm

Slippery Elm aka ‘Red Elm’

Highbush Cranberry Honeysuckle

Nannyberry

Juniper Common Juniper

S Larch Tamarack RJC

S Linden American Basswood RJC

Mountain Maple aka ‘Moose Maple’

S Maple Red Maple RJC

S Silver Maple RJC

128

Striped Maple

S Sugar Maple RJC

Black Ash

Common Lilac Olive

Red Ash

S White Ash RJC

S Balsam Fir RJC

S Black Spruce RJC

S Eastern Hemlock RJC

S Eastern White Pine RJC Pine

Jack Pine

S Red Pine RJC

S Tamarack RJC

S White Spruce RJC

American Mountain Ash

Black Cherry

Rose Chokecherry

S Common Apple RJC

Hawthorn

129

Pin Cherry

S Serviceberry Shadbush, Saskatoon RJC

S Sumac Staghorn Sumac RJC

Bitternut Hickory Swamp Hickory

Black Walnut Walnut

Butternut ENDANGERED

Shagbark Hickory

Yew Canada Yew

Balsam Poplar

Black Willow aka ‘Swamp WIllow’

Large-Toothed Aspen Willow

Peachleaf Willow aka ‘Swamp WIllow’

Shining Willow aka ‘Yellow Willow’

Trembling Aspen aka ‘Quacking Aspen’

130

Ardoch and Malcolm Lake Fishing Summaries

Prepared by Bancroft District Ministry of Natural Resources (2014)

ARDOCH LAKE SUMMARY

Original Lake Survey (1969)

-trap netting results (3 overnight trap nets): 15 smallmouth bass, 90 walleye, 44 northern pike, 17 yellow perch, 29 white sucker, 2 burbot, 187 rock bass, 1 pumpkinseed; water chemistry shows pH 8.0 (alkaline), dissolved oxygen ok (9.0mg/L) to about 8m depth, then low (2 mg/L)

Surface area 95.5ha

Max depth 17.4m

Mean depth 7.6m

MEI 19.8

2 cottages, 1 resort (no Crown Land)

Secchi 8.1m

Lake Survey (1976)

-temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles, lake volume, flushing rates, nutrient supply, etc

Ministry of Environment Contaminant Study (1978-79)

-gillnetting results (7 overnight sets): 21 walleye, 13 northern pike, 217 rock bass, 8 white sucker, 8 smallmouth bass, 104 yellow perch, 2 burbot, 22 pumpkinseed

2001: Ompah Conservation Association Volunteer Walleye Watch

-17 walleye observed on one shoal

2006: sampling by consultants

Fyke nets caught 2 northern pike, electrofishing in tributaries caught slimy sculpins, fathead minnows, northern redbelly dace and pumpkinseed

2012 Walleye Watch

384 walleye observed on Ardoch over 7 nights

131

MALCOLM LAKE SUMMARY

1936-1953: walleye stocked

1941-1959: smallmouth and largemouth bass stocking heavily

1965: Letters re winter fishing

-angling intensity varies by season; walleye are very prolific; good adult population in Malcolm Lake with natural reproduction; recruitment may be primarily affected by limnological and climatic factors; data does not indicate over exploitation of walleye populations in winter

1968-70 Letters about poor angling quality and winter fishing

-conservation officer creel in summer 1969 showed angling quality is fair to excellent on Malcolm Lake; do not feel that winter angling should be restricted.

1975: Original Lake Survey

Initial lake survey was done to collect basic aquatic habitat inventory information. Water chemistry, depth calculations, and small and large fish collections were completed to determine the basic lake characteristics.

-three overnight gill net sets resulted in 7 northern pike, 21 walleye, 6 smallmouth bass, 22 rock bass, 7 pumpkinseed, 1 white sucker, 1 yellow perch

1975: Lake Survey Summary prepared

-watershed area 16.8km2

-lake area 1.96km2 (207.2 ha)

-max depth 6.7m

Mean depth 2.2m

Secchi Depth 4.0m (very clear water) pH 8.5 (alkaline)

MEI 57.6

-used to predict potential fish yields in lakes

Volume 4.49 x 106m3

24 cottages, 1 resort, 0 permanent residences, 24 vacant lots, 0 Crown Land

Water chemistry, dissolved oxygen profile also done (DO 8.6 mg/L)

132

1985 Trapnetting Project

-overnight trap net sets (October 1985); Caught and clipped yellow perch, northern pike, smallmouth and largemouth bass, and approximately 100 walleye. Walleye were the most abundant species caught, followed by smallmouth, and largemouth bass.

1986: MNR stocked surplus 19,000 walleye fingerlings in Malcolm Lake (left over from 10 lake experimental program); letter indicates it would not be done on an annual basis but future candidates for walleye stocking would depend on the results of the eastern Ontario experiments

Letters re: walleye stocking (1984, 1985, 1989, 1990)

-spawning assessment survey indicates large numbers of adult walleye with good spawning habitat

-no walleye stocking approved

-spawning shoal projects suggested

1989 Walleye Spawning Shoal Assessment

Walleye spawning shoals were mapped and assessed. A total of 13 active shoals were observed (with numbers of walleye ranging from 2-30 per shoal; 123 observed in total). Four potential shoals were also mapped (no fish observed but potential habitat).

1989-1990 Walleye Spawning Shoal Enhancement

Additional rock was placed on some spawning shoals with the help of Malcolm Lake Cottager’s Association.

1990: Letters re: winter fishing

-winter creels in the area indicate the winter fishery has very little impact on walleye population; far greater harvest occurs in the summer; winter harvest is insignificant

1997 Ministry of Environment Fish Contaminant Sampling (Trap netting Project)

Fish were captured and sampled for the MOE Guide to Eating Sportfish publication. A total of 50 walleye, 56 smallmouth, 2 largemouth, and 3 northern pike were caught in 6 overnight trap net sets. Water chemistry was also updated.

2001 Walleye Spawning Shoal Observations

CFWIP project by Ompah Conservation Association: too many waves to observe fish so no results were submitted. They visited Ardoch Lake for one evening instead.

2002 Fall Walleye Index Netting (FWIN)

133

A Fall Walleye Index Netting assessment was completed in 2002. Species captured included yellow perch (80% of the total catch), walleye (15%), northern pike (3%) and smallmouth bass (2%). Results indicate a catch per unit effort (CUE) of 1.88 walleye per net. The average values of all assessed walleye lakes in the southern region administrative area are 2.8 fish per net CUE (Morgan et al 2002), while the benchmarks used to assess walleye populations relative to one another within Southern Region are the CUE values shown below (from Morgan et al 2002):

CUE (fish/net) Relative Category 0- 0.7 poor 0.8-1.7 below average 1.8-3.8 above average 3.9-20 excellent

Therefore, Malcolm Lake has a slightly above average CUE when compared to lakes across Southern Region.

The mean weight of walleye in Malcolm Lake was 982.4g and a mean length of 447.3mm, compared to the Southern Region average values of 877g mean weight and 406mm mean length. By comparison of the values from Malcolm Lake to the regional averages, the size (both weight and length of walleye) is considered to be larger than the regional average.

In comparison to lakes within the immediate Mazinaw Area administrative area, the Malcolm Lake walleye population has an average CUE (Mazinaw Area average of 10 assessed walleye lakes is 1.87 fish/net), while the size of Malcolm Lake walleye is again larger than the Mazinaw Area average (855.6g average weight and 423.3mm average length).

The weight and age distribution of the fish sampled during the 2002 FWIN assessment show an uneven distribution, with some rather strong and some missing size classes. The most abundant size class was fish in the 350-400mm and 600-800g range. This is indicative of a strong reproductive year class in or about 2000 (walleye at these weights and lengths are likely about 3 years old, so back calculating from the time of the assessment, would put the strong year class at 2000).

Walleye recruitment or successful spawning is very weather dependent. Years when the water temperature warms rapidly in the spring generally have better recruitment. Since there is evidence of strong year classes, this lake would definitely be considered a self-sustaining natural population. Previous spawning shoal observations support this; high numbers of walleye have been observed spawning in the spring.

134

Most fluctuations in population numbers could be attributed to failed recruitment in years of poor spring weather, deterioration of spawning habitat, change in fish community structure (introduction of additional species), and fishing pressure and exploitation.

REFERENCES

Morgan, G.E., M.D. Malette, R.S. Kushneriuk, and S.E. Mann. 2003. Regional Summaries of Walleye Life History Characteristics Based on Ontario’s Fall Walleye Index Netting Program 1993-2001. Diagnostics and Sampling Standards Working Group, Percid Comminuty Synthesis. OMNR.

2007 Dialogue with cottage association regarding walleye status and stocking on Malcolm Lake

-walleye stocking is not likely an option on Malcolm as there is an established and reproducing walleye population present, with other predatory species also present (bass and pike); walleye stocking in these situation is not successful; more successful management strategy is to restrict angling, remove competitors and continue with habitat rehabilitation

2008-2009 Walleye Watch Volunteer Spawning Monitoring

-conducted by Malcolm Lake Landowners Association and volunteers; expanded to include Ardoch Lake as well

2008 Walleye regulation change (zone wide)

-reduced limit from 6 to 4, with only one fish over 18 inches

-reduced season from March 15 to end of February

2010 Nearshore Index Netting Project

-twenty overnight trap net sets caught 188 smallmouth bass, 38 walleye, 27 largemouth bass, 10 rock bass, 5 northern pike, 2 pumpkinseed

2011 Malcolm Lake Landowners Association Meeting with MNR

-meeting and presentation by lake association requesting walleye stocking

-MNR decision to not approve walleye stocking as contrary to stocking guidelines and there is a sustainable population of naturally reproducing walleye present

2012 Walleye regulation change (zone wide)

-harvestable slot (only walleye between 40 and 50cm can be kept)

-walleye season starts 2nd Saturday in May to March 1

135

2012 Walleye Watch

739 walleye observed on Malcolm over 16 nights including high numbers (266) on a shoal that had rock rubble added the year prior

Lake Characteristics

Surface Area: 207.2 ha

Mean Depth: 2.2 m Maximum Depth: 4.6m

Mean Secchi Depth: 4.1m

Fish Species present: northern pike, walleye, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, rock bass, pumpkinseed, white sucker, yellow perch, and burbot. Smallmouth, largemouth and walleye were all introduced through historic plantings (1950s).

136

137

2016 Events at the North Frontenac Star Gazing Pad

The following events are taking place at the North Frontenac Star Gazing Pad at 5816 Road 506 between Plevna and Fernleigh. Check NorthFrontenac.com events calendar for event updates. Events begin at sunset.

Contact Corey Klatt, Manager of Community Development for more information. [email protected], 613-479-2231x233

May 14 International Astronomy Day

June 4 No Moon. Saturn, Mars, Jupiter, asteroids & deep sky visible

July 1 & 2 No Moon. Saturn & Deep Sky clusters, nebulae, galaxies visible

July 30 & 31 Deep Sky, Mercury, Venus, Saturn & Mars visible

August 27 Mars vs “the rival of Mars” (the star Antares) & Saturn visible

September 3 & 4 Thin crescent Moon in early evening. Milky Way all night long!

Oct 1 The Autumn Sky. Pleiades, Andromeda Galaxy, the Double Cluster, dwarf planet Ceres and more.

www.northfrontenac.com/dark-sky-preserve.html

“North Frontenac Township Dark Sky Preserve” is also on Facebook

138

139

140

For the full Septic Smart Brochure from Public Health, Ontario Government, go to www.oasisontario.on.ca

141

OTF Meeting Mar 2016 Dr. Vermaire’s Research Summary

1) ~70% of study lakes have undergone little or moderate change between pre-disturbance and present day 2) Change in lake ecosystems is consistent with warming water temperatures 3) Near-shore macrophyte biovolume was lower in 2015 than 2014 (climate?) 4) Lakes with zebra mussels had more plant biovolume (but is that due to light or other factors? 5) Lakes with higher P concentration had more plant biovolume (broadly)

Future Research:

1) Expand on role of climate in altering plant biovolume in lakes 2) Clarify relationship between zebra mussels/light environment 3) Expand sediment core work over more lakes for landscape scale patterns (cores have already been collected) 4) Microplastics?

142

VEGETATION ANALYSIS REPORT Malcom Lake, Frontenac Ontario Generated: 2/3/2016 3:16:05 PM (UTC)

5) Area: 97.63 ha 14) Grid Cell Size: 5 6) (241.24 acres) m 7) Percent:44.7% of waterbody 15) Min. BV Detect: 8) Volume: 2,284,662.40 cu. m See Individual 9) (1,852.21 acre ft) Trips 10) Est. Waterbody Volume 5,111,313.30 cu. m 16) Min. Veg Depth 11) •76.88600922 See Individual Detect: Trips

12) Survey Summary 13) Track Buffer: 25 m

Type PAC Avg BVp SD BVp Avg BVw SD BVw Depth Range Avg Depth Distance No. Points Survey 12.4% ±9.8% 3.1% ±7.3% 0.49•5.61 m 2.45 m 25.46 km 4,304 Full Point 25% Grid 21.3% 9.9% ±5.8% 2.1% ±4.8% 0•5.2 m 2.09 m • 11,191

Area of Interest Summ ary

AOI Type PAC Avg BVp SD BVp Avg BVw SD BVw Depth Range Avg Depth Distance No. Points Point 25% 12.4% ±9.8% 3.1% ±7.3% 0.49•5.28 m 2.5 m 8.95 km 4,304

Grid 21.3% 9.9% ±5.8% 2.1% ±4.8% 0•5.2 m 2.09 m • 11,180

Point NaN% NaN% ±NaN% NaN% ±NaN% 0.62•5.58 m 2.36 m 8.08 km 0

Grid 23.6% 10.7% ±6.8% 2.5% ±5.6% 0.59•4.47 m 2.09 m • 2,106

143

Vegetation Biovolume Heat Map Biovolume Distribution Scatter Chart

Biovolume Analysis by Quantity 0 •5% 5 •20% 1 74.98 % 21.31 % 3 % 17) AOI 20•40% 40•60% 60•80% >80% 18) 0.6% 0.12% 0%

19) Biovolume Analysis by Depth 20) AOIDepth Type Count PAC Avg BVp SD BVp Avg BVw SD BVw 21) 1 0•1m Point 385 13.5% 11.2% ±10.9% 1.5% ±5.5% 1•2m 1183 47.8% 11.7% ±9.2% 5.6% ±8.6%

2•3m 1181 38.8% 13.4% ±10.4% 5.2% ±9.2%

3•4m 1053 0.1% 27.5% ±0% 0% ±0.8%

4•5m 476 0% • • 0% ±0%

5•6m 26 0% • • 0% ±0%

6•7m 0 • • • • •

7•8m 0 • • • • •

8•9m 0 • • • • •

>9m 0 • • • • •

0•1m Grid 2898 21.1% 10.2% ±6% 2.2% ±5%

1•2m 2854 39.8% 9.2% ±4.6% 3.7% ±5.4%

2•3m 2463 24.7% 10.7% ±7.2% 2.6% ±5.8%

3•4m 1979 1.6% 8.1% ±2.6% 0.1% ±1.1%

22) 4•5m 964 0% • • 0% ±0% 23) 5•6m 22 0% • • 0% ±0% 24) 6•7m 0 • • • • • 25) 7•8m 0 • • • • • 26) 8•9m 0 • • • • • 27) >9m 0 • • • • • AOI Count PAC Avg BVp SD BVp Avg BVw SD BVw 28) Depth Type 29) 2 0•1m Point 0 • • • • • 30) 1•2m 0 • • • • • 31) 2•3m 0 • • • • • 32) 3•4m 0 • • • • • 33) 4•5m 0 • • • • • 34) 5•6m 0 • • • • • 35) 6•7m 0 • • • • • 36) 7•8m 0 • • • • • 37) 8•9m 0 • • • • • 38) >9m 0 • • • • • 39) 0•1m Grid 316 0% • • 0% ±0% 40) 1•2m 706 44.1% 9.3% ±3.9% 4.1% ±5.3% 41) 2•3m 682 27.4% 13% ±9.4% 3.6% ±7.6% 42) 3•4m 350 0% • • 0% ±0% 43) 4•5m 52 0% • • 0% ±0% 44) 5•6m 0 • • • • • 45) 6•7m 0 • • • • • 46) 7•8m 0 • • • • • 47) 8•9m 0 • • • • •

Page 1 48) >9m 0 • • • • • 49) 50) Glossary 51) 52) AOI 53) Area of Interest: Defines the individual transects or contiguous data samples as depicted by the color coding of each trip line. Seperate areas of interest can be generated through merging of multiple trips, appending data to a single sonar log or lapses in time (greater than five minutes) within a sonar log. 54) 55) BVp 56) Biovolume (Plant):: Refers to the percentage of the water column taken up by vegetation when vegetation exists. Areas that do not have any vegetation are not taken into consideration for this calculation. 57) 58) BVw 59) Biovolume (All water): Refers to the average percentage of the water column taken up by vegetation regardless of whether vegetation exists. In areas where no vegetation exists, a zero value is entered into the calculation, thus reducing the overall biovolume of the entire area covered by the survey. 60) 61) PAC 62) Percent Area Covered: Refers to the overall surface area that has vegetation growing. 63) 64) Grid 65) Geostatistical Interpolated Grid: Interpolated and evenly spaced values representing kriged (smoothed) output of aggregated data points. The gridded data is most accurate summary of individual survey areas. 66) 67) Point 68) Individual Coordinate Point: A single point represents a summary of sonar pings and the derived bottom and canopy depths. Individual point data create an irregularily spaced dataset that may have overlaps and/or gaps in the data resulting in a increased potential for error. 69) No additional information

70) Report URL: http://files.digitalmarine.com/s1/ReportOutput/8c4952df•f73f•434d•a447•4e3e0b4d5d6f/report.htm (http://files.digitalmarine.com/s1/ReportOutput/8c4952df•f73f•434d•a447•4e3e0b4d5d6f/report.htm)

71) Contour Innovations is not liable to you for any indirect, exemplary, consequential, incidental or punitive damages, including lost profits, related to use of this report even if Contour Innovations has been advised of the possibility of such damages. The gathering party shall be solely responsible for their own user uploads, manual data point inserts, ancillary research data, and submissions and the consequences of posting or publishing them. This report has been created for research purposes only. Not for commercial use or resale.

Page 2 R

Malcolm Lake

Shoreline Assessment Summary Report

July 2016

Submitted to the Malcolm and Ardoch Lake Landowners' Association by Watersheds Canada and the

Canadian Wildlife Federation.

Love Your Lake is a program of Watersheds Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Federation .

Page 3

Introduction The state of the shoreline is important to the overall health of a lake and the people and wildlife that call it home. Maintaining or restoring shorelines to their natural state, helps maintain good water quality by reducing nutrient inputs and preventing soil erosion. Natural shorelines also provide some of the most productive and diverse wildlife habitat on the landscape. Naturally occurring plants at the water’s edge and in shallow water provide important wildlife habitat and help protect shorelines from erosion due to changes in the water level or wave action. A natural shoreline also provides wildlife with food and habitat, which creates recreational opportunities such as fishing or bird watching. An abundance of wildlife living within an area is a good indicator of a healthy shoreline.

Highly developed shorelines, on the other hand, can impact the health of a lake. Shoreline erosion can negatively impact the lake by contributing to poor water quality, nutrient and sediment runoff, habitat loss and excessive weed growth. Disturbed shorelines are typically observed with areas that have been cleared of all or most vegetation, lawns that extend to the water’s edge and hardened structures such as retaining walls, which replace natural vegetation.

The Love Your Lake program promotes shoreline stewardship and helps shoreline property owners protect and restore their shorelines, thereby improving the health of their lake.

Methodology Locally trained surveyors assess the health of shoreline properties on a lake by using the standardized Love Your Lake Shoreline Assessment Method. Data which is collected is used to produce a personalized report for each property owner which describes existing conditions on their shoreline, suggests stewardship actions and provides additional contacts, resources and sources of support. This program is non-regulatory and completely voluntary. Property owners generally have a common interest to manage their properties in ways that maintain property value and lake quality and this program provides the information and support to do so.

In 2015, 104 properties were assessed totaling about 11km of shoreline on Malcolm Lake. The shoreline survey involved an assessment of the entire shoreline of Malcolm Lake. This report summarizes the information on shoreline classifications, development, runoff, invasive species, habitat and recommendations and restoration opportunities. This report can be used as a source of information on the current physical conditions of Malcolm Lake and as a baseline to compare future surveys. It can also be used by the lake association and other partners to determine opportunities for restoration, education and stewardship on a lake wide level.

Page 4

Recommendations for shoreline naturalization were assigned to properties using a combination of the shoreline classification data and the buffer recommendations.

Results from Malcolm Lake Shoreline Classifications Each shoreline property was given percentage classifications in four possible classes (natural, regenerative, ornamental and degraded), rounded to the nearest ten percent. This is based on shoreline development, retaining walls and shoreline vegetation. The table below summarizes these classes with descriptions and photographs.

Page 5

Shoreline lengths for each property were obtained from municipal property information. For properties without this data, lengths were estimated. Results were based upon the percentage of properties within each shoreline classification.

Page 6 Figure 1 shows the counts of property classifications on the lake. Properties were assigned an overall category corresponding to the classification that made up the largest portion of the shoreline.

Figure 1 Property Classifications

Stewardship Message

On Malcolm Lake, 48 of shoreline properties were classified as majority natural, 34 majority ornamental and 20 were considered majority regenerative. It is recommended that shoreline property owners engage in naturalization projects to further decrease the ornamental percentage and increase the regenerative and natural percentages.

This presents an opportunity for residents of Malcolm Lake to increase the overall quality of the lake by maintaining, protecting and enhancing natural shorelines. To restore shorelines to a more natural state, property owners are encouraged to take action. Regenerative properties should also be encouraged to maintain their properties in a natural state by allowing their vegetation on their property to continue to regenerate and grow naturally.

Shoreline Restoration One important way to improve water quality in lakes and rivers is to ensure that there is a natural buffer of vegetation along the shoreline. Natural and vegetated buffers are some of the most productive and diverse habitats on the planet. Vegetated areas are also important for filtering contaminants and sediments before they enter the lake. Deep rooted trees and shrubs help to capture nutrients moving from the surrounding landscape. Shallow rooted vegetation such as grass lawns, are unable to capture these nutrients with the same effectiveness as their natural counterparts. A well vegetated shoreline can capture sediment before it is able to enter the lake and potentially affect water quality and lake bottom habitat.

Page 7 The survey of Malcolm Lake characterized the types of restoration opportunities that exist around the lake on individual properties. Figure 2 summarizes the number of properties that were assigned a buffer recommendation during the survey. Each shoreline property can receive more than one recommendation.

Please note that 30m difficult is checked off during the assessment when it is difficult to create or expand an existing buffer. Limitations may be caused by the close proximity of a structure, cliff, rocky terrain/bedrock, or other factors that would make planting a buffer difficult.

In order to determine restoration opportunities on the lake, properties that were assigned a recommendation to expand or create a vegetated buffer were identified and ranked according to their potential for restoration as follows.

Priority 1: Properties that have an ornamental or degraded shoreline proportion of greater than 75%, potentially offering an opportunity for significant areas of naturalization. Figure 2 Buffer Recommendations

Priority 2: Properties that have an ornamental or degraded between 50% and 75%.

Priority 3: Properties where the ornamental or degraded shoreline proportion is between 25% and 50%. These properties still have areas where there is opportunity for restoration; however they are likely already in a fairly natural condition.

It is recommended for the health of a lake that 75% of the shoreline of each property remains natural, leaving 25% for shoreline development opportunity. Working towards keeping 75% of the shoreline of each property in a natural state will greatly benefit the health of the lake. Figure 3 Shoreline Naturalization Property Rankings

Page 8 Currently 54 properties would benefit from shoreline naturalization. Of these 54 properties, 12 or 22% of properties are a top priority.

Stewardship Message

Shoreline naturalization is a voluntary action by landowners. While naturalization of the more ornamental or degraded properties may produce greater benefits, increasing the natural shoreline on any property is a positive stewardship action.

Building Setbacks The primary issue associated with shoreline building setbacks less than 30 metres, is the limited area to buffer or filter contaminated runoff and wastewater from the main dwelling. Buildings can also disrupt the nearshore habitat corridor that many different animals use to move around the lake environment and into upland areas. While moving these buildings further back from the shoreline may not be a feasible or realistic option, naturalizing the shorelines of these properties would help address the issue.

Shown in figure 4 is the range of building setbacks for properties on the lake, not including vacant properties, buildings under construction and unidentifiable properties. Building setbacks for shoreline developments in Ontario should be at least 30 metres from the high water mark; however, older cottage buildings were permitted closer to the high water mark. On Malcolm Lake, 64% of the properties surveyed were observed to be closer than 30 metres to the shoreline.

Figure 4 Building Setback Ranges

Stewardship Message A potential area of concern with building setbacks is having septic systems installed close to shore. Regular inspections and maintenance of septic systems can help prevent excess nutrients from entering the lake.

Page 9 Nutrients entering the lake can contribute to eutrophication, resulting in increased aquatic vegetation, low oxygen levels, turbid water and algal blooms. Excess nutrient loading is one of the largest threats to water quality in lakes and rivers; it is everyone’s responsibility to do something to help protect the lake.

Runoff

Naturalizing shorelines on properties with near-shore building setbacks would help reduce runoff from entering into Malcolm Lake, which could help reduce potential problems such as algae blooms and loss of oxygen in the water. Property owners can also manage this problem by ensuring they have eave troughs with downspouts directed at natural or stone catch basins or rain barrels, as well as ensuring they have a properly functioning septic to process wastewater before it enters the lake. As septic systems do very little to process nutrients, it is also important to use phosphate free products. Figure 5 shows the types of roof drainage that were recorded from the shoreline assessments.

Figure 5 Roof Drainage types around lake

Shoreline Development Shoreline development is defined as the presence of man-made structures in the water or along the shoreline within three metres of the shore. Development along a shoreline can be done sustainably and in an environmentally sensitive fashion, providing structures are well maintained and kept to a minimal footprint. Figure 6 and 7 illustrate the common structures present on Malcolm Lake.

On average property owners have developed 14% of their shoreline within a few metres of the water’s edge. Different types of structures can have negative environmental impacts, due to their ability to remove habitat, store contaminants and nutrients, and eventually release them into the aquatic environment.

Small floating or non-permanent post docks are the most environmentally friendly choice, they allow natural water flow, have limited contact with the lake bottom, and reduce the overall potential for disturbance to aquatic life.

Page 10 In the future, if shoreline property owners need to replace their old or failing permanent post, solid, or crib docks, they could consider choosing non-permanent post or floating docks. By selecting these types of docks, people can reduce the potential impacts to fish and other aquatic species, which can help protect the overall health of the lake environment.

Stewardship Message When shoreline development structures are present, keep structures clean and organized to prevent possible soil and water contamination. Consider planting native species to provide additional habitat between man-made structures and the shoreline. If an older structure is present and no longer functioning, consider retiring the building, shed or other man-made structure, this will provide more habitat potential for wildlife.

When creating shoreline access, there are a few things to take into account. Limiting access to one area of the shoreline can help maintain a healthy buffer for wildlife habitat and runoff filtration. By creating a well formed pathway that follows the contours of the slope or constructing raised, open-backed stairs, you can direct the foot traffic leading to the waterfront. This will limit possible erosion in high traffic areas. Covering pathways with wood chips or gravel will also help reduce soil loss on pathways and raised, open-backed stairs will allow vegetation to grow underneath, helping to hold soils in place.

Figure 6 Docks On Lake Figure 7 Structures on Lake

Page 11

Retaining Walls Retaining walls made out of rock, concrete, metal and other materials were once commonly used when it was thought that the only way to combat erosion was to take a hard, aggressive approach. Consequently, people began putting in concrete walls and gabion baskets. These structures only work in the short term to prevent erosion, but they ultimately do much more harm than good. On Malcolm Lake, the number of properties with retaining walls was observed and the results are summarized below in figure 8.

Stewardship Message 2 properties on Malcolm Lake, or 2% of the properties assessed have a retaining wall. Of the retaining walls that are present, the most common choice was Wood. While retaining walls were an option to combat erosion for property owners in the past, we now know about their impact on the natural environment. Wave energy is reflected back from these hard, flat surfaces with the same force as which they strike the wall. This can cause excess turbulence in the water, which scours the sediments from the lake bottom. Solid walls also eliminate shoreline habitat and act as a barrier, preventing wildlife from reaching the water.

Although some retaining walls such as rip rap or loose rock have fewer impacts than other retaining walls, shoreline property owners could consider alternative erosion control methods such as planting native vegetated buffers. In the meantime, maintaining vegetation around the wall and allowing new vegetation to establish and grow will help reduce runoff and provide habitat for wildlife. For more information contact the provincial government regarding erosion control and necessary work permit requirements.

Page 12 Aquatic Plants:

On Malcolm Lake, shorelines were surveyed for their presence of aquatic plants. The presence of aquatic plants was further summarized into aquatic vegetation types; emergent, submergent, floating, and algal blooms. Figure 9 shows the number of properties on Malcolm Lake that had aquatic plants along their shoreline properties. The majority of aquatic vegetation that was present on Malcolm Lake was categorized as emergent vegetation. Floating vegetation and submergent vegetation were found less frequently on Malcolm Lake, but are still an important part of the aquatic ecosystem; giving habitat to birds, frogs, dragonflies and other wildlife.

Figure 9 Aquatic Vegetation

Stewardship Message

When aquatic vegetation is removed, the integrity of the shoreline is lost. This negatively impacts the health of the waterbody by decreasing the quality of the water and reducing biodiversity. Eventually, a waterbody can become unusable, affecting the hundreds of species that rely on it. Fortunately, there are some easy steps that can be taken to help protect and restore your shoreline. By planting native species and allowing natural aquatic vegetation to grow, you can help provide habitat for wildlife to flourish.

Sediment:

On Malcolm Lake, the type of sediment present on the lake bottom was observed. The benthic zone which is located on the lake bottom is classified as the ecological region at the lowest level of a body of water. It starts at the shoreline and continues down until it reaches the floor, encompassing the sediment surface and subsurface layers. Although this zone may appear barren, it plays a vital role in the health of aquatic ecosystems. Tiny, microscopic organisms which cycle nutrients live in this zone and act as a source of food for bottom feeding animals.

Page 11

Figure 10 Sediment Distribution

Invasive Species:

Phragmites was identified on your lake. Invasive species can have large negative impacts on an ecosystem by significantly altering food chain dynamics, reducing native species populations, and degrading water quality.

Invasive Phragmites is a non-native perennial grass. It grows rapidly, robbing native plant species of essential water and nutrients. It crowds out native vegetation and produces toxins, hindering plant growth and killing surrounding plants. They look similar to native Phragmites; however they typically grow taller, their stems are tan in colour with blue-green leaves and they have large dense seed heads. You can help reduce the spread of Invasive Phragmites by planting only native grass in your garden. Avoid areas that are known to contain Invasive Phragmites and if you come into contact with the plant, brush off clothing and clean equipment to prevent seeds from spreading.

Stewardship Message You can help prevent the spread of invasive species to and from Malcolm Lake. These species disrupt the ecosystem and can lead to declines in favorite native species, like lake trout. Species such as zebra mussels, spiny waterflea, round goby and common reed are rapidly spreading throughout Ontario. These species can be spread by dumping bait buckets, trailering your boat from one lake to another before proper cleaning, and planting non-native species or seed mixtures along your shoreline. If you use live bait, be sure to dispose of unused bait and packaging material including soil in the garbage. Water from minnow buckets, bilges and

livewells can contain a variety of tiny invaders, and should be dumped on shore. When removing your boat from the water, be sure to dispose of any weeds or mud. If you are going to use the boat in another waterbody, clean it thoroughly and allow it to dry for 2-7 days.

Visit http://www.invadingspecies.com/stop-the-spread/boaters-anglers/ for detailed cleaning instructions. Shoreline property owners are invited to join the Invading Species Watch Program operated by Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Wildlife Habitat:

The most common type of nearshore habitat on Malcolm Lake was identified as aquatic logs, followed by overhanging vegetation. Wildlife provides us with many enjoyable and beneficial activities from bird watching and wildlife photography to pest control, seed dispersal, nutrient cycling and pollination, just to name a few. It is important for there to be a rich and diverse range of habitats along the lakeshore in order to ensure a healthy lake environment. Figure 11 summarizes the nearshore habitat.

Figure 11 Habitat Present

Stewardship Message It is important to leave large trees that are dead and dying in place, if it is safe to do so. They provide important habitat for a number of different wildlife species. In Ontario, more than 50 species of birds and mammals depend on cavity trees for nesting, rearing young, roosting, feeding, storing food, escaping predators and hibernating. Fallen logs on land provide habitat for small mammals such as moles, woodpeckers, toads and insects. As the log decomposes, reptiles and amphibians lay their eggs in the moist wood. A decaying log is also great habitat for beetles and ants that burrow under the bark and lay eggs. In the water, logs provide important fish habitat by providing refuge for small fish and spaces for ambush predators such as pike to conceal

themselves. By leaving dead and decaying brush and logs in place, you are helping contribute to a healthy and vibrant species community.

Property Slopes On Malcolm Lake, 90% of properties assessed, had flat, gentle, or moderate slopes. The average slope towards the lake was observed as approximately 3:1. The steepest slope is greater than or equal to 45˚ while some properties had no slope.

Stewardship Message The slope of shorelines can influence the energy of runoff and its ability to transport sediment. Steeper shorelines often suffer greater erosion problems. While shoreline buffers of healthy trees and shrubs are important on all properties, steeper properties would yield even greater benefit from well-vegetated slopes to reduce the impacts of erosion from runoff.

Lawns On Malcolm Lake, the number of properties with lawns, either mowed or regenerative, was observed. 19% of properties had lawns that were mowed to the water’s edge. When lawn is maintained to the water’s edge, natural ground cover and native vegetation are no longer present to slow runoff and allow nutrient filtration. Nutrients, contaminants, pollutants and other harmful substances can be easily carried into the lake by runoff and can harm water quality and local ecological integrity. Lawn grasses also have short root systems and do not bind the soil well, which can lead to problems with erosion and increased sediment deposition.

Figure 12 Lawn types

Stewardship Message In areas close to shore, a lawn is generally not a good choice of ground cover. Half of precipitation runs off a mowed lawn directly into the lake, instead of returning to a natural groundwater source. If shoreline property owners wish to mitigate this, they could consider allowing vegetation to regenerate on its own or by actively planting native trees, shrubs, grasses, or alternative ground cover. The roots of the vegetation will grip the soil which can help prevent erosion. Allowing mowed lawns to regenerate to a more natural state promotes water conservation and protects surface and groundwater resources. Properties with regenerative lawns are encouraged to allow this natural process to continue and to enhance regeneration by planting native trees and shrubs.

Next steps The shoreline is the convergence zone between the land and water, commonly referred to as the ribbon of life. This area provides tremendous importance not only to humans for recreational purposes, but also to wildlife and the overall health of a lake. These shoreline areas present a unique opportunity for people to help protect the environment and reduce their footprint.

The benefits of natural shorelines are immense. The presence of native plant species helps to stabilize soil, reduce erosion and improve water quality. A good underground root network helps to keep soil in place, while a healthy buffer of vegetation prevents topsoil from being exposed and washed away. Shoreline vegetation, such as aquatic plants have the ability to absorb wave energy. This reduces the impact of erosion created by waves, therefore limiting the need for hardened materials such as retaining walls. Natural vegetation along your shoreline can also provide privacy from neighboring properties and can lessen the amount of noise generated by boats and other recreational activities. Trees and other native vegetation improve air quality, lower temperatures and minimize extra energy costs associated with cooling.

Natural buffers also provide critical habitat for wildlife, both aquatic and terrestrial. They improve habitat for fish by shading and cooling water and also provide protective cover for birds, mammals and other wildlife that feed, breed and rear young near water. Allowing a natural buffer to grow can cut down on the time required for yard maintenance and alleviate the financial expense associated with landscaping.

It is important when naturalizing areas to choose only native species. Exotic species which are not native to the area can be extremely invasive, reproduce rapidly and remove wildlife habitat by choking out large natural areas. It is critical to understand how invasive species can affect the overall health of a lake by threatening the livelihood of native fish, plants and animals. The lake community must work together to raise public awareness and help promote responsible stewardship. By practicing prevention and continual education efforts, the community can reduce the spread of additional invasive species.

This report has been created for the lake association and community to utilize as an environmental stewardship guide. Malcolm Lake property owners are encouraged to continue to use their shoreline property report as an additional individualized resource to learn more about how to protect their shoreline properties and reduce their environmental footprint. Following the stewardship actions outlined in this report and working to maintain natural shorelines, residents can unite and make a positive change for the greater good of their lake.

The Love Your Lake program promotes shoreline stewardship and helps shoreline property owners protect and restore their shorelines, thereby improving the health of their lake.

In 2015, 18 properties were assessed totaling about 6km of shoreline on Ardoch Lake. The shoreline survey involved an assessment of the entire shoreline of Ardoch Lake. This report summarizes the information on shoreline classifications, development, runoff, invasive species, habitat and recommendations and restoration opportunities. This report can be used as a source of information on the current physical conditions of Ardoch Lake and as a baseline to compare future surveys. It can also be used by the lake association and other partners to determine opportunities for restoration, education and stewardship on a lake wide level.

The following information was produced for the entire lake by summarizing the data collected from the shoreline property assessments: • Shoreline Restoration • Aquatic Plants • Building Setbacks • Sediment • Runoff • Invasive Species • Shoreline Development • Wildlife Habitat • Retaining Walls • Property Slopes • Ornamental and Regenerative Lawn Recommendations for shoreline naturalization were assigned to properties using a combination of the shoreline classification data and the buffer recommendations.

Results from Ardoch Lake Shoreline Classifications Each shoreline property was given percentage classifications in four possible classes (natural, regenerative, ornamental and degraded), rounded to the nearest ten percent. This is based on shoreline development, retaining walls and shoreline vegetation. The table below summarizes these classes with descriptions and photographs.

Page 7 Class ification & Description Photograph Example *

Natural – A healthy buffer of vegetation and/or a natural shoreline of sand or exposed rock that is undisturbed and undeveloped.

Regenerative – Natural vegetation has been removed in the past, but is in the process of growin g back towards a natural state.

Ornamental – All natural vegetation has been removed and replaced with mowed lawn and other non - native vegetation; structures such as docks, decks, boathouses and boat ramps are pred ominantly present at the shore.

Degraded – Natural vegetation has been lost; soil ero sion, undercutting of the bank and/or exposed roots of sh rubs and trees are significant.

*Note: These photographs are examples of shoreline classes, not representing any specific shoreline property on Ardoch Lake . There can be a range of variation in the clas s ifcations depending on the type of shoreline.

Page 8 Figure 1 shows the counts of property classifications on the lake. Properties were assigned an overall category corresponding to the classification that made up the largest portion of the shoreline.

Figure 1 Property Classifications

Stewardship Message

On Ardoch Lake, 16 of shoreline properties were classified as majority natural, 2 majority ornamental and 0 were considered majority regenerative. It is recommended that shoreline property owners engage in naturalization projects to further decrease the ornamental percentage and increase the regenerative and natural percentages.

This presents an opportunity for residents of Ardoch Lake to increase the overall quality of the lake by maintaining, protecting and enhancing natural shorelines. To restore shorelines to a more natural state, property owners are encouraged to take action. Regenerative properties should also be encouraged to maintain their properties in a natural state by allowing their vegetation on their property to continue to regenerate and grow naturally.

Page 9 The survey of Ardoch Lake characterized the types of restoration opportunities that exist around the lake on individual properties. Figure 2 summarizes the number of properties that were assigned a buffer recommendation during the survey. Each shoreline property can receive more than one recommendation.

Priority 1: Properties that have an ornamental or degraded shoreline proportion of greater than 75%, potentially offering an opportunity for significant areas of naturalization.

Figure 2 Buffer Recommendations Priority 2: Properties that have an ornamental or degraded between 50% and 75%.

Page 10 Currently 4 properties would benefit from shoreline naturalization. Of these 4 properties, 0 or 0% of properties are a top priority.

Stewardship Message

Shown in figure 4 is the range of building setbacks for properties on the lake, not including vacant properties, buildings under construction and unidentifiable properties. Building setbacks for shoreline developments in Ontario should be at least 30 metres from the high water mark; however, older cottage buildings were permitted closer to the high water mark. On Ardoch Lake, 39% of the properties surveyed were observed to be closer than 30 metres to the shoreline.

Figure 4 Building Setback Ranges

Page 11 Nutrients entering the lake can contribute to eutrophication, resulting in increased aquatic vegetation, low oxygen levels, turbid water and algal blooms. Excess nutrient loading is one of the largest threats to water quality in lakes and rivers; it is everyone’s responsibility to do something to help protect the lake.

Runoff

Naturalizing shorelines on properties with near-shore building setbacks would help reduce runoff from entering into Ardoch Lake, which could help reduce potential problems such as algae blooms and loss of oxygen in the water. Property owners can also manage this problem by ensuring they have eave troughs with downspouts directed at natural or stone catch basins or rain barrels, as well as ensuring they have a properly functioning septic to process wastewater before it enters the lake. As septic systems do very little to process nutrients, it is also important to use phosphate free products. Figure 5 shows the types of roof drainage that were recorded from the shoreline assessments.

Figure 5 Roof Drainage types around lake

Page 12 In the future, if shoreline property owners need to replace their old or failing permanent post, solid, or crib docks, they could consider choosing non-permanent post or floating docks. By selecting these types of docks, people can reduce the potential impacts to fish and other aquatic species, which can help protect the overall health of the lake environment.

Stewardship Message When shoreline development structures are present, keep structures clean and organized to prevent possible soil and water contamination. Consider planting native species to provide additional habitat between man- made structures and the shoreline. If an older structure is present and no longer functioning, consider retiring the building, shed or other man-made structure, this will provide more habitat potential for wildlife.

When creating shoreline access, there are a few things to take into account. Limiting access to one area of the shoreline can help maintain a healthy buffer for wildlife habitat and runoff filtration. By creating a well formed pathway that follows the contours of the slope or constructing raised, open-backed stairs, you can direct the foot traffic leading to the waterfront. This will limit possible erosion in high traffic areas. Covering pathways with wood chips or gravel will also help reduce soil loss on pathways and raised, open-backed stairs will allow vegetation to grow underneath, helping to hold soils in place.

Figure 6 Docks On Lake Figure 7 Structures on Lake Retaining Walls Retaining walls made out of rock, concrete, metal and other materials were once commonly used when it was thought that the only way to combat erosion was to take a hard, aggressive approach. Consequently, people began putting in concrete walls and gabion baskets. These structures only work in the short term to prevent erosion, but they ultimately do much more harm than good. On Ardoch Lake, the number of properties with retaining walls was observed and the results are summarized below.

Page 13 Stewardship Message Out of the properties assessed on Ardoch Lake, no properties had a retaining wall. While retaining walls were an option to combat erosion for property owners in the past, we now know about their impact on the natural environment. Wave energy is reflected back from these hard, flat surfaces with the same force as which they strike the wall. This can cause excess turbulence in the water, which scours the sediments from the lake bottom. Solid walls also eliminate shoreline habitat and act as a barrier, preventing wildlife from reaching the water. Although some retaining walls such as rip rap or loose rock have fewer impacts than other retaining walls, shoreline property owners could consider future alternative erosion control methods such as planting native vegetated buffers. For more information contact the provincial government regarding erosion control and necessary work permit requirements.

Aquatic Plants: On Ardoch Lake, shorelines were surveyed for their presence of aquatic plants. The presence of aquatic plants was further summarized into aquatic vegetation types; emergent, submergent, floating, and algal blooms. Figure 9 shows the number of properties on Ardoch Lake that had aquatic plants along their shoreline properties. The majority of aquatic vegetation that was present on Ardoch Lake was categorized as emergent vegetation. Submergent vegetation was found less frequently on Ardoch Lake, but is still an important part of the aquatic ecosystem; giving habitat to birds, frogs, dragonflies and other wildlife.

Figure 9 Aquatic Vegetation

Stewardship Message

Page 14 Sediment:

On Ardoch Lake, the type of sediment present on the lake bottom was observed. The benthic zone which is located on the lake bottom is classified as the ecological region at the lowest level of a body of water. It starts at the shoreline and continues down until it reaches the floor, encompassing the sediment surface and subsurface layers. Although this zone may appear barren, it plays a vital role in the health of aquatic ecosystems. Tiny, microscopic organisms which cycle nutrients live in this zone and act as a source of food for bottom feeding animals.

Figure 10 Sediment Distribution

Invasive Species:

No invasive species were identified on your lake. Invasive species can have large negative impacts on an ecosystem by significantly altering food chain dynamics, reducing native species populations, and degrading water quality.

Stewardship Message - You can help prevent the spread of invasive species to and from Ardoch Lake. These species disrupt the ecosystem and can lead to declines in favorite native species, like lake trout. Species such as zebra mussels, spiny waterflea, round goby and common reed are rapidly spreading throughout Ontario. These species can be spread by dumping bait buckets, trailering your boat from one lake to another before proper cleaning, and planting non-native species or seed mixtures along your shoreline. If you use live bait, be sure to

Page 15 dispose of unused bait and packaging material including soil in the garbage. Water from minnow buckets, bilges and livewells can contain a variety of tiny invaders, and should be dumped on shore. When removing your boat from the water, be sure to dispose of any weeds or mud. If you are going to use the boat in another waterbody, clean it thoroughly and allow it to dry for 2-7 days.

Wildlife Habitat:

The most common type of nearshore habitat on Ardoch Lake was identified as aquatic logs, followed by overhanging vegetation. Wildlife provides us with many enjoyable and beneficial activities from bird watching and wildlife photography to pest control, seed dispersal, nutrient cycling and pollination, just to name a few. It is important for there to be a rich and diverse range of habitats along the lakeshore in order to ensure a healthy lake environment. Figure 11 summarizes the nearshore habitat.

Figure 11 Habitat Present

Page 16 great habitat for beetles and ants that burrow under the bark and lay eggs. In the water, logs provide important fish habitat by providing refuge for small fish and spaces for ambush predators such as pike to conceal themselves. By leaving dead and decaying brush and logs in place, you are helping contribute to a healthy and vibrant species community.

Property Slopes On Ardoch Lake, 100% of properties assessed, had flat, gentle, or moderate slopes. The average slope towards the lake was observed as approximately 3:1. The steepest slope is greater than or equal to 45˚ while some properties had no slope.

Lawns On Ardoch Lake, the number of properties with lawns, either mowed or regenerative, was observed. 11% of properties had lawns that were mowed to the water’s edge. When lawn is maintained to the water’s edge, natural ground cover and native vegetation are no longer present to slow runoff and allow nutrient filtration. Nutrients, contaminants, pollutants and other harmful substances can be easily carried into the lake by runoff and can harm water quality and local ecological integrity. Lawn grasses also have short root systems and do not bind the soil well, which can lead to problems with erosion and increased sediment deposition.

Figure 12 Lawn types

Page 17 Stewardship Message In areas close to shore, a lawn is generally not a good choice of ground cover. Half of precipitation runs off a mowed lawn directly into the lake, instead of returning to a natural groundwater source. If shoreline property owners wish to mitigate this, they could consider allowing vegetation to regenerate on its own or by actively planting native trees, shrubs, grasses, or alternative ground cover. The roots of the vegetation will grip the soil which can help prevent erosion. Allowing mowed lawns to regenerate to a more natural state promotes water conservation and protects surface and groundwater resources. Properties with regenerative lawns are encouraged to allow this natural process to continue and to enhance regeneration by planting native trees and shrubs.

The benefits of natural shorelines are immense. The presence of native plant species help to stabilize soil, reduce erosion and improve water quality. A good underground root network helps to keep soil in place, while a healthy buffer of vegetation prevents topsoil from being exposed and washed away. Shoreline vegetation, such as aquatic plants have the ability to absorb wave energy. This reduces the impact of erosion created by waves, therefore limiting the need for hardened materials such as retaining walls. Natural vegetation along your shoreline can also provide privacy from neighboring properties and can lessen the amount of noise generated by boats and other recreational activities. Trees and other native vegetation improve air quality, lower temperatures and minimize extra energy costs associated with cooling.

This report has been created for the lake association and community to utilize as an environmental stewardship guide. Ardoch Lake property owners are encouraged to continue to use their shoreline property report as an additional individualized resource to learn more about how to protect their shoreline properties and reduce their environmental footprint. Following the stewardship actions outlined in this report and working to maintain natural shorelines, residents can unite and make a positive change for the greater good of their lake.

Page 18

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1 Characteristics of Ardoch and Malcolm Lakes

Table 2 Lake Trophic Status Classification

Table 3 Ministry of the Environment Dissolved Oxygen PWQO for cold and warm water biota

Table 4 Lake Stratification

Table 5 Summary of Trophic Status Ratings for each Water Quality Parameter

Table 6 Septic Inspection Reports 2014 and 2015

Table 7.1 Development Status of property on Ardoch Lake

Table 7.2 Development Status of Property on Malcolm Lake

Figure 1 Spring Total Phosphorus Results for Ardoch Euphotic Zone 2004-2014

Figure 2 Spring, Summer, Fall Total Phosphorous Concentrations

Figure 3 Ardoch Lake – Total Phosphorus 1 Metre off the Bottom

Figure 4 Malcolm Lake Spring Total Phosphorous Levels Euphotic Zone

Figure 6 Malcolm Lake Total Phosphorus 1 metre off bed of lake

Figure 7 Ardoch Spring, summer, and fall Chlorophyll.a Levels

Figure 8 Malcolm Spring, Summer and Fall Chlorophyll.a Levels

Figure 9 Ardoch Lake Spring, Summer and Fall Secchi Disc Depth

Figure 10 Malcolm Lake Spring, Summer and Fall Secchi Disc Depth

Figure 11 Ardoch Lake Annual Mean pH Levels

Figure 12 Malcolm Lake Annual Mean pH Levels

Figure 13 Ardoch Lake 2012 Dissolved Oxygen and Temperature Profiles

Figure 14 Malcolm Lake 2012 Dissolve Oxygen and Temperature Profiles

REFERENCES

 Lake Planning Handbook for Community Groups- FOCA and Haliburton Highlands Stewardship Council

 North Frontenac Official Plan

 North Frontenac Zoning By-laws

 FOCA Risk Management Manual

 State of the Lake Environment Reports(MVCA)

 Canonto Lake Stewardship Plan

 Fourteen Island and Mink Lakes(FIMLA) Lake Stewardship Plan

 Report on the State of Otty Lake and its Watershed

 Away Back in Clarendon & Miller, C.A. Armstrong, North Frontenac Printing Service, (1976)

 Lake Planning Handbook for Community Groups, FOCA Publication

 Canonto Lake Stewardship Plan, Canonto Lake Property Owners’ Association (2012)

 Fourteen Island and Mink Lakes (FIMLA) Lake Stewardship Plan (2012)

 Otty Lake Stewardship Lake Plan, Otty Lake Association

 Love Your Lake: Healthy Shorelines for Healthy Lakes, Resources & Downloads

 North & Central Frontenac 2015 Recreation Guide, Township Publication

 Invasive Plant Species, Credit Valley Conservation publication

 The Baitfish Primer: A Guide to Identifying and Protecting Ontario’s Baitfish Becky Cudmore & Nicholas E. Mandrak, Ministry of Natural Resources of Ontario publication

 The Shore Primer: A Cottager’s Guide to a Healthy Waterfront, Ray Ford, Cottage Life /Fisheries and Ocean Canada

 The Dock Primer: A Cottager’s Guide to Waterfront- Friendly Docks, Max Burns, Cottage Life/Fisheries Ocean Canada

 A Shoreline Owner’s Guide to Healthy Waterfronts, Rideau Valley Conservation Authority publication

 The Naturally Rich Frontenacs, Frontenac Stewardship Council Publication

 The Fish Habitat Primer: A Guide to Understanding Freshwater Fish Habitat in Ontario, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Publication

 FOCA (Federation of Ontario Cottagers’ Association) Lake Stewards Newsletter (2014)

 Breeding Bird Atlas of Ontario

 bna.birds.cornell.edu

 The Sibley Guide to Birds

 frontenacbirds.ca

The end