Mud Creek Catchment Report

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

The RVCA produces individual reports for six catchments in the Kemptville Creek Subwatershed. What’s Inside Using data collected and analysed by the RVCA through its watershed monitoring and land cover 1. Surface Water Quality Conditions ...... 2 classification programs, surface water quality conditions are reported for Mud Creek along with a 2. Riparian Conditions ...... 8 summary of environmental conditions for the surrounding countryside every six years. Overbank Zone ...... 8 Shoreline Zone ...... 9 This information is used to help better understand the effects of human activity on our water Instream Aquatic Habitat ...... 12 resources, allows us to better track environmental change over time and helps focus watershed 3. Land Cover ...... 16 4. Stewardship & Protection ...... 17 management actions where they are needed the most. 5. Issues ...... 18 6. Opportunties for Action ...... 18 The following pages of this report are a compilation of that work. For other Kemptville Creek catchments and the Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report, please visit the RVCA website at www.rvca.ca

Catchment Facts

General Geography • Ninety-two percent of the catchment lies within the Township of • Mud Creek catchment is rural in character with agriculture being the Elizabethtown-Kitley, six percent within Augusta Township and predominant land use two percent within the Township of Athens

Physical Geography • Bedrock is overlain by thin glacial till or glacial drift or by organic muck and peat under the reaches of Mud Creek. Across the upper reaches of the catchment, the Smith Falls Limestone Plain !. consists of layers of quartz sandstone, sandy dolostone and D D R R Y !. S B !. dolostone of the March Formation; across the lower reaches, it G LY F IN L L R JE Y consists of thinner layers of shale and sandstone of the Oxford P C S K R C E E Formation Dolostone. O M R K I L R L W • The drainage area of 120 square kilometres is about 26 percent of S D I Augusta L R T D S the Kemptville Creek Subwatershed and three percent of the I E

R D Rideau Valley Watershed

D R • Dominant land cover is crop and pastureland (38 percent) followed C AY O K U C 8 by woodland (29 percent) and wetlands (27 percent). Settlement E N M 2

T D D Y R R C areas (four percent) and transportation (two percent) occupy the

R O Y E D I T U

X 7 N D N I R rest of the landscape U T D N Y O O C C R H D T C 7 6 O Vulnerable Areas U D !. R RVCA Benthic Site N N N T A O !. • Flood plain mapping has been available along Mud Creek since Y S C RVCA Water Quality Site H H R 6T D S Urban Service Area 2009 and regulated since then I 7 D E Surveyed Stream R • Shallow bedrock, especially in areas with very thin soils, is D ANSI Land Cover mapped as highly vulnerable to land use activities Transportation Sand and Gravel Development Trends Elizabethtown-Kitley Crop and Pasture Evaluated Wetland • Very limited development activity has taken place in recent years Grassland Settlement Unevaluated Wetland Conditions at a Glance Water • Water quality rating along Mud Creek is “Fair” and has declined Wooded Area at a site upstream of North Augusta, above the County Road 6 021 crossing, over a 12 year reporting period (2001 –2006 vs. Kilometres ² 2007 –2012)

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

• Woodland cover proportion has decreased by three percent (364 • Annual benthic macroinvertebrate sampling downstream of County hectares) from 2002 to 2008, due to a combination of changes in land Road 6 since 2003 (RVCA). cover and land use. • RVCA macro stream surveys in 2011, working upstream from North • The riparian buffer (30 metres wide along both sides of Mud Creek and Augusta taking measurements and recording observations on instream its tributaries) is made up of wetland (63 percent), crop and pastureland habitat, bank stability, other attributes and preparing a temperature profile. (17 percent), woodland (17 percent), transportation (two percent) and • MOE well records show there are about 560 water wells in the catchment settlement areas (one percent). (20 percent of all wells in the Kemptville Creek Subwatershed), • A warm/cool water baitfish and recreational fishery of 13 fish species •Permits to Take Water are held by the United Counties of Leeds and is present. Grenville for construction dewatering associated with the Mayhew Bridge works and by Ducks Unlimited for wildlife habitat conservation. Catchment Care • Watershed model developed by the RVCA in 2009 was used to study the • Eleven stewardship projects (Rural Clean Water/Tree Planting) have been hydrological function of wetlands in the Rideau Valley Watershed, completed (from 1993 to 2012). including those found in the Mud Creek catchment. • Fish sampling conducted on Mud Creek (RVCA, 2011).

1. Mud Creek Surface Water Quality Conditions

D R Assessment of streams in the Kemptville Creek watershed is based on H C N D A 22 parameters including nutrients (total phosphorus, total Kjeldahl R R B Y C B O S Y nitrogen, and ammonia), E. coli, metals (like aluminum and copper) and L U L N E J T Y

additional chemical/physical parameters (such as alkalinity, chlorides, R ROCKSPRINGS RD D D R 1 pH and total suspended solids). Each parameter is evaluated against 5 H C K N L A I T established guidelines to determine water quality conditions. Those R B B O

R parameters that frequently exceed guidelines are presented below. D

21 RD The assessment of water quality throughout the Kemptville Creek TY UN Subwatershed also looks at water quality targets that are presented in the CO 2007 Kemptville Creek Watershed Plan Update (KCWP). The KCWP KEM-16(! identifies nutrient and bacteria loading to be of concern as well as

F maintaining and/or improving water quality aesthetics throughout the L Y C R Kemptville Creek watershed. E E K D 6 R R IE D D S Change in Rating R T L Y I Surface water quality conditions in Kemptville Creek are monitored through T W No Change N U the RVCA’s Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Program. See Figure 1 and O Improvement C Table 2 for the monitored site's location. Decline Water Quality Rating

W !( Very Poor I The water quality rating for Kemptville Creek within the Mud Creek D L R T !( D S Poor R I O E catchment is “Fair” (Table 2) as determined by the CCME Water Quality F !( S R Fair O D G 8 !( Good 2 index (CCME WQI); analysis of the data has been broken into two periods D !( R W Very Good

I 2001-2006 and 2007-2012, to examine if conditions have changed in this Y L T T S N I U D E 010.5 timeframe. Water quality scores are largely influenced by nutrient O R R N C O D C concentrations. For more information on the CCME WQI, please see the H Kilometres 8T ² Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report. Figure 1 Water quality in Mud Creek. The rating shown on the map is for the Table 1 outlines the WQI scores and their corresponding ratings and 2007 –2012 period. Arrows are used to show a change in the rating from the Table 2 shows the overall rating for the monitored site on Kemptville Creek 2001 –2006 period within the Mud Creek catchment.

Table 1 WQI Ratings and corresponding index scores (RVCA terminology, original WQI category names in brackets)

Rating Index Score Very good (Excellent) 95-100 Good 80-94 Fair 65-79 Poor (Marginal) 45-64 Very poor (Poor) 0-44

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

Table 2 WQI Ratings for Mud Creek from 2001 –2006 and 2007 –2012

Sampling Site Nearest intersection 2001-2006 Rating KEM-16 County Rd. 20 and County Rd. 18 80 Good Sampling Site Nearest intersection 2007-2012 Rating KEM-16 County Rd. 20 and County Rd. 18 53 Fair

Table 5 Summary of ammonia results for Kemptville Creek from 2001 –2006 Mud Creek Nutrients and 2007 –2012

Total phosphorus (TP) is used as a primary indicator of excessive nutrient Ammonia 2001 –2006 loading and may contribute to abundant aquatic vegetation growth and Site Average (mg/l) Below Guideline No. Samples depleted dissolved oxygen levels. The Provincial Water Quality Objective KEM-16 0.009 90% 30 (PWQO) of 0.030 mg/l is used as the TP guideline. Concentrations greater Ammonia 2007 –2012 than 0.030 mg/l indicate an excessive amount of TP. Site Average (mg/l) Below Guideline No. Samples KEM-16 0.011 87% 39 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and ammonia (NH 3 ) are used as secondary indicators of nutrient loadings. RVCA uses a guideline of 1 0.500 mg/l assess TKN and the PWQO of 0.020 mg/l to assess NH 3 concentrations in Mud Creek.

Tables 3, 4 and 5 summarize average nutrient concentrations at the monitored site in this catchment and show the proportion of results that meet the guidelines.

Table 3 Summary of total phosphorus results for Kemptville Creek from 2001 –2006 and 2007 –2012, highlighted values indicate that average concentrations exceed the guideline

Total Phosphorus 2001 –2006 Site Average (mg/l) Below Guideline No. Samples KEM-16 0.021 83% 30 Total Phosphorus 2007 –2012 Site Average (mg/l) Below Guideline No. Samples KEM-16 0.036 69% 39

Table 4 Summary of total Kjeldahl nitrogen results for Kemptville Creek from 2001 –2006 and 2007 –2012, highlighted values indicate that average concentrations exceed the guideline

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2001 –2006 Site Average (mg/l) Below Guideline No. Samples KEM-16 0.798 20% 30 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2007 –2012 Site Average (mg/l) Below Guideline No. Samples KEM-16 0.923 5% 39

Mud Creek

1 No Ontario guideline for TKN is presently available however waters not influenced by excessive organic inputs typically range from 0.100 to 0.500 mg/l, Environment Canada (1979) Water Quality Sourcebook, A Guide to Water Quality Parameters, Inland Waters Directorate, Water Quality Branch, Ottawa, Canada

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

KEM-16 guideline in the 2001-2006 period and declined to five percent in the Site KEM-16 is the only site monitored within the Mud Creek catchment. 2007 –2012 period. The average concentration increased from 0.798 mg/l

Eighty-three percent of samples were below the guideline in the 2001 –2006 to 0.923 mg/l. NH 3 results were generally below the guideline (Figures 4a period (Figure 2a) and declined to 69 percent of samples in the 2007 –2012 and 4b). The proportion of samples below the guideline declined slightly period (Figure 2b). Average TP concentration increased from 0.021 mg/l from 90 percent (2001 –2006) to 87 percent (2007 –2012). An increase was (2000 –2005) to 0.036 mg/l (2006-2011) throughout this time period. also observed in the average concentration which increased from 0.009 mg/l (2001 –2006) to 0.011 mg/l (2007-2012). TKN results show that the bulk of results exceeded the guideline of 0.500 mg/l (Figures 3a and 3b), 20 percent of samples were below the

0.120 0.120 0.100 0.100 0.080 0.080

l /

l g 0.060 / m g 0.060 m 0.040 0.040 0.020 0.020 0.000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec KEM-16 TP Guideline KEM-16 TP Guideline

Figure 2a Total phosphorus concentrations in Mud Creek from 2001 –2006 Figure 2b Total phosphorus concentrations in Mud Creek from 2007 –2012

1.600 1.600 1.400 1.400 1.200 1.200

l 1.000 l 1.000 / / g g m 0.800 m 0.800 0.600 0.600 0.400 0.400 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

KEM-16 TKN Guideline KEM-16 TKN Guideline

Figure 3a Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations in Mud Creek from 2001 –2006 Figure 3b Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations in Mud Creek from 2007 –2012

0.030 0.030

0.025 0.025

0.020 0.020

l /

l / g

g 0.015 0.015 m m 0.010 0.010 0.005 0.005 0.000 0.000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

KEM-16 NH3 Guideline KEM-16 NH3 Guideline

Figure 4a Ammonia concentrations in Mud Creek from 2001–2006 Figure 4b Ammonia concentrations in Mud Creek from 2007 –2012

Mud Creek Nutrients Summary

The data shows that nutrient enrichment continues to be a concern in this across all sites and may be influenced by the organic matter held by the

catchment. Water quality guidelines for TP and NH 3 are generally met. large wetland areas within the catchment, resulting in naturally high However, TKN concentrations are elevated with frequent exceedances concentrations of organic nitrogen.

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

Mud Creek E.coli 250 E. coli is used as an indicator of bacterial pollution from human or animal waste; in elevated concentrations it can pose a risk to human health. The 200

PWQO of 100 colony forming units/100 millilitres (CFU/100 ml) is used. 150 E. coli counts greater than this guideline indicate that bacterial 100 contamination may be a problem within a waterbody. The KCWP also

set a target of E. coli counts of 100 CFU/100 ml at the 70 th percentile. 50

l o

n 0

f Jan Feb 2 o Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Table 6 summarizes the geometric mean at monitored sites on Mud Creek r

m i n KEM-16 E. coli Guideline

and shows the proportion of samples that meet the E. coli guideline of g

i t

100 CFU/100 ml. s

/ 1

Fig0 ure 5a E. coli counts in Mud Creek from 2001 –2006

m l Figure 5 shows the results of the geometric mean with respect to the guideline for the two periods 2001 –2006 and 2007 –2012. Figure 6 shows 250

percentile plots of the data for the two time periods of interest. Any point to m

th 0 200 1 the left of the 70 percentile line (vertical) and above the guideline / s t i n

u 150

(horizontal line) has failed to reach the KCWP target. g n i m

r 100 o f

y n

o 50 l

KEM-16 o c 0 E. coli counts at site KEM-16 show increase in regard to bacterial counts. Counts at the 70th percentile increased from 84 CFU/100 ml (Figure 6a) to Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 150 CFU/100 ml (Figure 6b). The proportion of samples below the KEM-16 E. coli Guideline guideline decreased from 72 percent to 54 percent (Figures 5a and 5b), and the count at the geometric mean increased from 53 CFU/100 ml to 76 Figure 5b E. coli counts in Mud Creek from 2007 –2012 CFU/100 ml.

1,000

l m

0 70th percentile 0 1 / s i

t 100

E.coli Summary n u

g n The results indicate that bacterial contamination continues to be a i m r o f concern at this site. The target set by the KCWP has not been achieved, 10 y n o l the proportion of samples below guideline decreased and there was an o c increase in the count at the geometric mean. 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

KEM-16 E.coli Guideline

Figure 6a Percentile plots of E. coli in Mud Creek for 2001 –2006 Table 6 Summary of E. coli results for Mud Creek 2001 –2006 and 2007 –2012

E. coli 2001 –2006 Geometric mean Below Site No. Samples 1,000

(CFU/100ml) Guideline l

m 70th percentile

0 0 1

KEM-16 53 72% 29 / s

t 100 i n u

E. coli 2007 –2012 g n i m r o f

Geometric mean Below 10 y

Site No. Samples n o (CFU/100ml) Guideline l o c

KEM-16 76 54% 39 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

KEM-16 E.coli Guideline

Figure 6b Percentile plots of E. coli in Mud Creek for 2007 –2012

2 2A type of mean or average, which indicates the central tendency or typical value of a set of numbers by using the product of their values (as opposed to the arithmetic mean which uses their sum). It is often used to summarize a variable that varies over several orders of magnitude, such as E. coli counts.

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

2. Mud Creek Riparian Conditions Left Bank Right Bank 100% MUD CREEK OVERBANK ZONE 90% 80% 70% 60% Riparian Buffer Width Evaluation 50% 40% Figure 10 shows the extent of the naturally vegetated riparian zone in the 30% catchment, 30 metres on either side of all water bodies and watercourses. 20% Results from the RVCA’s Land Cover Classification Program show that 10% 79 percent of rivers, streams and creeks are buffered with woodland, and 0% wetland; the remaining 21 percent of the riparian buffer is occupied by 0-5m 5-15m 15-30m 30m + settlement, transportation and crop and pastureland. Figure 11 Riparian Buffer Evaluation along Mud Creek

D R H C N A R B Adjacent Land Use

D D R R Y S B The RVCA’s Macro Stream Survey Program identifies eight different land M G LY F N L L U I E Y L R J V P C A uses beside Mud Creek (Figure 12). Surrounding land use is considered S R U K G C E E H O M R K from the beginning to end of the survey section (100m) and up to 100m on R I L R D L W S D I L R T each side of the creek. Land use outside of this area is not considered for D S I E

R the surveys but is nonetheless part of the subwatershed and will influence D

D the creek. Natural areas made up 17 percent of the stream, characterized R C AY O K by forest, scrubland and wetland. The remaining land use consisted of U C 8 E N M 2

T D D Y C R R agriculture, residential, pasture, infrastructure, and industrial/commercial.

R O Y E D I T U

X 7 N D N I R U T D N Y O O C C R H D T C 7 6 O U D R N N N Agriculture T A O 2% Y S C 2% H R H T D 6 Pasture S 2% I 7 D E R Abandonned Fields D 5% Residential 10% Forests Scrubland Riparian land cover 52% Meadows Natural Wetlands Other 25% Industrial/Commercial 021 2% Recreational Kilometres ² Infrastructure Figure 10 Natural and other riparian land cover along Mud Creek Other Figure 12 Land Use along Mud Creek The riparian or shoreline zone is that special area where the land meets the water. Well-vegetated shorelines are critically important in protecting water quality and creating healthy aquatic habitats, lakes and rivers. Natural shorelines intercept sediments and contaminants that could impact water quality conditions and harm fish habitat in streams. Well established buffers protect the banks against erosion, improve habitat for fish by shading and cooling the water and provide protection for birds and other wildlife that feed and rear young near water. A recommended target (from Environment Canada’s Guideline: How Much Habitat is Enough? ) is to maintain a minimum 30 metre wide vegetated buffer along at least 75 percent of the length of both sides of rivers, creeks and streams. Figure 11 demonstrates the buffer conditions of the left and right banks separately. Mud Creek had a buffer of greater than 30 metres along 100 percent of the right and left bank.

10 percent of Mud Creek is forested

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

MUD CREEK SHORELINE ZONE

Instream Erosion

D R Y D B R Erosion is a normal, important stream process and may not affect actual Y L H L C E C N bank stability; however, excessive erosion and deposition of sediment J O A U R N B T S within a stream can have a detrimental effect on important fish and wildlife Y

R D habitat. Poor bank stability can greatly contribute to the amount of 1 5 sediment carried in a waterbody as well as loss of bank vegetation due to D R H C bank failure, resulting in trees falling into the stream and the potential to N K A L I R T impact instream migration. Figure 13 shows that there was high levels of B B O

R bank erosion observed on the left and right bank along Mud Creek. D

S Undercut Stream Banks 6 N 1 I 2 D D R A Y R Y M T T N N OU U C O Undercut banks are a normal and natural part of stream function and can C provide excellent refuge areas for fish. Figure 14 shows that Mud Creek had moderate to high levels of undercut banks. Stream erosion levels 1 - 20% 21 - 40% 41 - 60% 61 - 80% 81 - 100%

Surveyed Stream D R IE S 0 0.2 0.4 T IL W Kilometres ² Figure 13 Erosion along Mud Creek.

D R Y D B R Y L H L C E C N J O A U R N B T S Y

R D

1 5

R H C N K A L I R T B B O

R D

S 6 N 1 I 2 D D R A Y R Y M T T N N OU U C O C

Undercut streambank levels 1 - 20% 21 - 40% 41 - 60% 61 - 80% 81 - 100%

Surveyed Stream D R IE S 00.40.2 T IL W Kilometres ² Mud Creek has moderate to high levels of undercut stream banks Figure 14 Undercut stream banks along Mud Creek.

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

Stream Shading Instream Woody Debris

Grasses, shrubs and trees all contribute towards shading a stream. Shade Figure 16 shows that Mud Creek had no instream woody debris in the form is important in moderating stream temperature, contributing to food supply of branches and trees. Instream woody debris is important for fish and and helping with nutrient reduction within a stream. Figure 15 shows the benthic habitat, by providing refuge and feeding areas. stream shading locations along Mud Creek.

D D R R Y D B R Y D Y B R L H Y L C L H E C N L C J O A E C N R J O A U N B U R S N B T T S Y

Y R

R D

D 1 5 1 5 D

D R R H H C C N K A L N K I A L R T I B B R T B B O

O R

R D D

S T

S 6 N 1 6 D I 2 N 1 D I 2 R A D D Y R R A R Y M T Y T N Y M T U T N N O N OU U C U C O O C C

Instream Woody Debris Stream Shading 1 - 20% 1 - 20% 21 - 40% 21 - 40% 41 - 60% 41 - 60% 61 - 80% 61 - 80% 81 - 100% 81 - 100% Surveyed Stream Surveyed Stream D D R R IE IE S S 00.40.2 T 00.40.2 T IL IL W W Kilometres ² Kilometres ² Figure 15 Stream shading along Mud Creek Figure 16 Instream woody debris along Mud Creek

Stream shading on Mud Creek Mud Creek has limited instream woody debris

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

Overhanging Trees and Branches Anthropogenic Alterations

Figure 17 shows that Mud Creek had low to moderate levels of Figure 18 shows 77 percent of Mud Creek remains “not altered.” Sections overhanging branches and trees. Overhanging branches and trees considered “natural” with some human changes account for 8 percent of provide a food source, nutrients and shade which helps to moderate sections. "Altered" sections accounted for 15 percent of the stream, with instream water temperatures. no sections sampled being considered “highly altered.” Areas classified as altered included existing road crossings and shoreline modifications.

D R Y D B R Y L H L C E C N J O A 15% R U B Not Altered N T S Y

R D Natural

1 8% 5

D R Altered

H C N K A L Highly Altered I R T B B O

R D 77%

S 6 N 1 I 2 D D R A Y R Y M T T N N OU U C Figure 18 Anthropogenic alterations along Mud Creek O C

Overhanging Woody Vegetation 1 - 20% 21 - 40% 41 - 60% 61 - 80% 81 - 100%

Surveyed Stream D R IE 00.6S 0.3 T IL W Kilometres ² Figure 17 Overhanging trees and branches along Mud Creek

Mud Creek has low to moderate levels of overhanging branches Man-made alterations along Mud Creek

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

MUD CREEK INSTREAM AQUATIC HABITAT

Benthic Invertebrates

Freshwater benthic invertebrates are animals without backbones that live on the stream bottom and include crustaceans such as crayfish, molluscs and immature forms of aquatic insects. Benthos represent an extremely diverse group of aquatic animals and exhibit wide ranges of responses to stressors such as organic pollutants, sediments and toxicants, which allows scientists to use them as bioindicators.As part of the Ontario Benthic Biomonitoring Network (OBBN), the RVCA has been collecting benthic invertebrates at this location on Mud Creek at County Road 6 since 2003. Monitoring data is analyzed and the results are presented using the Family Biotic Index, Family Richness and percent Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera.

Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index

The Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index (FBI) is an indicator of organic and nutrient pollution and provides an estimate of water quality conditions for each site Benthic invertebrate sampling using established pollution tolerance values for benthic invertebrates. FBI results for Mud Creek show that it has “Poor” water quality conditions for the period from 2007 to 2012 (Figure 19) using a grading scheme developed by Conservation Authorities in Ontario for benthic invertebrates.

Family Richness

Family Richness measures the health of the community through its diversity and increases with increasing habitat diversity suitability and healthy water quality conditions. Family Richness is equivalent to the total number of benthic invertebrate families found within a sample. Although the family richness appears to be high the samples are dominated by species that are moderately tolerant and tolerant to poor water quality conditions. Using Family Richness as the indicator, Mud Creek is reported Figure 19 Hilsenhoff Family Biotic Index on Mud Creek to have “Poor” water quality (Figure 20).

EPT

Ephemeroptera (Mayflies), Plecoptera (Stoneflies) and Trichoptera (Caddisflies) are species considered to be very sensitive to poor water quality conditions. High abundance of these organisms is generally an indication of good water quality conditions at a sample location. The community structure is dominated by species that are tolerant to poor water quality conditions. As a result, the EPT indicates that Mud Creek is reported to have “Poor” water quality (Figure 21) from 2007 to 2012. Figure 20 Family Richness in Mud Creek Conclusion

Overall Mud Creek has a water quality rating of “Poor” from 2007 to 2012.

Figure 21 EPT in Mud Creek

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

Habitat Complexity

D R Y D B R Streams are naturally meandering systems and move over time; there are Y L H L C E C N varying degrees of habitat complexity, depending on the creek. Examples of J O A U R N B T S habitat complexity include variable habitat types such as pools and riffles as Y

R D well as substrate variability and woody debris structure. A high percentage of 1 5 habitat complexity (heterogeneity) typically increases the biodiversity of D R H C aquatic organisms within a system. One hundred percent of Mud Creek was N K A L I R T considered heterogeneous, as shown in Figure 22. B B O

R D

S 6 N 1 I 2 D D R A Y R Y M T T N N OU U C O Homogeneous C Heterogeneous Instream cobble/boulder habitat Cobble 100% Boulder Both

Figure 22 Habitat complexity along Mud Creek Surveyed Stream D R IE S 00.40.2 T IL W Kilometres ² Instream Substrate Figure 24 Instream substrate along Mud Creek.

Boulders create instream cover and back eddies for large fish to hide and/or rest out of the current. Cobble provides important over wintering and/or spawning habitat for small or juvenile fish. Cobble can also provide Instream Morphology habitat conditions for benthic invertebrates that are a key food source for many fish and wildlife species. Figure 24 shows where cobble and Pools and riffles are important habitat features for fish. Riffles are areas of boulder substrate is found in Mud Creek. Diverse substrate is important for agitated water and they contribute higher dissolved oxygen to the stream fish and benthic invertebrate habitat because some species have specific and act as spawning substrate for some species of fish, such as walleye. substrate requirements and for example will only reproduce on certain Pools provide shelter for fish and can be refuge pools in the summer if types of substrate (Figure 23). water levels drop and water temperature in the creek increases. Pools also provide important over wintering areas for fish. Runs are usually moderately shallow, with unagitated surfaces of water and areas where the Bedrock thalweg (deepest part of the channel) is in the center of the channel. Boulder Figure 25 shows that Mud Creek is highly variable; 61 percent consists of 16% 13% Cobble runs, 13 percent pools and 26 percent riffles. Gravel 12% Sand 30% Silt 10% 13% Clay 14% 5% Muck Pools Detritus Ri ffles 26% Other 61% Runs Figure 23 Instream substrate along Mud Creek

Figure 25 Instream morphology along Mud Creek

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

Vegetation Type Invasive Species

Instream vegetation provides a variety of functions and is a critical Invasive species can have major implications on streams and species component of the aquatic ecosystem. For example emergent plants along diversity. Invasive species are one of the largest threats to ecosystems the shoreline can provide shoreline protection from wave action and throughout Ontario and can outcompete native species, having negative important rearing habitat for species of waterfowl. Submerged plants effects on local wildlife, fish and plant populations. Eighty-five percent of provide habitat for fish to find shelter from predator fish while they feed. the sections surveyed along Mud Creek had invasive species (Figure 28). Floating plants such as water lilies shade the water and can keep The invasive species observed in Mud Creek were European frogbit and temperatures cool while reducing algae growth. Mud Creek had limited purple loosestrife. diversity of instream vegetation. The dominant vegetation type recorded at sixty percent consisted of algae. Figure 26 depicts the plant community structure for Mud Creek. D R Y D B R Y L H L C E C N J O A U R N B T S Narrow-leaved Emergents Y

R D

17% 1 Broad-leaved Emergents 5 D

R H 7% C Robust Emergents N K A L I R T B B O 7% R Free-floating Plants D 60% 2% 8% Floating Plants

6 Submereged Plants N 1 I 2 D D R A Y R Y M T T N N OU U C Algae O C Figure 26 Vegetation type along Mud Creek

Instream Vegetation Abundance Invasive Species Present Instream vegetation is an important factor for a healthy stream ecosystem. No

Vegetation helps to remove contaminants from the water, contributes Ye s D R IE 00.80.4 S oxygen to the stream, and provides habitat for fish and wildlife. Too much T IL vegetation can also be detrimental. Figure 26 demonstrates that Mud Creek Kilometres ² W has low levels of instream vegetation for most of its length. Figure 28 Invasive species along Mud Creek

Instream vegetation abundance 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Extensive Common Normal Low Rare None

Figure 27 Instream vegetation abundance along Mud Creek

European frogbit is an invasive found on Mud Creek

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

Fish Sampling Riparian Restoration

Fish sampling sites located along Mud Creek are shown in Figure 29. Figure 30 depicts the locations where various riparian restoration activities The provincial fish codes shown on the preceding map are listed (in can be implemented as a result of observations made during the stream Table 10) beside the common name of those fish species identified in survey assessments. Mud Creek. Mud Creek is classified as a warm/cool water recreational and baitfish fishery with 13 species observed.

D R Y D B R Y L H L C Table 10 Fish species identified in Mud Creek E C N J O A U R N B T S Y

Species observed in Kemptvlle Creek (with fish code) R D

1 5 bluegill ...... Blueg longnose dace ...... LnDac D R H C central mudminnow ...... CeMud mottled sculpin ...... MoScu N K A L I R T B B common shiner ...... CoShi northern redbelly dace ...... NRDac O

R etheostoma sp...... EthSp pumpinkseed ...... Pumpk D fallfish ...... FallF rock bass ...... RoBas

fathead minnow ...... FhMin slimy sculpin ...... SlScu T S 6 N 1 I 2 D D golden shiner ...... GoShi white sucker ...... WhSuc R A Y R Y M T T N N OU U C O C

C O U N T Y

R D

1 5 Potential riparian restoration

D Surveyed Stream R D R H IE C 00.90.45 S N T A IL R W B Kilometres ² Blueg,CeMud,CoShi, Figure 30 Riparian restoration along Mud Creek EthSp,FallF,GoShi,LnDac, MoScu,NRDac,Pumpk, ! RoBas,SlScu,WhSuc Water Chemistry

During the macro stream survey, a YSI probe is used to collect water chemistry, as follows:

21 • Dissolved Oxygen is a measure of the amount of oxygen dissolved in D R TY UN water. The lowest acceptable concentration of dissolved oxygen is 6.0 CO 6 D mg/L for early stages of warm water fish and 9.5 mg/L for cold water fish R Y T N U (CCME, 1999). O C • A saturation value (concentration of oxygen in water) of 90 percent or ! Fish Sampling Location above is considered healthy. Saturation levels above one hundred percent are not uncommon in sections of stream where there are high 00.350.175 amounts of algae and other aquatic plants. Kilometres ² • Conductivity is the ability of a substance to transfer electricity. This Figure 29 Fish sampling along Mud Creek measure is influenced by the presence of dissolved salts and other ions in the stream. • pH is a measure of relative acidity or alkalinity, ranging from 1 (most acidic) to 14 (most alkaline/basic), with 7 occupying a neutral point. 2011 data for these four parameters is summarized in Table 11.

Table 11 Water chemistry in Mud Creek Conductivity Month Range DO (mg/L) DO(%) pH (µs/cm) June 2011 Low 4.42 46.6 349 8.12 High 12.16 128.2 718 8.8 July 2011 Low 7.48 81.0 502 8.2 High 10.72 116.1 835 8.2

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

K L I T B 3. Land Cover IS O

L R A D N D

R D D D R R Y B Crop and pastureland is the dominant land cover type in the catchment as S Y M G LL F U IN E L L R J Y D shown in Table 12 and displayed in the map on the front cover of the report. V P C R A S R U K IE G C E O E S H R M T K IL R I D L R W Table 12 Catchment land cover type L D S

R Cover Type Area (ha) Area (% of Cover) D

D R Crop & Pasture 4,593 38 R D E R K C E AY E Woodland* 3,461 29 O K S U C 8 E N M 2

T D D Y Wetland** 3,250 27 R R C R Y O E D I T U

X 7 I N D N U R T Settlement 489 4 D O N Y O C C R H D T Transportation 220 2 7 6 C O D U R N N N T A O Y C S H R H T D 6 S

7 I Woodland Cover D E R D

The Mud Creek catchment contains 3461 hectares of upland forest and 577 hectares of lowland forest (treed swamps) (Figure 31) that occupies 34 percent of the drainage area (versus the 36 percent of woodland cover Interior Treed Swamps in the Kemptville Creek Subwatershed).This figure is greater than the 30 Interior Forest percent of woodland area required to sustain forest birds, according to Forest Environment Canada’s Guideline: “How Much Habitat is Enough?” When 031.5 forest cover declines below 30 percent, forest birds tend to disappear as Kilometres ² breeders across the landscape. Figure 31 Catchment woodland cover and forest interior One hundred and ten (41 percent) of the 266 woodland patches in the catchment are very small, being less than one hectare in size. Another 121 (46 percent) of the wooded patches ranging from one to less than Wetland Cover 20 hectares in size tend to be dominated by edge-tolerant bird species. The remaining 35 (13 percent of) woodland patches range between Figure 32 shows pre-settlement versus current (2008) wetland cover in 22 and 317 hectares. Twenty-four of these patches contain woodland the catchment. between 20 and 100 hectares and may support a few area-sensitive species and some edge intolerant species, but will be dominated by edge tolerant species.

D D R Conversely, 11 (four percent) of the 266 woodland patches in the drainage R Y S B M G LY F U IN L L area exceed the 100 plus hectare size needed to support most forest L R JE Y V P C A S R U K G C E dependent, area sensitive birds and are large enough to support H O M E K R I R L D L R W S D approximately 60 percent of edge-intolerant species. Six of these patches I L R T D S I top 200 hectares, which according to the Environment Canada Guideline E

R will support 80 percent of edge-intolerant forest bird species (including D D R C AY most area sensitive species) that prefer interior forest habitat conditions. O K U C C E N M O T D U Y N R 8

R 2 T E Y I D D X D R I 7 R R D D N Forest Interior Y O 6 T C N H T C U 7 O O C D U R N N N T A O The same 266 woodlands contain 47 forest interior patches (Figure 31) that Y S C H H R 6T D S occupy seven percent (816 hectares) of the catchment land area (versus the I 7 D E R eight percent of interior forest in the Kemptville Creek Subwatershed). This is D below the ten percent figure referred to in the Environment Canada Guideline that is considered to be the minimum threshold for supporting edge intolerant bird species and other forest dwelling species in the landscape. Wetland Cover Pre-Settlement Most patches (32) have less than 10 hectares of interior forest, 15 of which Current (2008) have small areas of interior forest habitat less than one hectare in size. 02.51.25 Another seven patches contain between 10 and 30 hectares of interior forest. Kilometres Conversely, eight patches have greater than 30 hectares of interior forest, ² Pre-Settlement data provided by: Ducks Unlimited Canada, 2010. Southern Ontario Wetland Conversion with two patches exceeding 100 hectares (at 118 and 123 hectares). Analysis, http://www.ducks.ca/aboutduc/news/archives/prov2010/pdf/duc_ontariowca.pdf, (March 2010)

Figure 32 Catchment wetland cover

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

4. Stewardship and Protection Valley, Stream, Wetland and Hazard Land Regulation

The RVCA and its partners are working to protect and enhance Thirty-seven square kilometres or 31 percent of the catchment drainage environmental conditions in the Kemptville Creek Subwatershed. area is within the regulation limit of Ontario Regulation 174/06 (Figure 34), giving protection to wetland areas and river or stream valleys that are Rural Clean Water Projects affected by flooding and erosion hazards. K L I T B IS O C L R O A Figure 33 shows the location of all Rural Clean Water Projects in the Mud U D N N T D Y R D Creek drainage area. From 2007 to 2012, landowners completed two R D D R D R Y B 7 S Y G F M LL projects: one septic system repair/replacement and one education U IN E L L R J Y D V P C R A S R U K IE initiative. RVCA contributed $3,000 in grant dollars towards the total project G C E O E S H R M T K IL R I cost of $12,075. D L R W L D S

R D K L I T B IS O D C L R D R O A R U R D D E N N Y R K D B T Y Ô C Y E Y L O A E R L K S R E U C D D J M 8 D R U E N 2

7 S T M G D Y D N R R C U I R O L R D E D Y V P I T U A S R X 7 D N U K U IE I N R C U T G U S D Ô N Y H O Ô T O R M L O I C R R I C D L W H D L W T S 7 6 I C L R T O D D 8 S U R 2 I N E N N D T R A O Ô R Y C D S H Y U R H T T D 6 S N 7 I D U D R O E C Y C R O A K D U C Ô M Ô N U U U U T Y C R Ô O D U

7 D N R T N Y .! Municipal Well O C R H D U T 7 6 Regulation limit

U D R Regulated floodplain U N N O U A C S H Regulated wetlands H 6T S I D E R 031.5 D Ô RVCA Stewardship Kilometres ² Project Locations: # Conservation Land Figure 34 RVCA regulation limits Beaver Management Ô U Tree Planting U Butternut Planting Ô Clean Water Ô Ont. Drinking Water 02.51.25 Kilometres ² Figure 33 RVCA stewardship program project locations

Prior to 2007, the RVCA completed six projects in the area consisting of one septic system repair/ replacement, one well upgrade, one well decom- missioning, one livestock water fencing restriction, one manure storage facility and one surface/wastewater disposal/treatment system. In total, RVCA contributed $20,813 in grant dollars to projects valued at $55,065.

Tree Planting Projects

The location of all tree planting projects is also shown in Figure 33. From 2007 to 2012, 60,450 trees were planted on two sites through the RVCA Tree Planting Program. Project value is $107,687 with $59,581 of that amount coming from other fundraising sources.

Before that, landowners helped plant 26,700 trees, valued at $58,428, on one project site, using the RVCA Tree Planting Program; fundraising dollars accounted for $32,581 of that amount.

RVCA’s Tree Planting Program at work

Kemptville Creek Subwatershed Report 2013 Mud Creek Catchment

5. Issues

• Surface water quality along Mud Creek is “Fair” as determined by ongoing) efforts to minimize landowner exposure to natural hazards by surface water chemistry data and has declined at a site upstream of regulating development in the floodplain. Regulations administered by North Augusta, above the County Road 6 crossing, over a 12 year the RVCA have been in place around wetlands since 2006 and along reporting period. Benthic invertebrate data indicates “Poor” aquatic the creek since 2009 water quality conditions at the same location. Exceedances of E. coli, • The catchment contains 881 hectares of unevaluated wetland (occupying total Kjeldahl nitrogen and total phosphorus above surface water seven percent of its total area) that provides many important social, quality guidelines are largely responsible for this change hydrological, biological and ecological functions/services. Although not • There are flood susceptible areas adjacent to Kemptville Creek as under imminent threat from development activity, they do remain identified by the RVCA’s Kemptville Creek Floodplain Mapping Study vulnerable to drainage and land clearing activities in the absence of any (2009). Although private property extends into the flood risk area, most regulatory and planning controls that would otherwise protect them development is located outside the floodplain due to past (and

6. Opportunities for Action

• Investigate cause of “Fair” surface water quality rating along Kemptville • Target riparian restoration at areas shown in Figure 30 (to address Creek. Reported decline (from “Good” to “Fair”) in the rating may be minimal shoreline buffers and identified erosion sites) attributed to sources such as upstream water quality, land use • Consider establishing RVCA regulations limits in areas of unevaluated conversion, wetland cover change and wildlife activity within the wetlands subject to site alteration catchment. Further study is necessary to better understand the • Work with landowners to implement agricultural best management contributing factors practices and pursue improvements to the riparian corridor along Mud • Continue to use official plan policy, zoning and regulatory controls Creek and tributaries (by increasing buffers through under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act to restrict reforestation/riparian plantings and invasive species removal) development in and adjacent to the floodplain along Mud Creek and • Protect shorelines, floodplains, locally/regionally/provincially significant the Provincially Significant Wetlands found in the catchment (i.e., the natural heritage features such as wetlands, woodlands, valleylands, Charleville Creek Wetland Complex, Greenbush Wetland Complex and wildlife habitat, areas of natural and scientific interest, aquatic habitat and Mud Lake and Creek Wetland) municipal drinking water intake/wellhead protection zones/areas through conservation agreements/easements or land acquisition programs