WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT Buckhorn Creek & the Welland

WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT Buckhorn Creek & the Welland River In the Vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill

2006

For:

Fabiano Gondim, P. Eng. Supervisor of Landfills Waste Management Division Public Works Department City of Hamilton 120 King Street West Suite 1170 Hamilton, Ontario L8P 4V2

By:

The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority March 2007

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Glanbrook Landfill study site is located in the former Township of Glanbrook in the southeast portion of the City of Hamilton, Ontario. The landfill is currently the only open and operating landfill in the City of Hamilton, and has been in operation since 1980. The Glanbrook Landfill is designed to receive domestic, commercial, and non-hazardous solid industrial waste. Leachate is collected via a leachate collector system and is transported off-site to the City of Hamilton’s Waste Water Treatment Plant. Stormwater drainage is managed using a combination of open ditches and retention ponds. The site is currently operated by Waste Management of Canada Corporation (formerly named Canadian Waste Services Incorporated) on behalf of the City of Hamilton.

The City of Hamilton currently has ten surface water quality monitoring stations on the Welland River and Buckhorn Creek, and select surface water samples are taken monthly for condensed parameters and four times a year for more comprehensive testing to determine water quality impacts. Both waterways meander through the landfill property and converge east of the site (Figures 1a, 1b). Annual monitoring reports have stated that there is no chemical evidence of landfill leachate impact on water quality in Buckhorn Creek and the Welland River (Golder Associates Ltd., 2002). In order to establish conclusively how the landfill is affecting aquatic biota, the density and diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates should be assessed in these watercourses.

Figure 1a: Regional map of the Glanbrook Landfill study area 2

Figure 1b: Local map of the Glanbrook Landfill study area

Five times within the past ten years, the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) has conducted water quality assessments using benthic macroinvertebrates as a measure of water quality in the vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill for the City of Hamilton. The purpose of these assessments was to determine if stormwater runoff and leachate from the landfill were negatively impacting water quality and aquatic biota in the Welland River and Buckhorn Creek. Results from these studies indicate that water quality in these watercourses has improved since 1996, with limited landfill impacts observed in 1996 and no impacts observed in 1998, 2002, and 2004.

The purpose of the 2006 water quality assessment is to follow-up on previous NPCA assessments and to determine water quality trends in both Buckhorn Creek and the Welland River in the areas surrounding the Glanbrook Landfill. In addition, this study will identify specific sources that are causing adverse impacts to these watercourses, and provide recommendations for further study.

3 1.2 Biological Monitoring

Biological monitoring, or biomonitoring, is the use of living organisms to determine the quality of the aquatic environment. Biomonitoring surveys can be conducted to determine the effects of an activity on the environment, and can also be an effective tool to regularly monitor ecosystem health as it pertains to legally mandated water quality standards.

A standardized system of sampling and analyzing water quality on a biological basis has been developed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Planning and Policy Branch (Griffiths, 1999). This water quality measurement system is an extension of the Biological Monitoring and Assessment Program (BioMAP) developed by Dr. Ron Griffiths.

BioMAP is scientifically recognized as a valid water quality monitoring technique. It is a macroinvertebrate based biological monitoring program that provides an effective and simple method to determine the ecological health of an aquatic system. The NPCA has adopted the BioMAP technique in order to assess water quality in the watershed, and has been working closely with Dr. Griffiths since 1995.

2.0 WATER QUALITY

2.1 Measures of Water Quality

Water quality monitoring has historically relied heavily upon chemical testing as a means of measuring the quality of water. While there are many benefits to chemical monitoring, it has become widely recognized that there are limitations to monitoring programs based strictly on chemical analysis (US EPA, 1989). Impacts to water quality resulting from non-chemical activities will not be detected. Physical alterations such as habitat destruction, flow alterations and drainage activities are typically immeasurable through chemical monitoring programs. Other problems that limit the usefulness of chemical monitoring include the fact that it is prohibitively expensive to monitor at all times. As a result, spills and other events may go undetected. Furthermore, not all potentially toxic chemicals reach detectable concentrations.

Aquatic organisms can be used to directly assess and monitor the water quality of streams. They can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of environmental policies and planning decisions related to ecosystem health. Although fish are perceived to have more social relevance, benthic macroinvertebrates are the most widely used group of organisms for biological water quality programs. They represent the organisms which fish feed on; thus the two are directly linked. Fish will not exist where there is no food for them to eat.

Benthic macroinvertebrates are the larger organisms inhabiting the bottom portion or substrate of waterways for at least part of their cycle. As a general rule, macroinvertebrates include those species whose body width exceeds 500µm (micrometers). The larger species are easily captured and more

4 easily identified, making the analysis cost-effective. Some typical macroinvertebrate species that are commonly found in the Niagara Peninsula include clams, snails, leeches, worms, the larval stages of dragonflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, mayflies, beetles, and a wide variety of other insects.

The advantages of using benthic macroinvertebrates as indicators of water quality are well known. They are abundant in all types of aquatic systems, and can be easily collected and identified using relatively inexpensive equipment. Because of their restricted mobility and habitat preferences, macroinvertebrates usually remain in a localized area. As a result, they are continuously subjected to the effects of all pollutants and environmental stream conditions over time and can provide a broad overview of water quality related problems.

As a group, benthic macroinvertebrates show a wide range of tolerances to various degrees and types of pollution. The life history of most species ranges from a few months to several years. Sampling benthic macroinvertebrates once or twice a year during the spring and fall, when species are larger and more developed, is sufficient to assess the benthic community on an annual basis. They provide an early warning signal of aquatic degradation resulting from changes in the watershed, and demonstrate water quality improvements in response to pollution abatement and restoration programs.

2.2 Assessment of Water Quality

The identification and enumeration of benthic macroinvertebrates provides the foundation for water quality assessment and requires a specialist trained in benthic macroinvertebrate taxonomy. Genus is the basic taxonomic level of identification, however, if organisms within a genus are known to show a wide range of tolerances to different environmental stresses further identification to the species level is required. This level of identification provides for a more standardized method of comparing and relating water quality results.

Biological indices are used to translate benthic macroinvertebrate data into a measure of water quality. These indices incorporate information about the ecological requirements of individual macroinvertebrates using a measure of their abundance. Each macroinvertebrate has been assigned a sensitivity value, and all benthic macroinvertebrates collected in a sample will contribute to the calculated Water Quality Index (WQI) designed by Dr. Griffiths (1993). The classification of water quality based on the calculated WQI is outlined in Table 1. Refer to Table 2 for a description of watercourse classification.

Water quality is classified as either impaired or unimpaired. Unimpaired water quality is recognized by the occurrence of organisms whose environmental requirements and tolerances match those which would be expected at the site without the input of any stresses. At sites where water quality is impaired, the organisms found are less sensitive and are therefore more tolerant to environmental stresses than organisms which would have historically occurred. The benthic population at an impaired site would typically be dominated by these more tolerant species, and as a result biodiversity at the site would be 5 quite low. In order to aid in the interpretation of water quality indices and for comparative purposes, benthic communities should be sampled throughout the watershed in order to represent a variety of different water quality conditions (i.e. good verses poor).

Table 1: Classification of water quality based on values from the BioMAP Water Quality Index (WQI)

Threshold values to classify the water quality of watercourses based on BioMAP (d) and BioMAP (q) water quality indices. Based on Griffiths (1999)

Water Quality Classification based on the Water Quality Classification based on the BioMAP(d) WQI BioMAP(q) WQI

Unimpaired Impaired Unimpaired Impaired Creeks >16 <14 >3.4 <3.2 Streams >12 <10 >3.0 <2.6 Rivers >9 <7 >2.4 <2.0 Large Rivers >7 <5 >1.8 <1.4 Channels >4.5 <2.5 >1.3 <0.9 *Conclusions based solely on the Water Quality Index should not be made when values fall in the ‘grey’ zone between unimpaired and impaired.

Table 2: Watercourse classification based on Dr. Griffiths (1999)

Watercourse Type Physical Characteristics

- headwaters of a watercourse Creek - bankfull width < 4m, principally 1 - 2nd order watercourses - closed tree canopy, cold or cool summer water temperatures - bankfull width of 4 to 16m Stream - principally 3 – 4tth order watercourses - partially open tree canopy, cold to warm summer water temperatures - bankfull width of 16 – 64 m River - principally 5 – 6tth order watercourses - open tree canopy, cool and warm summer water temperatures

It is important to note that before making a final water quality prognosis based on the calculated Water Quality Index (WQI), numerous stream variables must be considered. These variables include stream flow, temperature, odour, stream type, habitat availability and surface water chemistry. These variables can provide additional insight into which benthic organisms should be present, and why they may be absent. BioMAP assessments are an instrumental component in the establishment of water quality restoration projects as they provide the means for documenting project progress and prioritizing future restoration targets.

3.0 BIOMONITORING PROTOCOL

BioMAP sampling sites should be located in riffle type environments and habitats. Samples should be collected from the central half of the stream, avoiding edge areas that are susceptible to dry conditions during low-flow periods. Riffles are the preferred sampling habitat because they contain the greatest number of species; however, not all systems will have riffle environments. Where required, non-riffle areas can also be effectively sampled. A minimum of two quantitative samples and one qualitative sample are 6 collected at each site to determine benthic macroinvertebrate density and diversity, respectively. The type of equipment used to quantitatively sample benthic macroinvertebrates depends on the specific habitat in the stream. A Surber T-Sampler with a 600µm mesh size is used by the NPCA and is appropriate for all of the environments that are encountered in the watershed. This stovepipe-type piece of equipment encompasses a 0.05 m2 area (Figure 2b). All of the organisms caught within the sampling area comprise a single sample. The purpose of the quantitative or density sample is to provide an estimate of the number of organisms in a given area. This is known as the BioMAP (d) Water Quality Index (WQI).

Figure 2a: BioMAP sampling instruments Figure 2b: BioMAP Surber T-sampler

Qualitative samples are collected using hand-sieves, D-framed nets, collection pans and forceps (Figure 2a) Approximately 30 minutes are spent collecting benthic macroinvertebrates from various habitats within the study area, such as under rocks, pools and riffles. The primary purpose of the qualitative sample is to document the species that occur in the various habitats around the site and assist with the taxonomic identification of species in the quantitative samples. This data will provide an evaluation of water quality conditions independent of the quantitative samples, and will also serve as the equivalent to a quality assurance check. This is known as the BioMAP(q) WQI. Stream chemistry data is also recorded at the time of sampling to assist in the interpretation of the benthic macroinvertebrate data. Parameters recorded include stream temperature, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen.

The primary purpose of this program is to assess local water quality conditions; it is not a means of providing an inventory of all the species in the stream. The benthic macroinvertebrates should be sorted from the samples shortly after collection and preserved in an appropriate manner. Careful recording of field data and observations is critical for the proper interpretation of biological data and to ensure the collection of representative samples.

7 4.0 METHODOLOGY

4.1 Study Area

The Glanbrook Landfill is located in the former Township of Glanbrook in the City of Hamilton. The total area of the Glanbrook Landfill is approximately 220 hectares with 99 hectares approved for waste fill. The site is situated adjacent to Buckhorn Creek and the Welland River. The soil structure in this area has been classified as glaciolacustrine silts and clays underlain by sandy silt till and bedrock (Jagger Hims Ltd., 1995). Surface drainage from the Glanbrook Landfill flows into stormwater retention ponds located around the perimeter of the waste fill area. The retention ponds are tested for selected chemical parameters with associated discharge limits set by the Ministry of the Environment. If the pond water quality meets the discharge limits it is released into the Welland River or Buckhorn Creek. Generally, surface water drainage at the north end of the landfill site flows towards the Welland River, and surface water drainage at the south end of the landfill site flows towards Buckhorn Creek. Both watercourses meander through the landfill property and converge east of the site (Figure 3).

The Welland River in the vicinity of the landfill is characterized as a slow meandering low-gradient channel that appears to have been dredged and/or straightened (NPCA, 1996). The Welland River is a warm water system with a total drainage area of 880 km2. River width varies from 8 to 25 meters with an average water depth of approximately 1 meter or less in the vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill. There is excellent tree and woodlot density in this area. Past dredging activities appear to have separated the natural floodplain ecosystem from the river. These dredging activities have also resulted in severe stream bank erosion. The bottom substrate at both sample locations is thick, organically enriched lacustrine clay muck with gravel and small cobbles. Macrophytes are sparsely distributed in the reaches near the landfill.

The drainage area for Buckhorn Creek is approximately 10 km2. The flow pattern for this warm water stream system is mainly rainfall dependent, with extended periods of zero-flow during the summer months. Buckhorn Creek is a slow meandering low-gradient channel, and portions of the creek have been dredged and/or straightened (NPCA, 1996). Stream width varies from 1 to 6 meters with an average water depth of approximately 0.5 meters or less. The bottom substrate at all stations is thick, organically enriched lacustrine clay muck with some sand accumulations. Macrophyte growth is common throughout Buckhorn Creek. There is excellent tree and woodlot density in the portions of Buckhorn that are adjacent to or contained within landfill property.

4.2 Methods

In order to assess possible landfill impacts on Buckhorn Creek and the Welland River, eight BioMAP water quality biomonitoring stations were sampled in 2006. These stations were selected based on previous assessments completed in 1996 and 1998 which examined water quality upstream and 8 downstream of stormwater retention pond discharge areas. In 2002, two additional sites were added upstream and downstream of the flowing spring on Buckhorn Creek to determine the impacts of this point source discharge. While there are numerous sulphurous springs discharging to both Buckhorn Creek and the Welland River in the local area, the spring identified in this report has a much greater direct discharge to Buckhorn Creek. The flowing spring was also identified as a barrier to fish migration in 2001 (NRC, 2001). Site photographs of the flowing spring are provided in Appendix III. The 2006 biomonitoring stations can be found on Figure 3, and station descriptions are summarized in Table 3. Following discussions with the City of Hamilton, stations BU005 and BU006, located upstream and downstream of stormwater retention pond #2 were omitted in 2004 since previous assessments completed in 1996, 1998 and 2002 have repeatedly shown no impacts to water quality. Station BU007 was added in 2004 to determine cumulative water quality impacts to Buckhorn Creek downstream of all landfill activities. This station is also monitored regularly for chemical water quality by the City of Hamilton. Similar habitat types were sampled at each location. In addition to the BioMAP water quality data, chemical data was collected and visual observations of stream morphology were recorded at each site.

It is important to note that attempts have been made to isolate and eliminate effects due to non-landfill activities and improve the overall design of the study. A privately owned uncapped gas well located between Highway 56 and Townline Road was capped in December 1997. In addition, stream fencing projects were implemented in partnership with private landowners in 1997 to eliminate direct cattle access to Buckhorn Creek and to establish riparian vegetation.

Figure 3: Site map with Welland River and Buckhorn Creek sample station locations for 2006 9 4.3 Biomonitoring Stations

A total of eight stations were sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates during the spring and fall of 2006. All sample stations monitored for this study are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of water quality stations sampled for 2006 NPCA BioMAP assessment

Station Watercourse Classification Location Rationale Code - Located near Hall Road - To determine reference WR004 Welland River River upstream of landfill property conditions for the Welland River

- Located near Woodburn - To determine impacts to the WR004B Welland River River Road downstream from the Welland River from the landfill landfill

- Located near Highway 56 - To determine reference BU000 Buckhorn Creek Stream upstream of landfill property conditions for Buckhorn Creek

- Located near Haldibrook - To determine impacts to BU001 Buckhorn Creek Stream Road upstream of the flowing Buckhorn Creek from the sulphur spring flowing sulphur spring

- Located near Haldibrook - To determine impacts to BU002 Buckhorn Creek Stream Road downstream from the Buckhorn Creek from the flowing sulphur spring flowing sulphur spring

- Located on landfill property - To determine impacts to BU003 Buckhorn Creek Stream upstream of stormwater Buckhorn Creek from retention pond #1 stormwater retention pond #1

- Located on landfill property - To determine impacts to BU004 Buckhorn Creek Stream downstream from stormwater Buckhorn Creek from retention pond #1 stormwater retention pond #1

- Located downstream of - To determine cumulative BU007 Buckhorn Creek Stream landfill property impacts to Buckhorn Creek from the landfill

5.0 RESULTS & DISCUSSION

5.1 Welland River

BioMAP assessments for the Welland River monitoring stations were completed in the spring and fall of 2006. A calculated BioMAP (d) WQI of 9.0 and BioMAP (q) WQI of 2.4 is required for unimpaired water quality in a river system. Refer to Table 4 for a summary of BioMAP Water Quality Indices for the Welland River and Appendix I for all WQI calculations and taxonomic identifications.

The calculated BioMAP (d) WQI values for spring 2006 at station WR004 fall between 7.0 and 9.0, indicating that water quality is neither impaired or unimpaired and should be classified as ‘grey zone’ according to the BioMAP protocol. The increased (d) WQI observed in 2002 and 2004 was again observed in the spring of 2006, suggesting that water quality at this site is experiencing improvement. The 10 (d) WQI value obtained in the fall of 2006 was considerably lower than the value obtained in the spring; however, the (q) WQI values are similar indicating that taxa with comparable sensitivities were found during both sampling events. The difference in (d) WQI values obtained at WR004 between spring and fall may be attributed to seasonal differences in stream flow conditions and the seasonal differences in the lifecycles of some sensitive insects that are found only during the spring. The (d) WQI values obtained at station WR004 in 2006 are similar to values obtained in 2002 and 2004, and show a general improvement in water quality when compared to previous BioMAP assessments completed in 1996 and 1998 (Figure 4a).

The BioMAP (d) WQI values calculated for station WR004B in the spring and fall of 2006 are classified as impaired. Lower (d) WQI values were obtained in 2006 as compared to 2004, but results are consistent with previous assessments completed in 1996, 1998, and 2002. Overall, upstream (WR004) and downstream (WR004B) values for (d) WQI were found to be similar in 2006, indicating that the landfill is not adversely impacting benthic macroinvertebrate density at these stations.

Table 4: Water Quality Indices for Welland River biomonitoring stations 2006

Site Season Year Classification BioMAP (d) BioMAP (q) Water Quality WQI WQI WR004 Spring 2006 Stream 7.1 2.5 *Grey Zone for spring (d) Impaired for fall (d); Unimpaired for (q) WR004B Spring 2006 Stream 5.4 2.5 Impaired for (d) Unimpaired for (q) WR004 Fall 2006 Stream 4.9 2.6 Impaired for (d) Unimpaired for (q) WR004B Fall 2006 Stream 5.2 2.6 Impaired for (d) Unimpaired for (q) *Grey Zone indicates 7< (d) WQI< 9; 2.0< (q) WQI <2.4

The calculated BioMAP (q) WQI values for 2006 were also found to be very similar at both upstream (WR004) and downstream (WR004B) stations. Based on the 2006 BioMAP (q) WQI, both stations were rated as unimpaired for the spring and fall samples. Sample composition between WR004 and WR004B was similar in both seasons, consisting of species with low to moderate sensitivity (Figure 4b). A high proportion of insects dominated the fall samples in 2006, which is comparable to previous assessments completed in the fall of 2002 and 2004. While the taxa present at both locations were indicative of moderate to poor water quality, no added impairment from the landfill was observed between stations. Benthic macroinvertebrate diversity was similar between upstream and downstream sites ranging from 35 to 44 taxa per site in the spring, and 31 to 37 taxa per site in the fall. Benthic macroinvertebrate density ranged from 46 to 374 organisms per site in the spring, and 110 to 225 organisms in the fall. Densities were found to be lower at station WR004B as compared to station WR004, which is consistent with previous assessments. Benthic macroinvertebrate density at station WR004B may be limited by the natural variability in habitat type, which consists of a larger proportion of silty organic muck at this location. Unimpaired river systems typically have 40-70 taxa per site and more than 150 organisms per site (Griffiths, 1996). 11

10 WR004 9 WR004B

8 WQI (d) for rivers: <7.0 = Impaired >9.0 = Unimpaired 7 x e

d 6 n I

) d (

5 P A

M 4 o i B 3

0 Spring Fall 1996 Fall 1997 Spring Fall 1998 Spring Fall 2002 Spring Fall 2004 Spring Fall 2006 1996 1998 2002 2004 2006 Date

Figure 4a: BioMAP (d) Water Quality Index Values for Welland River stations WR004 and WR004B from 1996-2006

Overall, the 2006 BioMAP WQI indicates that landfill activities are not impacting 100 Insects Molluscs water quality in the Welland River. While 90 Worms/Leeches sampling results indicate that water 80 Other quality is in the ‘grey zone’ or impaired at 70 t

n 60 these stations, there is no added e c r

e 50 impairment observed at station WR004B P 40 located downstream from the landfill. 30 Chemical data collected at these stations 20 also indicates that there are no changes 10 in water quality between the upstream 0 and downstream stations based on the WR004- WR004B- WR004-Fall WR004B-Fall Spring Spring parameters tested. All chemical data collected for this study is summarized in Figure 4b: Welland River sample composition for 2006 Appendix II.

12 5.2 Buckhorn Creek

BioMAP assessments for Buckhorn Creek monitoring stations were completed in the spring and fall of 2006. A calculated BioMAP (d) WQI of 12.0 and BioMAP (q) WQI of 3.0 is required for unimpaired water quality in a stream system. Refer to Table 5 for a summary of Water Quality Indices for Buckhorn Creek in 2006, and Figure 5 for a summary of Buckhorn Creek data collected between 1996 and 2006. Appendix I contains all WQI calculations and taxonomic identifications.

Table 5: Summary of Water Quality Indices for Buckhorn Creek sampling stations in 2006

Site Year Season Classification BioMAP (d) BioMAP(q) Water Quality WQI WQI BU000 2006 Spring Stream 6.8 2.6 Impaired (d) and (q)

BU000 2006 Fall Stream 7.7 2.5 Impaired (d) and (q)

BU001 2006 Spring Stream 7.6 2.8 Impaired (d); Grey Zone (q)

BU001 2006 Fall Stream 7.9 2.7 Impaired (d); Grey Zone (q)

BU002 2006 Spring Stream ** 2.0 Impaired (d) and (q)

BU002 2006 Fall Stream 2.8 1.8 Impaired (d) and (q)

BU003 2006 Spring Stream 3.7 2.2 Impaired (d) and (q)

BU003 2006 Fall Stream 4.4 2.3 Impaired (d) and (q)

BU004 2006 Spring Stream 8.1 2.4 Impaired (d) and (q)

BU004 2006 Fall Stream 7.7 2.9 Impaired (d); Grey Zone (q)

BU007 2006 Spring Stream 6.4 2.4 Impaired (d) and (q)

BU007 2006 Fall Stream 6.4 2.3 Impaired (d) and (q)

*Grey zone indicates 10 < WQI (d) < 12; 2.6 < WQI (q) < 3.0 **Indicates an insufficient number of organisms (<25) collected in samples

14 WQI (d) for streams: <10.0 = Impaired BU000 >12.0 = Unimpaired BU001 12 BU002 BU003 10 BU004

I BU007 Q W 8 ) d (

P A

M 6 o i B

0 Spring Fall Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall 1996 1996 1997 1998 1998 2002 2002 2004 2004 2006 2006 Date Sampled

Figure 5: BioMAP (d) Water Quality Index Values for Buckhorn Creek 1996-2006 13 5.2.1 Reference Station & Downstream Station

BioMAP samples were collected at stations located upstream and downstream of the landfill in order to determine any cumulative impacts from landfill activities. The calculated BioMAP (d) WQI for reference station BU000 located upstream of the landfill indicates impaired water quality in both the spring and fall of 2006 with values of 6.8 and 7.7, respectively. Similarly, a BioMAP (d) WQI of 6.4 was obtained at downstream station BU007 in the spring and fall of 2006 (Table 5). Data from former station BU006, located downstream of stormwater retention pond #2 and formerly the most downstream station, was plotted on Figure 6a to illustrate differences between BU000 and downstream stations. As shown in Figure 6a, (d) WQI values obtained for BU006 and BU007 are quite similar, which is expected since they are in relative close proximity to each other. Overall, upstream (BU000) and downstream (BU007) values for (d) WQI were found to be similar in 2006, indicating that the landfill is not adversely impacting benthic macroinvertebrate density at these stations.

The calculated (q) WQI values were found to be similar between stations, ranging from 2.5 to 2.3. Sample composition at BU000 was similar between seasons, consisting primarily of crustaceans which are designated as ‘other’ in Figure 6b. Species composition at downstream station BU007 differed slightly between spring and fall seasons, with mollusks, worms, and leeches dominating the fall samples. Observed differences in species composition between samples at each site and between sample stations may be attributed to the natural variability of the stream system, such as seasonal changes in stream water level and benthic habitat.

14 WQI (d) for streams: <10.0 = Impaired BU000 >12.0 = Unimpaired BU006 12 BU007

10 I Q W 8 ) d (

P A

M 6 o i B

0 Spring Fall Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall 1996 1996 1997 1998 1998 2002 2002 2004 2004 2006 2006 Date Sampled

Figure 6a: BioMAP (d) Water Quality Index Values for Buckhorn Creek stations BU000, BU006 and BU007 for 1996-2006

14 Macroinvertebrate diversity approached the typical range for unimpaired stream systems in 2006 for these stations, ranging from 28 to 34 taxa per site. Macroinvertebrate density was found to be highest at station BU000 with 444 to 836 organisms collected in the spring and lowest at BU000 with 123 to 159 organisms collected in the fall. Unimpaired stream systems typically have 30-50 taxa per site and between 100 and 200 organisms per site (Griffiths, 1996).

Insects 100 Molluscs 90 Worms/Leeches Other 80

t 60 n e c

r 50 e P 40

0 BU000- BU007- BU000-Fall BU007-Fall Spring Spring Site

Figure 6b: Buckhorn Creek sample composition for BU000 and BU007 in 2006

Overall, the 2006 BioMAP WQI values are consistent with previous assessments and indicate that landfill activities are not adversely impacting water quality in Buckhorn Creek. While sampling results indicate that water quality is impaired at these stations, there is no added impairment observed at station BU007 located downstream of the landfill. Chemical data collected at these stations also indicates that there are no changes in water quality between the upstream and downstream stations based on the parameters tested. All chemical data collected for this study is summarized in Appendix II.

5.2.2. Flowing Sulphur Spring

BioMAP samples were collected upstream (BU001) and downstream (BU002) of the flowing spring near Haldibrook Road in order to determine the impacts of sulphurous groundwater discharge on water quality and benthic ecosystem health (Figure 7a). Significant changes in both benthic macroinvertebrate density and diversity were observed between stations, which is consistent with previous assessments completed in 2002 and 2004. BioMAP (d) WQI values of 7.6 and 7.9 were obtained for BU001 in the spring and fall of 2006, respectively. In contrast, a BioMAP (d) WQI of 2.8 was obtained for BU002 in the fall (Table 5). An insufficient number of organisms were available to calculate the (d) WQI in the spring. Water quality

15 was found to be impaired for all samples collected at both monitoring stations. A calculated BioMAP (d) WQI of 12.0 and BioMAP (q) WQI of 3.0 is required for unimpaired water quality in a stream system.

14 WQI (d) for stream: <10.0 = Impaired BU001 >12.0 = Unimpaired BU002 12

10 I Q W

) 8 d (

P A

M 6 o i B

0 Spring 2002 Fall 2002 Spring 2004 Fall 2004 Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Site

Figure 7a: BioMAP (d) Water Quality Index Values for Buckhorn Creek stations BU001 and BU002 for 2006

The calculated (q) WQI values were found to be lower at downstream station BU002, indicating that less sensitive pollution tolerant species were identified at this station. Benthic macroinvertebrate diversity was low for all samples collected at these stations, ranging from 10 to 17 taxa present. Station BU002 was again found to have the lowest diversity of all samples collected in 2006, with only 10 to 12 taxa identified. Sample composition at BU002 consisted almost entirely of worms and leeches which are typically found in degraded, oxygen depleted environments (Figure 7b). Species diversity was higher at station BU001, and sample composition consisted mainly of mollusks, with smaller proportions of insects and crustaceans. Benthic macroinvertebrate density ranged from 11 to 131 organisms per site in the spring, and 32 to 627 organisms in the fall. Unimpaired stream systems typically have 30-50 taxa per site and between 100 to 200 organisms per site (Griffiths, 1996). While the 2006 BioMAP results at both stations are indicative of poor water quality, the benthic density, diversity and species composition downstream of the flowing spring indicate added impairment from the sulphurous groundwater discharge.

While the impacts of the flowing spring may be restricted to the local area downstream, the significant decrease in benthic density and diversity indicates severely degraded water quality at this site. Chemical data collected from stations BU001 and BU002 further support this conclusion, with sharp decreases in dissolved oxygen and increases in conductivity between stations (Appendix II).

16 Insects 100 Molluscs 90 Worms/Leeches Other 80

60 t n e

c 50 r e P 40

0 BU001- BU002- BU001-Fall BU002-Fall Spring Spring Site

Figure 7b: Buckhorn Creek sample composition for BU001 and BU002 in 2006

In addition, benthic macroinvertebrate habitat downstream of the flowing spring is severely degraded by carbon sulphate and calcium deposited from the groundwater discharge. Precipitating minerals blanket the stream substrate and contribute to anaerobic conditions in the sediment. Previous assessments completed in 2002 and 2004 recommended that site restoration be implemented to disperse the groundwater flowing from this spring over a larger area to reduce concentrations of sulphurous compounds. In 2001 the flowing spring was identified by the Niagara Restoration Council (NRC) as a barrier to fish migration in Buckhorn Creek (NRC, 2001). The Niagara River Area of Concern (AOC) Fish Barrier Project was completed by the Restoration Council in partnership with the NPCA as part of the Niagara River Remedial Action Plan. However, a recent study completed by Biotactic Fish & Wildlife for the NRC in 2006 indicates that fish are able to move past the flowing spring during periods of high flow (Biotactic, 2007). Despite the localized impacts to water quality, the flowing spring augments water quantity by sustaining baseflow during the dry summer months and increases local biodiversity by supporting a unique variety of sulphur bacteria (Biotactic, 2007). As a result, the NRC is recommending that the flowing spring no longer be classified as a complete barrier to fish migration (NRC, 2007). Given the results of the recent fish study and the recommendation of the NRC, restoration of the site is no longer recommended. Photographs of this site are provided in Appendix III.

5.2.3 Stormwater Retention Pond #1

The calculated BioMAP (d) and (q) WQI values for monitoring stations located upstream (BU003) and downstream (BU004) of stormwater retention pond #1 indicate that water quality is impaired; however, these values are consistent with previous assessments which show a steady improvement in water quality at station BU004 since the fall of 1996 (Figure 8a). The calculated (d) WQI values were found to be higher at downstream station BU004 in both the spring and fall of 2006, but species composition was 17 very similar between stations (Table 5, Figure 8b). The results of the 2006 BioMAP (d) WQI indicate that stormwater retention pond #1 is not adversely impacting benthic macroinvertebrate density at these stations. Higher (d) WQI values at downstream station BU004 are likely attributed to the natural variability of the stream system, particularly benthic habitat.

14 WQI (d) for streams: <10.0 = Impaired BU003 >12.0 = Unimpaired BU004 12

10 I Q W

) 8 d (

P A

M 6 o i B

0 Spring Fall Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall 1996 1996 1997 1998 1998 2002 2002 2004 2004 2006 2006 Date

Figure 8a: BioMAP (d) Water Quality Index Values for Buckhorn Creek stations BU003 and BU004 in 2006

The calculated (q) WQI values for 2006 were also found to be similar at both upstream (BU003) and downstream (BU004) stations. Sample composition was dominated by pollution tolerant species such as worms, leeches and mollusks (Figure 8b). While the taxa present at both locations are indicative of poor water quality, no added impairment from stormwater retention pond #1 was observed between stations. Macroinvertebrate diversity was similar between upstream and downstream sites ranging from 26 to 30 taxa per site. Macroinvertebrate density at stations BU003 and BU004 ranged from 67 to 238 organisms in the spring and 116 to 404 organisms in the fall. Unimpaired stream systems similar to Buckhorn Creek typically have 30 to 50 taxa per site, and between 100 to 200 organisms per site (Griffiths, 1996).

Overall, the 2006 BioMAP WQI indicates that stormwater retention pond #1 is not impacting water quality in Buckhorn Creek. While all samples indicate that water quality is impaired at these stations, there is no added impairment observed at station BU004 located downstream of stormwater retention pond #1. Chemical data collected at these stations also indicates that there are no changes in water quality between the upstream and downstream stations based on the parameters tested. All chemical data collected for this study is summarized in Appendix II.

18 Insects 100 Molluscs 90 Worms/Leeches Other 80

t 60 n e c

r 50 e P 40

0 BU003- BU004- BU003-Fall BU004-Fall Spring Spring Site

Figure 8b: Buckhorn Creek sample composition for BU003 and BU004 in 2006

6.0 CONCLUSION

The results presented in this report are based on benthic macroinvertebrate samples collected from Buckhorn Creek and the Welland River during the spring and fall of 2006. Samples were collected from a total of eight stations using the BioMAP protocol to determine if landfill activities were impacting water quality in the Welland River and Buckhorn Creek.

Two stations were sampled in the Welland River upstream and downstream of the Glanbrook Landfill. Water quality was found to be impaired at both stations based on benthic macroinvertebrate density and diversity; however, there were no changes between upstream and downstream stations that were indicative of added impairment from the landfill. The chemical data collected at each site also indicates that there is no added impairment between upstream and downstream stations. These results are consistent with previous assessments completed by the NPCA. It is therefore concluded that landfill activities are not adversely impacting water quality and benthic ecosystem health in the Welland River.

Six stations were sampled in Buckhorn Creek in the vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill: upstream of the landfill, upstream and downstream of the flowing spring, upstream and downstream of stormwater retention pond #1, and downstream of the landfill. Water quality was found to be impaired at all stations based on benthic macroinvertebrate density and diversity. Based on both biological and chemical indices, there were no observed changes in water quality between stations upstream and downstream of the landfill, and between stations upstream and downstream of stormwater retention pond #1. These results are consistent with previous assessments completed by the NPCA. It is therefore concluded that landfill activities are not adversely impacting water quality and ecosystem health in Buckhorn Creek. Significant impacts to benthic macroinvertebrate density and diversity were observed downstream of the flowing sulphur spring near Haldibrook Road, and chemical data collected at this site also indicates significant water quality 19 degradation. It is therefore concluded that the flowing sulphur spring near Haldibrook Road is impacting water quality and ecosystem health in Buckhorn Creek.

The ecological health of both Buckhorn Creek and the Welland River was generally found to be impaired throughout the study area in the vicinity of Glanbrook Landfill. While the results of the 2006 biological assessment indicate that landfill activities are not impacting water quality in these watercourses, many sources of impairment continue to degrade Buckhorn Creek and the Welland River. Sources of impairment include historic stream alteration, reduced baseflow, erosion, absence of in-stream habitat, runoff from agricultural landuse and impacts from both point and non-point source pollution.

7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of the 2006 NPCA Water Quality Assessment of the Glanbrook Landfill, it is recommended that biomonitoring be continued on a biennial basis in order to track any changes in water quality in the Welland River and Buckhorn Creek in the vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill. It is also recommended that stations BU001 and BU002 be omitted from future water quality assessments since the flowing spring is no longer classified as a barrier to fish migration (NRC, 2006).

8.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was prepared with the assistance of Dr. Ron Griffiths from Aquatic Ecosystems Limited; we gratefully acknowledge his technical support and advice.

9.0 REFERENCES

Attema, C. and J. Forsey, 1996. Environmental Assessment of Buckhorn Creek and the Welland River in the Vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill Site. Prepared for the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority: Allanburg, Ontario.

Attema, C. and J. Forsey, 1998. Environmental Assessment of Buckhorn Creek and the Welland River in the Vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill Site. Prepared for the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority: Allanburg, Ontario.

Biotactic Fish and Wildlife, 2007. Impacts of Sulphur Springs on Fish Movement, Fish Habitat and Water Quality in Buckhorn Creek (Draft). Prepared for the Niagara Restoration Council. Kitchener, Ontario.

Golder Associates Ltd., 2002. 2001 Annual Monitoring Report: Glanbrook Landfill Site, Hamilton, Ontario. Prepared for the City of Hamilton, Solid Waste Management Department: Hamilton, Ontario.

Griffiths, R.W., 1993. BioMAP: Concepts, Protocols and Sampling Procedures for the Southwestern Region of Ontario. BioMAP Report SWR-1. Ministry of the Environment and Energy: Southwestern Region.

Griffiths, R.W., 1996. A Biological Measure of Water Quality for Creeks, Streams and Rivers. BioMAP Report SWR-4. Ministry of the Environment and Energy: Southwestern Region. 20

Griffiths, R.W., 1999. BioMAP: Bioassessment of Water Quality. The Centre for Environmental Training, Niagara College: Niagara-On-The-Lake, Ontario.

Jagger Hims Limited, 1995. 1994 Annual Monitoring Report: Glanbrook Landfill Site. Prepared for the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth: Hamilton, Ontario.

Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2003. Water Quality Assessment of Buckhorn Creek and the Welland River In the Vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill 2002. Welland, Ontario.

Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2005. Water Quality Assessment of Buckhorn Creek and the Welland River In the Vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill 2004. Welland, Ontario.

Niagara Restoration Council, 2001. Niagara River AOC Fish Barriers Project 2001 – Phase 1 Report.

Niagara Restoration Council, 2007. Personal communication.

US EPA, 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish. Office of Water Report EPA/440/4-89/001. US EPA: Washington D.C.

Appendix I

22 NPCA BioMAP (d) WQI: Welland River and Buckhorn Creek, Spring 2006 Samples collected in May, 2006 Macroinvertebrate composition (number per 0.05 sq. m) in vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill P indicates that the taxon was present in the qualitative samples (q) S is the BioMAP sensitivity value for the taxa SV Station WR004 WR004B BU000 BU001 BU002 Sample Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

Insects: Plecoptera Perlodidae 2 Isoperla P 3 6 Perlidae 2 Perlesta P 4 24 4 1 BEETLES: Dytiscidae: 2 Agabus P 15 9 3 2 Hydroporus P 0 Dubiraphia 7 2 Dubiraphia vittata 1 2 Stenelmis 4 3 1 2 Stenelmis crenata 62 30 1 Gryrinus 1 Haliplidae: 1 Peltodytes BUGS: 1 Corixidae: P P Gerridae: 1 Gerris 1 Limnoporus P CADDISFLIES: Hydropsychidae: 1 Cheumatopsyche 2 30 2 2 Hydropsyche P 3 Pycnosyche P P 1 Limnephilus 1 Polycentropodidae: Polycentropus DAMSELFLIES: Coenagrionidae: 0 Ischnura P P DRAGONFLIES: Aeshnidae: 2 Aeshna 2 Boyeria 1 Basiaeschna janata P Libellulidae: 0 Libellula P 0 Plathemis 0 Plathemis lydia P MAYFLIES: Heptageniidae: 2 Stenacron P 7 21 P Caenidae 1 Caenis P 3 P 1 3 TRUE FLIES: 0 Ceratopogonidae 1 4 6 3 1 Chironomidae: 0 Chironomus 1 6 4 2 6 1 Cladopelma 1 2 1 Clinotanypus 1 2 Conchapelopia 6 1 4 1 2 Corynoneura 3 2 Cricotopus 1 1 3 Cricotopus trifasciatus 1 1 Cryptochironomus 1 0 Dicrotendipes 2 0 Endochironomus 3 0 Glyptotendipes 14 1 8 1 Hayesomyia 1 2 1 Larsia 2 1 Limnophyes 2 3 3 Micropsectra 3 1 5 21 1 4 1 2 Microtendipes Orthocladius 1 4 1 2 2 1 Parachironomus 1 3 Parametriocnemus 1 1 Paratanytarsus 2 2 1 2 Paratendipes 24 0 Polypedilum halterale 3 4 4 0 Procladius 1 5 1 Stilocladius 1 1 2 Tanytarsus 2 Tribelos 3 2 2 Simullidae P 1 2 P 16 19 1 2 1 Tipulidae 3 Pseudolimnophila P 1 1 Pilaria 2 2 Dolichopodidae 1 1 Ephydridiae 1 0 Tabanidae 2 Chrysops Crustaceans: AMPHIPODS: Crangonyctidae: 2 Crangonyx 10 Gammaridae: 3 Gammarus pseudolimnaeus P 179 184 P 17 6 P 12 12 5 1 3 Gammarus fasciatus 5 P 25 Talitridae: 2 Hyalella azteca 1 4 ISOPODS: Asellidae: 1 Caecidotea 1 2 P 736 345 22 Molluscs: CLAMS: Sphaeriidae: 2 Musculium transversum 29 12 4 1 Pisidium P 4 1 Sphaerium simile 4 p P 4 30 SNAILS: Hydrobiidae: 2 Amnicola P 2 1 Physidae: 0 Physella 3 1 P P 25 P 4 5 1 Planorbidae: 1 Fossaria 1 Planorbella P 25 Annelids: LEECHES: Erpobdellidae: 1 Erpobdella 1 1 4 2 Glossiphoniidae: 2 Helobdella stagnlis 1 Placobdella P Flatworms Platyhelminthes Tricladada 1 WORMS: 0 Tubificidae: HCP 21 5 4 19 6 2 4 7 0 Tubificidae: HCA 2 1 13 5 2 0 Ilydrilus templetoni 0 Branchuria sowerbyi 5 16 1 9 2 Aulodrilus piqueti 0 Limnodrilus cervix 5 7 13 0 Limnodrilus hoffmeistreri 4 6 1 0 Limnodrilus claparedianus 3 0 Limnodrilus udekemianus 5 96 0 Tubifex tubifex 18 0 Rhyacodrilus falcifomis Number of organisms 348 374 46 112 836 444 22 110 11 131 BioMAP water quality 8.2 5.9 7.1 6.8 4.1 5.4 7.4 6.3 6.8 7.2 7.9 7.6 6.2 2.2 4.2

26 NPCA BioMAP (d) WQI: Welland River and Buckhorn Creek, Spring 2006 Samples collected in May, 2006 Macroinvertebrate composition (number per 0.05 sq. m) in vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill P indicates that the taxon was present in the qualitative samples (q) S is the BioMAP sensitivity value for the taxa SV Station BU003 BU004 BU007 Sample Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2

Insects: Plecoptera Perlodidae 2 Isoperla Perlidae 2 Perlesta BEETLES: Dytiscidae: 2 Agabus 6 1 P 1 2 Hydroporus P 11 6 P 1 1 P 5 1 0 Dubiraphia 4 50 2 Dubiraphia vittata 2 Stenelmis 2 3 2 Stenelmis crenata 1 Gryrinus Haliplidae: 1 Peltodytes 1 BUGS: 1 Corixidae: P 1 2 P Gerridae: 1 Gerris P P 1 Limnoporus CADDISFLIES: Hydropsychidae: 1 Cheumatopsyche P 1 2 Hydropsyche 3 Pycnosyche 1 Limnephilus Polycentropodidae: Polycentropus 1 DAMSELFLIES: 27 Coenagrionidae: 0 Ischnura P DRAGONFLIES: Aeshnidae: 2 Aeshna P 2 Boyeria 1 1 Basiaeschna janata Libellulidae: 0 Libellula 0 Plathemis P P 0 Plathemis lydia MAYFLIES: Heptageniidae: 2 Stenacron Caenidae 1 Caenis TRUE FLIES: 0 Ceratopogonidae 13 16 2 2 1 1 Chironomidae: 0 Chironomus 224 189 1 9 26 1 1 Cladopelma 1 1 Clinotanypus 1 1 2 Conchapelopia 3 2 Corynoneura 1 2 Cricotopus 3 Cricotopus trifasciatus 1 Cryptochironomus 1 0 Dicrotendipes 2 0 Endochironomus 3 1 0 Glyptotendipes 1 1 Hayesomyia 1 Larsia 1 Limnophyes 3 Micropsectra 11 23 3 2 2 Microtendipes 1 Orthocladius 1 Parachironomus 3 Parametriocnemus 1 Paratanytarsus 1 1 1 1 2 Paratendipes 1 1 28 0 Polypedilum halterale 1 9 1 0 Procladius 2 1 Stilocladius 2 Tanytarsus 17 4 2 Tribelos 2 Simullidae Tipulidae 3 Pseudolimnophila 1 Pilaria 1 2 2 Dolichopodidae 1 Ephydridiae 0 Tabanidae 2 Chrysops 3 1 Crustaceans: AMPHIPODS: Crangonyctidae: 2 Crangonyx P Gammaridae: 3 Gammarus pseudolimnaeus 4 4 P 28 11 3 Gammarus fasciatus 15 1 1 3 Talitridae: 2 Hyalella azteca 1 P 2 ISOPODS: Asellidae: 1 Caecidotea 2 P P 18 104 Molluscs: CLAMS: Sphaeriidae: 2 Musculium transversum P 2 5 5 3 1 Pisidium 4 6 1 Sphaerium simile P 5 54 SNAILS: Hydrobiidae: 2 Amnicola Physidae: 0 Physella P 2 1 P 2 P 1 8 Planorbidae: 1 Fossaria 1 Planorbella 29 Annelids: LEECHES: Erpobdellidae: 1 Erpobdella 1 1 1 2 Glossiphoniidae: 2 Helobdella stagnlis 4 1 1 Placobdella P 1 Flatworms Platyhelminthes Tricladada WORMS: 0 Tubificidae: HCP 2 3 1 1 0 Tubificidae: HCA 0 Ilydrilus templetoni 12 7 0 Branchuria sowerbyi 2 Aulodrilus piqueti 1 0 Limnodrilus cervix 1 8 0 Limnodrilus hoffmeistreri 10 6 7 4 3 2 0 Limnodrilus claparedianus 1 0 Limnodrilus udekemianus 1 3 1 0 Tubifex tubifex 6 3 20 6 0 Rhyacodrilus falcifomis 1 1 Number of organisms 315 238 67 72 BioMAP water quality 4.5 3.0 3.7 8.7 7.4 8.1 6.7 6.1 6.4

30 NPCA BioMAP (q) WQI: Welland River and Buckhorn Creek, Spring 2006 Samples collected in May, 2006 Macroinvertebrate composition (number per 0.05 sq. m) in vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill S is the BioMAP sensitivity value for the taxa SV WR004 SV WR004B SV BU000 SV BU001 SV BU002 SV BU003 SV BU004 SV BU007 G. 3 Pycnosyche 3 Pycnosyche 3 Micropsectra 3 Micropsectra 3 Micropsectra 3 pseudolimnaeus 3 Micropsectra 3 Micropsectra G. G. G. G. 3 C. trifasciatus 3 Micropsectra 3 Pseudolimnophila 3 pseudolimnaeus 3 pseudolimnaeus 2 Hydroporus 3 pseudolimnaeus 3 pseudolimnaeus 3 Micropsectra 3 Parametriocnemus 3 G. pseudolimnaeus 3 G. fasciatus 2 Simullidae 2 Aeshna 3 G. fasciatus 3 G. fasciatus G. G. 3 pseudolimnaeus 3 pseudolimnaeus 3 G. fasciatus 2 Agabus 0 Ceratopogonidae 2 Corynoneura 2 Agabus 2 Agabus 3 Tricladada 2 Perlesta 2 Isoperla 2 Hydroporus 0 Chironomus 2 Tanytarsus 2 Hydroporus 2 Hydroporus 2 Perlesta 2 Stenelmis 2 Perlesta 2 Cricotopus 0 Physella 2 Chrysops 2 Chrysops 2 D. vittata 2 D. vittata 2 Stenacron 2 Agabus 2 Simullidae 0 Tubificidae: HCP 2 Crangonyx 2 Hyalella azteca 2 Stenelmis 2 S. crenata 2 Conchapelopia 2 Stenelmis 2 Crangonyx 0 L. udekemianus 2 H. azteca 2 M. transversum 2 Boyeria Helobdella 2 Hydropsyche 2 Tribelos 2 Corynoneura 2 M. transversum 0 Tubifex tubifex 2 M. transversum 2 stagnlis 2 Conchapelopia 2 Stenacron 1 Gryrinus 2 Simullidae 1 Paratanytarsus Orthocladius 1 Corixidae: 1 Peltodytes 2 Microtendipes 2 Conchapelopia 1 Corixidae: 2 Dolichopodidae 1 Pilaria 1 Clinotanypus 1 Corixidae: 2 Paratendipes 2 Cricotopus 1 Cheumatopsyche 2 Hyalella azteca 1 Caecidotea 1 Cryptochironomus 1 Gerris 2 M. transversum 2 Tribelos 1 B. janata 2 M. transversum 1 Pisidium 1 Paratanytarsus 1 Paratanytarsus 2 A. piqueti 2 Simullidae 1 Caenis 2 Amnicola 1 S. simile 1 Caecidotea 1 Pilaria 1 Gerris 2 M. transversum 1 Cladopelma 1 Limnephilus 1 Planorbella 1 Placobdella 1 Caecidotea 1 Cheumatopsyche 2 Amnicola 1 Clinotanypus 1 Caenis 1 Erpobdella 0 Ischnura 1 Pisidium 1 Cladopelma 1 Corixidae: 1 Cryptochironomus 1 Limnophyes 0 Physella 0 Plathemis 1 Erpobdella 1 Paratanytarsus 1 Limnoporus 1 Hayesomyia 1 Paratanytarsus 0 Ceratopogonidae 0 Plathemis 1 Caecidotea 1 Cheumatopsyche 1 Parachironomus 1 Ephydridiae 0 Chironomus 0 Ceratopogonidae 1 S. simile 1 Cladopelma 1 Stilocladius 1 Caecidotea 0 Procladius 0 Chironomus 1 Erpobdella 1 Hayesomyia 1 Caecidotea 1 Erpobdella 0 Physella 0 Endochironomus 1 Placobdella 1 Larsia 1 S. simile 0 Ischnura 0 Tubificidae: HCP 0 Glyptotendipes 0 Dubiraphia 1 Stilocladius 0 Dubiraphia 0 Libellula 0 I. templetoni 0 P. halterale 0 Ceratopogonidae 1 Caecidotea 0 Ischnura 0 Ceratopogonidae 0 L. hoffmeistreri 0 Physella 0 Chironomus 1 Pisidium 0 Ceratopogonidae 0 Endochironomus 0 Tubifex tubifex 0 Tubificidae: HCP 0 Dicrotendipes 1 Sphaerium simile 0 Chironomus 0 Physella 0 R. falcifomis 0 L. hoffmeistreri 0 Endochironomus 1 Erpobdella 0 Glyptotendipes 0 Tubificidae: HCP 0 L. udekemianus 0 P. halterale 1 Placobdella 0 P. halterale 0 Tubificidae: HCA Polycentropus 0 Physella 0 Plathemis lydia 0 Procladius Orthocladius 0 Tubificidae: HCP 0 Ceratopogonidae 0 Physella 0 L. cervix 0 Chironomus 0 Tubificidae: HCP 0 L. hoffmeistreri 0 Dicrotendipes 0 Tubificidae: HCA 0 L. claparedianus 0 Glyptotendipes 0 B. sowerbyi 0 L. udekemianus 0 P. halterale 0 L. cervix 0 T. tubifex 0 Procladius 0 L. hoffmeistreri 0 Physella 0 Tubificidae: HCP 0 Tubificidae: HCA 31 0 B. sowerbyi Limnodrilus 0 cervix 0 L. hoffmeistreri 0 L. claparedianus 0 L. udekemianus Orthocladius 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.0 2.2 2.4. 2.4

WR004: WR004B: Metrics Expected Values Spring Mean Rating Spring Mean Rating for Unimpaired Conditions T1 T2 T1 T2 BioMAP(d) >9 8.2 5.9 7.1 Grey Zone 6.8 4.1 5.4 Impaired BioMAP(q) >2.4 2.5 Unimpaired 2.5 Unimpaired Density 200-800 348 374 361 Normal 46 112 79 Low Richness 40-80 44 Normal 35 Low % Insects >70% 26.4 38.8 32.6 Low 52.2 43.8 48.0 Low %Chironomids 10-40% 4.3 8.8 6.6 Low 23.9 28.6 26.2 Low %ETP >10% 3.7 20.1 11.9 Normal 19.6 0.0 9.8 Low % Annelids <2-10% 12.1 10.7 11.4 High 10.9 49.1 30.0 High %Tubificidae <5% 11.5 10.7 11.1 High 10.9 49.1 30.0 High % Crustaceans <5% 51.7 49.2 50.5 High 37.0 7.1 22.0 High % Isopods <3% 0.3 0.0 0.1 Normal 0.0 1.8 0.9 Normal % Snails <2-10% 1.4 0.3 0.9 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal %Bivalves <2-10% 8.3 1.1 4.7 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal %Flatworms <5% 0.3 0.0 0.1 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal %Shedders <3% 51.7 52.9 52.3 High 39.1 14.3 26.7 High %Filter Feeders 20-60% 12.4 21.7 17.0 Low 19.6 0.0 9.8 Low

Metrics Expected Values BU000 Mean Rating BU001 Mean Rating BU002 Mean Rating for Unimpaired Conditions T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 BioMAP(d) >12 7.4 6.3 6.8 Impaired 7.2 7.9 7.6 Impaired 6.2 2.2 4.2 Impaired BioMAP(q) >3.0 2.6 Grey Zone 2.8 Grey Zone 2 Impaired Density 100-400 836 444 640 High 22 110 66 Low 11 131 71 Low Richness 30-60 29 Low 17 Low 10 Low % Insects >80% 8.4 9.2 8.8 Very Low 22.7 9.1 15.9 Low 54.5 6.9 30.7 Low %Chironomids 10-30% 3.6 0.0 1.8 Low 9.1 4.5 6.8 Low 45.5 6.1 25.8 Normal %ETP >10% 0.5 2.5 1.5 Low 0.0 0.0 0.0 Very Low 0.0 0.0 0.0 Very Low

32 % Annelids <5% 1.4 0.9 1.2 Low 0.0 3.6 1.8 Low 36.4 92.4 64.4 High %Tubificidae <2% 1.3 0.9 1.1 Low 0.0 0.0 0.0 Low 36.4 92.4 64.4 High % Crustaceans <10% 90.2 81.3 85.7 Very High 22.7 51.8 37.3 High 9.1 0.0 4.5 Very High % Isopods <3% 88.0 77.7 82.9 Very High 0.0 20.0 10.0 High 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal % Snails <5% 0.0 5.9 2.9 Normal 18.2 4.5 11.4 High 0.0 0.8 0.4 Normal %Bivalves <5% 0.0 2.7 1.4 Normal 36.4 30.9 33.6 High 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal %Flatworms <3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal %Shedders 30-10% 90.6 81.3 85.9 Very High 22.7 51.8 37.3 High 9.1 0.0 4.5 Very High %Filter Feeders 10-40% 2.4 9.5 5.9 Low 40.9 32.7 36.8 High 9.1 0.0 4.5 Normal

Metrics Expected Values BU003 Mean Rating BU004 Mean Rating BU007 Mean Rating for Unimpaired Conditions T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 BioMAP(d) >12 4.5 3.0 3.7 Impaired 8.7 7.4 8.1 Impaired 6.7 6.1 6.4 Impaired BioMAP(q) >3.0 2.2 Impaired 2.4 Impaired 2.4 2.4 Impaired Density 100-400 315 238 276.5 Normal 67 72 69.5 Low 141 265 203 Normal Richness 30-60 26 Low 28 Low 34 Normal % Insects >80% 87.0 92.0 89.5 Normal 37.3 61.1 49.2 Low 41.8 24.5 33.2 Low %Chironomids 10-30% 78.1 81.9 80.0 Very High 19.4 51.4 35.4 Low 32.6 3.0 17.8 Normal %ETP >10% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Very Low 0.0 1.4 0.7 Low 0.0 0.4 0.2 Low % Annelids <5% 9.8 7.1 8.5 High 23.9 13.9 18.9 High 18.4 7.5 13.0 High %Tubificidae <2% 9.8 7.1 8.5 High 16.4 11.1 13.8 High 17.7 7.2 12.5 High % Crustaceans <10% 1.9 0.4 1.2 Normal 25.4 6.9 16.2 High 33.3 44.5 38.9 High % Isopods <3% 0.6 0.0 0.3 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 12.8 39.2 26.0 High % Snails <5% 0.6 0.4 0.5 Normal 0.0 2.8 1.4 Normal 0.7 3.0 1.9 Normal %Bivalves <5% 0.6 0.0 0.3 Normal 13.4 15.3 14.4 High 5.7 20.4 13.0 High %Flatworms <3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal %Shedders 30-10% 1.9 0.4 1.2 Low 26.9 12.5 19.7 Normal 33.3 44.9 39.1 High %Filter Feeders 10-40% 6.0 1.7 3.9 Low 13.4 18.1 15.7 Normal 5.7 21.1 13.4 Normal

33 NPCA BioMAP (d) WQI: Welland River and Buckhorn Creek, Fall 2006 Samples collected in November, 2006 Macroinvertebrate composition (number per 0.05 sq. m) in vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill P indicates that the taxon was present in the qualitative samples (q) S is the BioMAP sensitivity value for the taxa SV Station WR004 WR004B BU000 BU001 BU002 Sample Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Insects: ALDERFLIES Sialidae 2 Sialis P 1 2 1 BEETLES: Dytiscidae: 2 Agabus P P 2 Hydroporus Elmidae: 2 Dubiraphia vittata 9 6 0 Dubiraphia bivittata 9 2 Dubiraphia 2 quadrionotata 2 Stenelmis crenata P 40 8 1 2 Macronychus galbratrus 8 Gyrinidae: 1 Gryrinus P Haliplidae: 1 Peltodytes P Hydrophilidae: BUGS: Belostomatidae: 0 Belostoma 1 1 Corixidae: P P 1 2 P Notonectidae: 0 Buenoa P CADDISFLIES: Hydropsychidae: 1 Cheumatopsyche P 35 56 5 61 2 Hydropsyche 1 1 Ptilostomis P P 1 Limnephilidae 3 Pycnosyche P P 34 Polycentropodidae: Polycentropus 3 2 1 DAMSELFLIES: Calopterygidae: 2 Calopteryx aequabilis P 1 1 Argia 1 1 Enallagma P P 1 1 0 Ischnura P 2 DRAGONFLIES: Libellulidae: 0 Libellula P 1 0 Plathemis Gomphidae 1 Arigomphus MAYFLIES: Heptageniidae: 2 Stenacron P 55 25 3 Caenidae 1 Caenis 1 3 TRUE FLIES: 0 Ceratopogonidae 4 5 8 2 Chironomidae: 0 Chironomus 1 1 1 Clinotanypus 5 7 2 2 Conchapelopia 1 2 8 6 2 Cricotopus 2 1 3 Cricotopus trifasciatus 1 Cryptochironomus 1 2 1 2 0 Dicrotendipes 14 12 0 Endochironomus 3 1 0 Glyptotendipes 1 Hydrobaenus 1 Larsia 3 Micropsectra 1 1 19 3 1 1 2 Microtendipes 3 2 9 7 1 3 Natarsia 2 2 Orthocladius 3 2 1 1 Paramarina 3 Parametriocnemus 1

35 1 Paratanytarsus 2 3 2 Paratendipes 0 Polypedilum flavum 1 0 Polypedilum halterale 4 3 0 Procladius 3 1 Pseudochironomus 1 2 Stenochironomus 2 Stictochironomus 2 Simullidae 8 4 17 10 Tipulidae P Tipula P 0 Tabanus 2 Chrysops 5 2 1 2 Empididae 6

Crustaceans: AMPHIPODS: Crangonyctidae: 2 Crangonyx P 4 Gammaridae: 3 G. pseudolimnaeus 1 P 3 17 P 6 9 3 G. fasciatus P 18 33 P 1 Talitridae: 2 Hyalella azteca 3 1 CRAYFISHES: Cambaridae: 2 Orconectes 2 1 Cambarus ISOPODS: Asellidae: 1 Caecidotea P P 56 56 P Palaemonetidae: 3 Palaemonetes P

Molluscs: CLAMS: Sphaeriidae: 1 Musculium securis 20 8 70 12 2 Musculium transversum P 13 P 21 36 1 Pisidium 2 3 2 1 Sphaerium simile P 3 1 P 2 Unionidae 3 A. ferussacianus 1 SNAILS: Ancylidea 2 Ferissia Lymnaeidae: 0 Stagnicola P 1 Physidae: 0 Physella P P 1 2 P P 1 Planorbidae: 1 Planorbella P

Annelids: LEECHES: Erpobdellidae: 1 Erpobdella 1 1 1 2 Helobdella stagnlis Platyhelminthes 3 Tricladada 8 1 1 WORMS: 0 Tubificidae: HCP 14 12 19 17 1 1 396 6 0 Tubificidae: HCA 1 2 7 9 6 19 0 Ilydrilus templetoni 0 Branchuria sowerbyi 1 4 10 8 2 0 Enchytraeidae 1 0 L. cervix 0 L. hoffmeistreri 6 4 2 0 L. udekemianus 2 165 23 0 L. claparedianus 2 1 0 Tubifex tubifex 3 2 38 Number of organisms 225 144 110 197 159 123 87 36 627 32 BioMAP water quality 5.7 4.0 4.9 4.8 5.6 5.2 7.5 8.0 7.7 7.3 8.5 7.9 2.8 2.9 2.8

37 NPCA BioMAP (d) WQI: Welland River and Buckhorn Creek, Fall 2006 Samples collected in November, 2006 Macroinvertebrate composition (number per 0.05 sq. m) in vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill P indicates that the taxon was present in the qualitative samples (q) S is the BioMAP sensitivity value for the taxa SV Station BU003 BU004 BU007 Sample Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Q 1 2 Insects: ALDERFLIES Sialidae 2 Sialis 1 P 7 8 BEETLES: Dytiscidae: 2 Agabus 2 Hydroporus P 1 P Elmidae: 2 Dubiraphia vittata 0 Dubiraphia bivittata 1 2 Dubiraphia quadrionotata 17 4 2 Stenelmis crenata 31 2 Macronychus galbratrus 1 Gyrinidae: 1 Gryrinus Haliplidae: 1 Peltodytes Hydrophilidae: BUGS: Belostomatidae: 0 Belostoma 1 Corixidae: P P Notonectidae: 0 Buenoa CADDISFLIES: Hydropsychidae: 1 Cheumatopsyche 2 2 Hydropsyche 1 Ptilostomis P P Limnephilidae 3 Pycnosyche

38 Polycentropodidae: Polycentropus DAMSELFLIES: Calopterygidae: 2 Calopteryx aequabilis 1 Argia 1 Enallagma 1 0 Ischnura DRAGONFLIES: Libellulidae: 0 Libellula 0 Plathemis 1 Gomphidae 1 Arigomphus 1 MAYFLIES: Heptageniidae: 2 Stenacron Caenidae 1 Caenis 5 TRUE FLIES: 0 Ceratopogonidae 6 28 2 7 Chironomidae: 0 Chironomus 1 Clinotanypus 5 10 1 2 2 Conchapelopia 1 2 2 Cricotopus 2 3 Cricotopus trifasciatus 11 5 1 Cryptochironomus 0 Dicrotendipes 1 0 Endochironomus 1 5 2 0 Glyptotendipes 3 4 1 Hydrobaenus 1 2 1 Larsia 1 3 Micropsectra 1 6 10 11 2 Microtendipes 40 6 3 Natarsia 2 2 Orthocladius 1 Paramarina 4 1 3 Parametriocnemus

39 1 Paratanytarsus 2 Paratendipes 92 185 68 68 1 0 Polypedilum flavum 2 1 0 Polypedilum halterale 0 Procladius 4 5 2 1 Pseudochironomus 2 Stenochironomus 5 2 Stictochironomus 1 2 Simullidae Tipulidae Tipula P 0 Tabanus 1 1 2 Chrysops 2 2 2 Empididae

Crustaceans: AMPHIPODS: Crangonyctidae: 2 Crangonyx 1 18 Gammaridae: P 3 G. pseudolimnaeus 11 P 2 8 3 G. fasciatus Talitridae: 2 Hyalella azteca 9 2 1 CRAYFISHES: Cambaridae: 2 Orconectes P 1 Cambarus ISOPODS: Asellidae: 1 Caecidotea P P 2 P 2 1 Palaemonetidae: 3 Palaemonetes

Molluscs: CLAMS: Sphaeriidae: 1 Musculium securis 2 Musculium transversum 40 1 Pisidium P 23 3 1 Sphaerium simile 10 31 P 24 72 Unionidae 3 A. ferussacianus SNAILS: Ancylidea 2 Ferissia 4 Lymnaeidae: 0 Stagnicola Physidae: 0 Physella P P 1 P 1 Planorbidae: 1 Planorbella

Annelids: LEECHES: Erpobdellidae: 1 Erpobdella 1 3 8 2 Helobdella stagnlis 1 1 Platyhelminthes 3 Tricladada WORMS: 0 Tubificidae: HCP 19 35 4 2 36 6 0 Tubificidae: HCA 5 2 0 Ilydrilus templetoni 69 0 Branchuria sowerbyi 0 Enchytraeidae 0 L. cervix 4 1 0 L. hoffmeistreri 2 14 7 7 0 L. udekemianus 5 0 L. claparedianus 2 11 3 0 Tubifex tubifex 3 117 49 Number of organisms 168 404 149 116 350 162 BioMAP water quality 4.6 4.2 4.4 8.1 7.4 7.7 6.2 6.6 6.4

41 NPCA BioMAP (q) WQI: Welland River and Buckhorn Creek, Fall 2006 Samples collected in November, 2006 Macroinvertebrate composition (number per 0.05 sq. m) in vicinity of the Glanbrook Landfill S is the BioMAP sensitivity value for the taxa SV WR004 SV WR004B SV BU000 SV BU001 SV BU002 SV BU003 SV BU004 SV BU007 Gammarus 3 Pycnosyche 3 Pycnosyche 3 Micropsectra 3 Micropsectra 3 fasciatus 3 Micropsectra 3 C. trifasciatus 3 Natarsia G. G. 3 pseudolimnaeus 3 Micropsectra 3 Natarsia 3 Parametriocnemus 2 Microtendipes 3 G. species 3 Micropsectra 3 pseudolimnaeus G. G. 3 G. fasciatus 3 pseudolimnaeus 3 G. fasciatus 3 pseudolimnaeus 1 Ptilostomis 2 Sialis 3 Natarsia 2 Sialis Sphaerium G. 3 Tricladada 3 Palaemonetes 3 Tricladada 2 Simullidae 1 simile 2 Hydroporus 3 pseudolimnaeus 2 Hydroporus 2 Sialis 3 A. ferussacianus 2 Sialis 2 Chrysops 1 Erpobdella 2 Paratendipes 2 Hydroporus 2 D. quadrionotata Stenelmis 2 S. crenata 2 Sialis 2 Agabus 1 Ptilostomis 0 Chironomus 2 Chrysops 2 Conchapelopia 2 crenata 2 M. galbratrus 2 Agabus 2 Crangonyx 1 Caecidotea 0 Physella 2 Hyalella azteca 2 Paratendipes 2 M. galbratrus 2 Hydropsyche 2 D. vittata 2 H. azteca 1 Musculium securis 0 Tubificidae: HCP 2 Orconectes 2 Stictochironomus 2 Cricotopus 2 C. aequabilis 2 S. crenata 2 M. transversum 1 Pisidium 0 Tubificidae: HCA 2 Ferissia 2 Crangonyx 2 Microtendipes 2 Stenacron 2 C.aequabilis 1 Enallagma 1 Sphaerium simile 0 L. udekemianus 2 H. stagnlis 2 Hyalella azteca 2 Paratendipes Helobdella 2 Conchapelopia 2 Stenacron 1 Caenis 1 Erpobdella 0 Tubifex tubifex 1 Corixidae: 2 stagnlis 2 Stenochironomus 2 Cricotopus 2 Conchapelopia 1 Clinotanypus 0 Physella Orthocladius 1 Caenis 1 Corixidae: 2 Crangonyx 2 Microtendipes 2 Microtendipes 1 Pseudochironomus 0 Tubificidae: HCP 1 Clinotanypus 1 Ptilostomis 1 Cheumatopsyche 2 Simullidae 2 Simullidae 1 Caecidotea 0 L. hoffmeistreri 1 Caecidotea 1 Clinotanypus 1 Ptilostomis 2 Empididae 2 Chrysops 1 Pisidium 0 L. claparedianus 1 S. simile 1 Hydrobaenus 1 Enallagma 2 Orconectes 2 Hyalella azteca 1 Planorbella 1 Erpobdella 1 Larsia 1 Arigomphus 1 Peltodytes 2 M. transversum 1 Erpobdella 0 D. bivittata 1 Paramarina 1 Paramarina 1 Corixidae: 1 Gryrinus 0 Libellula 0 Plathemis 1 Caecidotea 1 Caecidotea 1 Cheumatopsyche 1 Corixidae: 0 Ceratopogonidae 0 Ceratopogonidae 1 Pisidium 1 Pisidium 1 Cryptochironomus 1 Cheumatopsyche 0 Endochironomus 0 Endochironomus 1 Erpobdella 1 Sphaerium simile 1 Caecidotea 1 Argia 0 P. flavum 0 Glyptotendipes 0 Ceratopogonidae 0 Dicrotendipes 1 M. securis 1 Enallagma 0 Procladius 0 Procladius 0 Endochironomus 0 Tabanus Polypedilum 1 S. simile 1 Clinotanypus 0 Stagnicola 0 Physella 0 flavum 0 Physella 0 D. bivittata 1 Cryptochironomus 0 Physella 0 Tubificidae: HCP 0 Procladius 0 Tubificidae: HCP Ilydrilus 0 Buenoa 1 Paratanytarsus 0 Tubificidae: HCP 0 templetoni 0 Tabanus 0 L. cervix 0 Dicrotendipes 1 Sphaerium simile 0 Tubificidae: HCA 0 L. hoffmeistreri 0 Physella 0 L. claparedianus 0 Physella 0 Belostoma 0 B. sowerbyi 0 L. udekemianus 0 Tubificidae: HCP 0 Tubifex tubifex 0 Tubificidae: HCP 0 Ischnura 0 Enchytraeidae 0 L. claparedianus 0 Tubificidae: HCA Tipula 0 Tubificidae: HCA 0 Ceratopogonidae 0 L. hoffmeistreri 0 Tubifex tubifex 0 L. hoffmeistreri 0 B. sowerbyi 0 P.halterale 0 L. udekemianus Tipula 0 Physella 0 Tubifex tubifex 0 Tubificidae: HCP Polycentropus 0 Tubificidae: HCA 0 B.sowerbyi Polycentropus 42 Orthocladius Tipulidae 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.7 1.8 2.3 2.9 2.3

Metrics Expected Values WR004: Spring Mean Rating WR004B: Spring Mean Rating for Unimpaired Conditions T1 T2 T1 T2 BioMAP(d) >9 5.7 4.0 4.9 Impaired 4.8 5.6 5.2 Impaired Grey Grey BioMAP(q) >2.4 2.6 Zone 2.6 Zone Density 200-800 225.0 144.0 184.5 Low 110.0 197.0 153.5 Low Richness 40-80 31.0 Low 37.0 Low % Insects >70% 77.8 81.9 79.9 Normal 61.8 66.0 63.9 Normal %Chironomids 10-40% 9.3 13.2 11.3 Normal 30.0 14.7 22.4 Normal %ETP >10% 40.4 56.3 48.3 Normal 7.3 32.5 19.9 Normal % Annelids <2-10% 10.7 12.5 11.6 High 32.7 17.3 25.0 High %Tubificidae <5% 7.1 12.5 9.8 High 32.7 17.3 25.0 High % Crustaceans <5% 1.3 0.0 0.7 Normal 2.7 10.2 6.4 High % Isopods <3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal % Snails <2-10% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 0.9 0.0 0.5 Normal %Bivalves <2-10% 10.2 5.6 7.9 Normal 1.8 6.6 4.2 Normal %Flatworms <5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal %Shedders <3% 1.3 0.0 0.7 Normal 2.7 10.2 6.4 Normal %Filter Feeders 20-60% 31.1 45.8 38.5 Normal 20.9 49.7 35.3 Normal

Metrics Expected Values BU000 Mean Rating BU001 Mean Rating BU002 Mean Rating for Unimpaired Conditions T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 BioMAP(d) >12 7.5 8.0 7.7 Impaired 7.3 8.5 7.9 Impaired 2.8 2.9 2.8 Impaired Grey BioMAP(q) >3.0 2.5 Impaired 2.7 Zone 1.8 Impaired Density 100-400 159.0 123.0 141.0 Normal 87.0 36.0 61.5 Low 627.0 32.0 329.5 Normal Richness 30-60 32.0 Normal 12.0 Low 12.0 Low % Insects >80% 24.5 15.4 20.0 Low 3.4 30.6 17.0 Low 0.6 9.4 5.0 Low %Chironomids 10-30% 16.4 8.9 12.6 Normal 2.3 2.8 2.5 Low 0.5 9.4 4.9 Low %ETP >10% 1.9 3.3 2.6 Low 0.0 0.0 0.0 Very Low 0.2 0.0 0.1 Very Low Very % Annelids <5% 13.8 6.5 10.2 High 5.7 5.6 5.7 High 98.7 90.6 94.7 High Very %Tubificidae <2% 12.6 5.7 9.1 High 4.6 5.6 5.1 High 98.6 90.6 94.6 High 43 % Crustaceans <10% 46.5 76.4 61.5 High 6.9 25.0 15.9 High 0.2 0.0 0.1 Normal % Isopods <3% 35.2 45.5 40.4 High 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal % Snails <5% 0.6 1.6 1.1 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 0.2 0.0 0.1 Normal %Bivalves <5% 14.5 0.0 7.2 High 83.9 38.9 61.4 High 0.3 0.0 0.2 Normal %Flatworms <3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal %Shedders 30-10% 48.4 77.2 62.8 High 6.9 25.0 15.9 High 0.2 0.0 0.1 Low %Filter Feeders 10-40% 15.7 0.8 8.3 Low 83.9 66.7 75.3 High 0.3 3.1 1.7 Low

Metrics Expected Values BU003 Mean Rating BU004 Mean Rating BU007 Mean Rating for Unimpaired Conditions T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 BioMAP(d) >12 4.6 4.2 4.4 Impaired 8.1 7.4 7.7 Impaired 6.2 6.6 6.4 Impaired Grey BioMAP(q) >3.0 2.3 Impaired 2.9 Zone 2.3 Impaired Density 100-400 168.0 404.0 286.0 Normal 149.0 116.0 132.5 Normal 350.0 162.0 256.0 Normal Richness 30-60 29.0 Low 30.0 Normal 28.0 Normal % Insects >80% 70.8 60.1 65.5 Low 72.5 90.5 81.5 High 32.0 11.7 21.9 High %Chironomids 10-30% 62.5 52.2 57.4 High 69.8 84.5 77.1 High 14.9 3.7 9.3 Low Very %ETP >10% 3.0 1.5 Low 0.0 0.0 0.0 Very Low 0.6 0.0 0.3 Very Low % Annelids <5% 17.9 30.7 24.3 High 16.8 9.5 13.1 High 48.0 36.4 42.2 High %Tubificidae <2% 16.7 30.0 23.3 High 10.7 9.5 10.1 High 48.0 36.4 42.2 High % Crustaceans <10% 5.4 0.5 2.9 Normal 10.1 0.0 5.0 Normal 6.3 5.6 5.9 Normal % Isopods <3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 1.3 0.0 0.7 Normal 0.6 0.6 0.6 Normal % Snails <5% 0.0 1.0 0.5 Normal 0.7 0.0 0.3 Normal 0.3 6.8 3.5 Normal %Bivalves <5% 6.0 7.7 6.8 High 0.0 0.0 0.0 High 13.4 46.3 29.9 High %Flatworms <3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal 0.0 0.0 0.0 Normal %Shedders 30-10% 5.4 0.7 3.0 Low 13.4 2.6 8.0 Low 6.3 5.6 5.9 Low %Filter Feeders 10-40% 6.0 7.7 6.8 Low 0.0 0.0 0.0 Low 25.4 50.0 37.7 Normal

Appendix II

NPCA Chemical Surface Water Data

NOTE: All chemical parameters listed below represent single data points obtained at the time benthic macroinvertebrate sample collection. Parameters were obtained using a water quality multi-probe instrument.

WELLAND RIVER DATA

Table 1a: Water quality data for reference station WR004 for 1996-2006 (upstream of landfill)

Sample Date Temperature (0C) Conductivity (µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) May 1996 17 404 7. 5 October 1996 11 364 6.7 October 1997 8.5 514 7.6 April 1998 9.5 382 9.9 October 1998 9.4 1264 6.9 May 2002 738 550 10.3 October 2002 10 760 10.2 June 2004 22.9 678 7.2 November 2004 5.1 1243 14.0 May 2006 14.0 986 8.4 November 2006 5.7 716 10.9

Table 1b: Water quality data for downstream station WR004B for 1996-2006 (downstream of landfill)

Sample Date Temperature (0C) Conductivity (µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) May 1996 18 405 8. 7 October 1996 12 357 8.5 October 1997 9.3 536 7.1 April 1998 10.1 386 9.7 October 1998 9.0 1306 4.0 May 2002 7.7 540 10.2 October 2002 11.4 750 4.6 June 2004 23.8 672 4.6 November 2004 6.4 1351 15.0 May 2006 14.0 993 8.8 November 2006 5.8 731 11.5

46 BUCKHORN CREEK DATA

Table 2a: Water quality data for reference station BU000 for 1996-2006 (upstream of landfill)

Sample Date Temperature (0C) Conductivity (µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) May 1996 18 752 7. 1 October 1996 11 590 4.8 October 1997 9.8 696 4.7 April 1998 12.1 717 7.1 October 1998 11.3 683 7.4 May 2002 5.6 563 8.6 October 2002 8.6 2000 4.6 June 2004 20.7 1398 8.7 November 2004 10.6 3049 7.8 May 2006 15.7 1006 9.6 November 2006 5.3 865 10.1

Table 2b: Water quality data for downstream stations BU006 and BU007 for 1996-2006

Sample Date Temperature (0C) Conductivity (µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) May 1996 17 2280 6. 9 October 1996 10 1376 5.9 October 1997 7.2 2850 5.4 April 1998 13.5 1496 10.7 October 1998 12.4 4052 6.9 May 2002 6.2 2100 4.6 October 2002 11.3 1900 2.5 June 2004 14.1 2962 3.2 November 2004 9.0 2734 10.6 May 2006 15.1 1436 9.4 November 2006 5.5 1258 8.4

Table 2c: Water quality data for upstream station BU001 for 2002-2006 (upstream of flowing spring)

Sample Date Temperature (0C) Conductivity (µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) May 2002 5.4 1200 9. 9 October 2002 13.3 2400 5.9 June 2004 18.8 2718 9.6 November 2004 6.0 1796 14.1 May 2006 15.8 1245 11.3 November 2006 5.1 994 9.2

47 BUCKHORN CREEK DATA (continued)

Table 2d: Water quality data for downstream station BU002 for 2002-2006 (downstream of flowing spring)

Sample Date Temperature (0C) Conductivity (µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) May 2002 12.7 2589 2. 5 October 2002 9.6 3800 1.4 June 2004 14.1 2962 3.2 November 2004 8.8 3514 3.7 May 2006 15.5 1717 9.3 November 2006 5.9 1431 8.4

Table 2e: Water quality data for upstream station BU003 for 1996-2006 (upstream of stormwater retention pond #1)

Sample Date Temperature (0C) Conductivity (µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) May 1996 18 617 7. 9 October 1996 11 581 6.1 October 1997 9.7 1500 3.2 April 1998 7.8 600 10.4 October 1998 12.3 1912 5.3 May 2002 5.5 1200 8.9 October 2002 11.6 930 2.1 June 2004 19.5 1125 4.4 November 2004 8.6 1111 1.8 May 2006 13.7 1080 8.3 November 2006 1.8 405 12.7

Table 2f: Water quality data for downstream station BU004 for 1996-2006 (downstream of stormwater retention pond #1)

Sample Date Temperature (0C) Conductivity (µS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) May 1996 19 2220 6. 8 October 1996 12 1590 6.4 October 1997 12.1 3500 11.9 April 1998 10.9 625 11.0 October 1998 13.4 1187 6.3 May 2002 5.8 1200 8.8 October 2002 11.1 1110 1.8 June 2004 19.6 1975 4.4 November 2004 8.4 1129 2.8 May 2006 13.5 1157 8.4 November 2006 1.7 690 11.7

Appendix III

49 Buckhorn Creek: Flowing Spring Photographs (Dated 2002)

Photo 1: Station BU001 (Looking upstream) Photo 2: Station BU001 (Looking downstream)

Photo 3: Flowing sulphur spring

50 Photo 4: Flowing sulphur spring Photo 5: Flowing sulphur spring (Looking downstream) (Looking upstream)

Photo 6: Station BU002 Photo 7: Station BU002 (Close-up)