GANARASKA RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND …...Ganaraska River Watershed Background Report blacknose dace, longnose dace, and creek chub, but is dominated by brown trout and minnow species

GANARASKA RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT

For the Ganaraska River Fisheries Management Plan,

Community Advisory Committee

Prepared by:

M. Desjardins, J. Lapierre and A. Smith

March 2007

Ganaraska River Watershed Background Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The Ganaraska River Watershed has long been recognized for its clear cold water and excellent trout and salmon fisheries. Historically, the Ganaraska River supported healthy resident brook trout populations and migratory Atlantic salmon from Lake Ontario. In the early 1800s, dams near the mouth of the Ganaraska River blocked Atlantic salmon runs. By the 1870s, Atlantic salmon populations had collapsed in most Lake Ontario rivers. The role of Atlantic salmon as a top predator in Lake Ontario has since been replaced with stocked Pacific salmon and trout. The Ganaraska River ecosystem has seen a significant positive change since the 1940s when a series of studies and restoration projects began. Currently the Ganaraska River Watershed supports one of the largest wild rainbow trout runs in the Lake Ontario basin. In the past, fisheries management of the Ganaraska River was guided by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Lindsay District Fisheries Management Plan. In 2000, the plan expired and the lead agencies responsible for fish and aquatic habitat management merged to direct the development of a new management plan. A Technical Steering Committee (TSC) was established to help guide the development of a background report and fisheries management plan. Since 1994, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) have collected information on the current state of the fisheries and aquatic habitat across the Ganaraska River Watershed. This report reviews the background information of the fisheries and aquatic habitat in the Ganaraska River Watershed. Variables analyzed include fish species, aquatic habitat, land cover, water quality and quantity. Distribution of dominant fish species and aquatic habitats were examined to identify spatial trends throughout the watershed. Historic fish community data were examined to determine if changes occurred through time. Water quality variables tested include ph (acidity), conductivity, chloride, nitrate, ammonia-ammonium, phosphorous, E.Coli and total coliforms.

Watershed Catchments The Ganaraska River Watershed (Figure 2) was partitioned into 16 watershed catchments to help facilitate state of the resource reporting. The catchments are based on larger tributaries or sections of tributaries where dams or other barriers exist (Figure 1). Four distinct fish communities were identified in the Ganaraska River Watershed and are illustrated (Figure 3).

Jen

I

Figure 1. Residential areas, major roads, and large dams within the Ganaraska River Watershed

Jen

II

1

14 11

16

15

23

710

9 6

8

5

kson Dam

`12

13 4

Catchment 1. Corbett Dam to Canton Dam

2. Canton Dam to Osaca

3. Osaca to Kendal – downstream of Jac

11.Lower Little Ganaraska – downstream Elizabethville

Dam to Cold Springs Creek

12. Soper Branch

13. Burnham Branch

14. Duck Pond Branch

15. Elliott Stream

16. Welcome “Henwood Stream”

This map is for information purposes only and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority takes no responsibility for, nor guarantees, the accuracy of the information contained within the map. Prepared by Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority: January 2007. Produced using information provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources, GRCA and other municipal sources, Copyright (c) Queen's Printer, 2007

4. Headwater mainstem – upstream of Jackson Dam

5. Quay’s Branch

6. North Ganaraska -Canton

7. North Ganaraska – upstream Garden Hill Dam

8. North Ganaraska – upstream Fudge’s Mill Dam

9. Cold Springs Creek

10. Upper Little Ganaraska- upstream Elizabethville Dam

Figure 2. Ganaraska River Watershed catchments

Jen

III

Jen

1

`12

1411

16

15

23

13

710

9 6

8

54

This map is for information purposes only and the Ganaraska Region ConservationAuthority takes no responsibility for, nor guarantees, the accuracy of the informationcontained within the map. Prepared by Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority:January 2007. Produced using information provided by the Ministry of NaturalResources, GRCA and other municipal sources, Copyright (c) Queen's Printer, 2007

Fish Communities

1 - rainbow trout and minnow

2 - brown trout and minnow

3 - brown trout and sculpin

ok trout and sculpin

Figure 3. Do ish communities and catchments in the Ganaraska River Watershed

4 - bro

minant f

Jen

IV


Fish Community Characteristics and Locations Fish Community 1: rainbow trout and minnow species This diverse fish community was dominated by rainbow trout as a top predator, but also present were white sucker, sculpin and a variety of minnow species including, blacknose dace, longnose dace, creek chub, and Johnny darter. Fish Community 1 is found in the mainstem north of Corbett’s Dam to Jackson Mill Dam containing Catchments 1,2 and 3 and the lower reaches of 9 and 13. The fish community boundaries then extend northeast including Catchments 11 and 15 and east into Quays Branch (Catchment 5) and Duck Pond (Catchment 14). The mainstem Catchments 1,2 and 3 have the largest drainage area of 94km2, longest channel length at 45km, and highest discharge. These catchments supported white sucker, longnose dace, creek chub, and Johnny darter but were dominated by the highest densities of rainbow trout in the watershed. The median maximum summer water temperature varied from 19.4oC to 23.9 oC, from the upper to lower reaches. Substrate consisted of gravel and cobble with increasing sands in the upper reaches. In Catchment 5 and 14 fish species diversity and density was lower than the mainstem catchments. In Catchment 5 species diversity and density decreased above a weir, located north of 5th Concession. Species included rainbow trout, blacknose dace, creek chub, and sculpin species. The median maximum summer temperature for both catchments was 21.7oC. Substrate consisted of sand in the upper reaches and mixed gravel and cobble in the lower reaches for both catchments. Both tributaries originate from a drumlinized till plain called the South Slope. The South Slope is an aquatard (containing soils not conducive to ground water discharge) resulting in low discharge compared to the other tributaries within the watershed. Adult Chinook salmon are prevalent within Fish Community 1 during spawning migration. Spawning activity was documented throughout Catchments 1,2 and 3 and in the lower reaches of Catchments 5,9,11,12,13,14. Due to Chinook life history, where they leave the stream within months of hatching to rear in Lake Ontario, they are rarely collected during summer electrofishing surveys. Therefore Chinook are not discussed in terms of the data analysis in the background document. Coho salmon have also been collected sporadically during the summer surveys and were not included in the analysis for the same reason as Chinook. It should be noted that the occurrence of pacific salmon is unique to Fish Community 1. Fish Community 2: brown trout and minnow species A second distinct fish community was identified in Catchment 6 on the North Ganaraska Branch between the Canton Hydroelectric Dam and Garden Hill Creek confluence. This community included brown trout, white sucker,

Jen

VI

Ganaraska River Watershed Background Report blacknose dace, longnose dace, and creek chub, but is dominated by brown trout and minnow species. The median maximum summer water temperature for this area was 20.0oC. Substrate composition throughout the tributary consisted of gravel, sand and cobble. Fish Community 3: brown trout and sculpin This community includes Catchment 4 north of Jackson Dam and the lower reaches of Catchment 12. Brown trout and sculpin species dominate this community; however brook trout were also prominent in the headwaters. The maximum summer water temperature for Catchment 4 was 18.3oC and mean maximum water temperature for the lower reach of Catchment 12 was 17.4oC. This section of the river was largely dominated by sand and gravel substrate. Fish Community 4: brook trout and sculpin The fourth fish community consists of all northern headwater streams including Catchment 4 north of Fish Community 3, Catchment 12 north headwaters, Catchment 13 north of County Rd. 9, Catchment 10 north of Elizabethville Dam, Catchment 12 northern tributaries, and Catchments 6,7 and 8 north of the Garden Hill Dam. Fish community 4 is dominated by brook trout and sculpin species. Catchment 4 includes all tributaries entering the Ganaraska River north of Fish Community 3. Fish species found include brown trout, rainbow trout, and sculpin species. The median maximum summer water temperature was 13oC and substrate was composed mainly of sand and large gravel. Cold Springs Creek (Catchment 9) had a maximum summer water temperature of 14.0oC in the upper reach to 20oC in the lower reach. Fish species found included brook trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, blacknose dace, creek chub, and sculpin species. Substrate was composed of sand, gravel, and cobble. Catchment 10 upstream of Elizabethville Dam on the Little Ganaraska Branch had a lower species diversity including brook trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, and sculpin species. The median maximum summer water temperature was 14.7oC. Substrate composition was mainly sand and gravel. Catchments 6,7 and 8 include tributaries of the North Ganaraska Branch above the Garden Hill Dam. Fish species found include brook trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, white sucker, blacknose dace, longnose dace, creek chub, Johnny darter, and sculpin species. The median maximum summer water temperature for Catchment 7 and 8 was 16.2oC, and 15.1oC respectively. The maximum summer temperature for Catchment 6 was 22.1oC. Only one temperature site was present in this portion of the catchment, and therefore, poorly represents the headwater temperatures. Substrate composition was primarily sand and gravel.

Jen

VI

Figure 4. Trends trout density over time by catchment from the 1970s to the 2000s in the Ganaraska River Watershed

Catchment Current

Abundance 1 Not present 2 Not present 3 Not present 4 High 5 Low 6 Low 7 High 8 Low

9 and 11 High 10 Moderate 12 oderate 13 High 14 ot present 15 fficient data 16 ot present


Trends

Increase

Decrease

Not present

No historical data

Insufficient data

No change

1

`12

1411

16

15

23

13

710

9 6

8

54

in brook

M N Insu N

Jen

VII

Catchment Current Abundance

1 Low 2 High 3 Moderate 4 Low 5 Moderate 6 Not present 7 Not present 8 Not present

9 and 11 Moderate 10 Low 11 derate 12 derate 13 derate 14 derate 15 icient data 16 present

This map is for information purposes only and the Ganaraska Region ConservationAuthority takes no responsibility for, nor guarantees, the accuracy of the information contained within the map. Prepared by Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority:January 2007. Produced using information provided by the Ministry of NaturalResources, GRCA and other municipal sources, Copyright (c) Queen's Printer, 2007

Trends

Increase

Decrease

Not present

No historical data

Insufficient data

No change

1

`12

1411

16

15

2 3

13

710

9 6

8

54

Figure 5. Tren bow trout density over time by catchment from the 1970s to the 2000s in the Ganaraska River Watershed

MoMoMoMo

InsuffNot

ds in rain

Jen

VIII

Figure 6. Trends trout density over time by catchment from the 1970s to the 2000s in the Ganaraska River Watershed

4 5

8

6 9

10 7

13

32

15

16

11 14

`12

1

Catchment Current

Abundance 1 Low 2 Low 3 High 4 High 5 Low 6 Moderate 7 High 8 Low

9 and 11 Low 10 Low 12 h 13 h 14 esent 15 icient

ta 16 esent

This map is for information purposes only and the Ganaraska Region ConservationAuthority takes no responsibility for, nor guarantees, the accuracy of the information contained within the map. Prepared by Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority:January 2007. Produced using information provided by the Ministry of NaturalResources, GRCA and other municipal sources, Copyright (c) Queen's Printer, 2007

Trends

Increase

Decrease

Not present

No historical data

Insufficient data

No change

in brown

HigHig

Not prInsuff

daNot pr

Jen

IX


Salmonid Density Trends Over Time and Current Abundance The following statements reflect trends in density over time and current abundance for brook trout, rainbow trout, and brown trout (Figure 4,5, and 6 respectively). Density data was collected from the 1970s to the 2000s. Abundance levels (low, moderate, and high) were determined as percentiles and are therefore in reference to the Ganaraska River Watershed data exclusively. Catchment 1 Rainbow and brown trout abundance was low; however, both species had increasing densities. • Brook trout were not present • Brown trout were first collected in the 1990s. Catchment 2 Rainbow and brown trout densities were increasing, while brook trout have not been collected in this catchment since the 1970s. Rainbow trout abundance was high and brown trout abundance was low. • This catchment has the highest recorded densities of rainbow trout in the

watershed. • Brown trout density increased from the 1990s to the 2000s. Catchment 3 Rainbow trout densities were increasing and brown trout densities were decreasing. Brook trout have not been collected in this catchment since the 1970s. Rainbow trout abundance was moderate and brown trout abundance was high. Catchment 4 Rainbow trout densities were increasing, while brook and brown trout densities remained the same. However, brook and brown trout abundance was high and rainbow trout abundance was low. Rainbow trout abundance was low because Jackson Dam prevents migration into the North Ganaraska Branch. • Rainbow trout were not present in the 1970s, but were collected in the 1990s

and increased into the 2000s. The mechanism for the introduction of rainbow trout upstream of the dam is unknown.

Catchment 5 Brook and brown trout abundance was low and rainbow trout abundance was moderate. Small sample size inhibited density analysis through time for all three species. • Brook trout were first collected in 2004. • Rainbow trout first collected in the 1990s.

Jen

X

Ganaraska River Watershed Background Report Catchment 6 Brown trout densities were increasing, and brook trout densities remained the same. Brook trout abundance was low and brown trout abundance was moderate. Rainbow trout were not present because the Canton Hydroelectric Dam prevents migration into the North Ganaraska Branch. This Catchment was not sampled in the 2000s. • Brook trout were first collected in the 1990’s. Catchment 7 Brook and brown trout densities remained the same, and rainbow trout were not present because the Canton Hydroelectric Dam prevents migration into the North Ganaraska Branch. Brook and brown trout abundance was high. Catchment 8 Brook and brown trout abundance remained the same, and rainbow trout were not present because the Canton Hydroelectric Dam prevents migration into the North Ganaraska Branch. Brook and brown trout abundance was low. No sampling occurred in the 1990s for this catchment. Catchments 9 and 11 Brook trout densities increased while brown and rainbow trout densities remained the same. Brook trout abundance was high, rainbow trout abundance was moderate and brown trout abundance was low. Catchment 10 Rainbow, brown, and brook trout densities have not significantly changed over time. Rainbow and brown trout abundance was low, while brook trout abundance was moderate. This Catchment was not sampled in the 1990s. Rainbow trout were detected upstream of the Elizabethville dam for the first time during the 2000 sampling period. Although this may not represent a significant increase their presence upstream of the dam is interesting, as the structure is perceived as being a migration barrier. The mechanism for the introduction of rainbow trout upstream of the dam is unknown. Catchment 12 Brook, brown, and rainbow trout densities have not changed over time. Brook and rainbow trout abundance was moderate, while brown trout abundance was high. Catchment 13 Brook and brown trout abundance was high and rainbow trout abundance was moderate. Insufficient density data in the 1970s and 2000s inhibited comparison through time for all trout species. This Catchment was not sampled in the 1990s. • Rainbow trout were not present in the 1970s or the 2000s data set used for

temporal comparison, however a site located low in the catchment sampled in 2004 had moderate rainbow trout abundance. This site was in an isolated

Jen

XI


location relative to other sites in the catchment, therefore it was not included in the temporal comparison.

• Brown trout were not present in the 1970s or the 2000s data used for the temporal comparison. In 2004, a site located low in the catchment had a high abundance but was not included in the temporal comparison because of its isolated location relative to other sites in the catchment.

Catchment 14 Brook and brown trout were not present and rainbow trout abundance was moderate. This Catchment was only sampled in the 2000s, inhibiting data comparison over time. Catchments 15 and 16 Fish species data was not collected.

Land Cover: Agriculture and Forest

Land use affects stream habitats through rates of sedimentation, nutrient cycling, erosion, and other ecological processes that ultimately effect fish community composition and abundance (Allan 1995). Documenting percent land cover of forest and agriculture in the Ganaraska River Watershed will increase our understanding of fish species trends and facilitate management decisions. Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario was used to determine area within the Ganaraska River Watershed of each land use. Land uses that are most likely to effect ecological functions in the Ganaraska River Watershed are forested and agricultural lands. Agricultural cover consists of intensive and non-intensive agriculture land uses. Intensive land uses included all tilled land, and non-intensive lands include non-tilled and grazed lands. Forest cover consists of mixed forests, coniferous forests, deciduous forests, plantations, and forested wetlands. Land cover was converted into percent cover per catchment. Forest cover shows a clear decreasing spatial trend from west to east in the Ganaraska River Watershed (Figure 7). The highest percent of forested land occurs in the northwest portion of the watershed including Catchments 4,7,9,10,12, and13. The lowest percent of forested land is found in the southeast portion of the watershed including Catchments 1,2,5,14,15 and 16. Moderate forest cover is centrally located in watershed Catchments 3,6,8, and 11. Agricultural land shows the reverse trend to forest cover, with a distinct spatial increase from west to east (Figure 8). The highest percent of agricultural land is found in the eastern portion of the watershed including Catchments 1,2,5,6,8,11,14,and 16. The lowest agricultural land use occurs in the northwest portion of the watershed including Catchments 4,10,12, and 13. Moderate agricultural land use is centrally located in Catchments 3,7, and 9.

Jen

XII

Figure 7. Pe forested land cover by c

nt Cover1

`12

1411

16

15

2 3

13

710

9 6

8

54

Perce

atchment in the Ganaraska River Watershed as of 2002.


Very dense (100- 65)

High (64.9 – 49.5)

Moderate (49.4 – 32)

Low (31.9 – 0)

rcent of

Jen

XIII

Figure 8. Per gricultural land cover

1

`12

1411

16

15

2 3

13

710

9 6

8

54

by catchment in the Ganaraska River Watershed as of 2002.


Percent Cover

Very dense (100 – 65)

High (64.9 – 50.0)

Moderate (49.9 –35)

Low (34.9 – 0)

cent of a

Jen

XIV

Ganaraska River Watershed Background Report Habitat Characteristics:Surficial Geology, Water Temperature and Baseflow Sand and gravel substrate composition for the Ganaraska River Watershed are displayed by Catchment in Figure 9. Median maximum summer water temperature for each site and mean maximum summer water temperature for each Catchment (Figure 10), and baseflow (indicate ground water discharge) is averaged by catchment (Figure 11). The Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) lies on the northern borders of the Ganaraska River Watershed. The ORM is characteristic of high relative elevation, and sand/gravel soil composition function as a major recharge zone within the watershed. Precipitation falling on the ORM surface infiltrates through the sand and gravel providing recharge to the underlying aquifers (a layer of underground rock or sediment that stores and transports water). The flanks of the ORM also provide groundwater discharge areas. Flow for the Ganaraska River and its tributaries are provided by the groundwater discharge from the flanks of the moraine and its surface runoff. The groundwater discharge flow is a source of coldwater throughout the watershed. Groundwater discharge areas are important factors contributing to quality fish habitat for coldwater species. Localized areas of coldwater input are common through sand and gravel substrates, and are valued throughout the watershed as they provide salmonid spawning habitats and refuge areas during hot summer days for coldwater fish species. Water temperature is a key environmental parameter in fisheries management as it strongly influences and potentially limits physiological processes, reproductive potential, and distribution. However, the definition of optimum temperature in fishes poses a significant challenge because of the wide variety of physiological processes affected by temperature, the potential importance of environmental history, and other factors like life stage and reproductive status. However, generally speaking salmonids including brook, brown and rainbow trout prefer a narrow coldwater temperature range, and are sensitive to changes in water temperature (Wootton 1998). Stream salmonids prefer a temperature range of approximately 14-17 ºC, but can tolerate temperatures in the mid 20sºC (Wootton 1998). To examine the thermal properties of the Ganaraska River, median maximum water temperatures were determined for each catchment and divided into 3 categories: coldwater (<18.9ºC), coolwater (19-25ºC), and warmwater (>25.1ºC) (Stoneman and Jones 1996). All coldwater catchments originated in the north headwaters of the Oak Ridges Moraine, except Catchments 9 and 13, which are classified as coolwater. These areas consisted of >40 percent sand and gravel substrate, and had a low to moderate baseflow. Data from Catchment 13 reflects conditions in the lower reaches of that catchment. Headwaters of Catchment 13 were poorly represented in the study. Likely, the headwaters of Catchment 13 are characterized by water temperatures within the coldwater category.

Jen

XV

Ganaraska River Watershed Background Report The coolwater Catchments (1,2,3,5,6, and 14) were found along the mainstem and the east-southeast portions of the watershed. The catchments consisted of 10-30 percent sand and gravel substrate. The coolwater catchments were divided by high and low baseflow areas. Catchments 1,2,3, and 6 had the highest flows of the watershed. The high flows reflect the catchment positions within the watershed, as cumulatively they represent two of the largest tributaries (mainstem and the lower North Ganaraska Branch). Catchments 5 and 14 are low baseflow catchments. The reduced flow within these catchments can be attributed to the physiographic region from which they originate. Unlike other catchments in the watershed that begin as seeps from the ORM sediments, these streams originate from the dumlinized till plain of the South Slopes physiographic unit. The south slope contains soils that have lower hydraulic permeability when compared to moraine soils. The lower infiltration results in a reduction of baseflow. Warmwaters were found in 4 sites throughout the watershed, however, only Catchment 16 was classified as a warmwater area. Catchment 16 had <10% sand and gravel substrate, low baseflow, and the highest percent of agricultural land use. Baseflow was quantified in the summer of 2004 throughout the watershed during periods of low flow. This was the first attempt of quantifying baseflow in the Ganaraska River Watershed. Data were collected over the summer months and flow data was not normalized to one date, therefore, watertable fluxuations and other environmental factors effecting basefow were not accounted for. In addition, unknown water takings most likely occurred above baseflow sampling sites and dam reservoir water levels changed throughout the summer. The baseflow data for the Ganaraska River will be updated, as a comprehensive watershed project is expected to occur in the summer of 2007.

Water Quality Humans have significantly altered the Ganaraska River Watershed dating back to European settlement in the late 1700s. Given that water quality directly affects the health of aquatic life, 30 water quality monitoring stations were established throughout the watershed recording data 4 times a year. The water quality variables samples reflect the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of each site. In Ontario the standard for maximum acceptable limits of these variables are set by the Provincial Water Quality Objectives guidelines (PWQO) and the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines (CWQG). Water quality values that are within these standards will be referred to as being in the “normal range”. The Ganaraska River Watershed over all had a normal range of water quality samples. All of the physical water quality variables were within normal ranges for freshwater streams. Most of the chemical variables were within normal range except phosphorous. Phosphorous occurs naturally in freshwater streams from

Jen

XVI


rock and sediment erosion, and is present in sewage, industrial effluent, agricultural run off, and storm waters. Phosphorus is an essential element required for plant growth, however too much can reduce the amount of total dissolved oxygen in the water. Dissolved oxygen is essential for the survival of fish and other aquatic life, and therefore healthy waters should be below 0.03 mg/L of total phosphorous according to the PWQO. Phosphorous is above the PWQO in the catchments with high agricultural land use. Catchment 2 was > 0.04mg/L and Catchments 1,6, and 8 where between 0.03mg/L and 0.04mg/L. The biological values within the watershed were above PWQG in most of the catchments. The PWQO of Escherichia coli (E.coli) are 100 bacterium/100 ml, total coliforms are 100 bacterium/100ml. E.coli and total coliforms are indicator bacteria used to asses the microbial health of water. These bacteria are associated with fecal contamination from warm bodied animals, including humans, livestock, and wild animals (ie. geese). Direct ingestion of these bacteria, through drinking water can cause gastro-intestinal complications. High levels of fecal bacterial can be mitigated by directly removing contaminate sources. In the Ganaraska River Watershed 19 of the 30 sites had E.coli levels higher than the PWQO. Over 50% of these sites were found in catchments with high agricultural land cover and low to moderate percentages of forested land cover. Total coliforms also come from non-fecal origins such as soil, organic surfaces, and decaying matter. In the Ganaraska River Watershed all 30 sites were over the PWQO. The highest counts of total coliforms were found in catchments with high and moderate percentages of agricultural land and moderate to low percentage of forested land. Areas with large percentages of agricultural land are also related to increased rural development and private septic systems, which also contributes to the amount of total coliforms present within the watershed.

Jen

XVII

`12

1411 1513

7

6

8

54

Figure 9. Su ology as percent of sand/grav

Percent sand/gravel

< 10

10-20

20-30

30-40

40-50

10

9


116

2 3

el substrate by catchment in the Ganaraska River Watershed
rficial ge
50-60

60-70

>70

Jen

XVIII

Figure 10. Maxim mmer w catch the Gan

Site Temperature (°C)

Catchment Temperature

Coldw 8.9)

Coolw – 25)

Warmw 25.1)

710 8

4

Coldwater (<18.9)

Coolwater (19 – 25)

Warmwater (>25.1)

No data

`12

ater temperature by site (°C) and median maximum summer water temperature (°C) by araska River Watershed.

11


(°C)

1

14

16

15

2 3

13 9 65

um sument in

ater (<1

ater (19

ater (>

Jen

XIX

Figure 11. Average baseflow (cms) by catchment in the Ganaraska River Watershed as of 2004

Jen

XX


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: Project Introduction________________________________________ 8

Section 2: Watershed Characteristics __________________________________ 10

2.1 Introduction_____________________________________________________ 10

2.2 Watershed Description ____________________________________________ 10

2.3 Physiography____________________________________________________ 11

2.4 Hydrology ______________________________________________________ 12 2.4.1 Surface Water Hydrology _______________________________________ 12 2.4.2 Groundwater _________________________________________________ 13 2.4.3 Climate______________________________________________________ 14

2.5 Resource Uses and Ecosystem Changes ______________________________ 15 2.5.1 Prior to European Colonization ___________________________________ 15 2.5.2 European settlement____________________________________________ 15 2.5.3 From Restoration to the Present Ecosystem _________________________ 17

Section 3: Fisheries Data and Standardization __________________________ 28

3.1 Data Sets _______________________________________________________ 28 3.1.1. Fisheries Data ________________________________________________ 28 3.1.2. Physical Habitat Data __________________________________________ 30 3.1.3. Water Quality Data ____________________________________________ 31 3.1.4 Water Quantity Data Set ________________________________________ 32

3.2 Sources of Variation in the Data Sets ________________________________ 33 3.2.1 Fish Identification _____________________________________________ 33 3.2.2 Electrofishing Effort ___________________________________________ 33

3.3 Standardization Procedures________________________________________ 33

Section 4: Longitudinal distribution pattern ____________________________ 34

4.1 Objectives_______________________________________________________ 34

4.2 Methods ________________________________________________________ 34

4.3 Fish Species Distribution Patterns __________________________________ 35 4.3.1 Brook Trout __________________________________________________ 35 4.3.2 Brown Trout__________________________________________________ 36 4.3.3 Rainbow Trout ________________________________________________ 36 4.3.4 White Sucker _________________________________________________ 36 4.3.5 Blacknose Dace _______________________________________________ 36 4.3.6 Longnose Dace________________________________________________ 37 4.3.7 Creek Chub __________________________________________________ 37 4.3.8 Johnny Darter_________________________________________________ 37 4.3.9 Sculpins _____________________________________________________ 37

4.4 Habitat Patterns _________________________________________________ 37

1


4.4.1 Water Temperature ____________________________________________ 37 4.4.2 Physical Habitat _______________________________________________ 38 4.4.3 Water Quality_________________________________________________ 38 4.4.5 Water Quantity________________________________________________ 39

Section 5: Longitudinal Distribution Analyses ___________________________ 86

5.1 Objective _______________________________________________________ 86

5.2 Methods for Analyzing the Fish Species Distribution Patterns ___________ 86

5.3 Results _________________________________________________________ 87

Section 6: Temporal Analysis ________________________________________ 94

6.1 Objective _______________________________________________________ 94

6.2 Methods ________________________________________________________ 94

6.3 Results _________________________________________________________ 95 6.3.1 Brook Trout __________________________________________________ 95 6.3.2 Brown Trout__________________________________________________ 96 6.3.3 Rainbow Trout ________________________________________________ 96 6.3.4 White Sucker _________________________________________________ 97 6.3.5 Blacknose Dace _______________________________________________ 98 6.3.6 Longnose Dace________________________________________________ 99 6.3.7 Creek Chub __________________________________________________ 99 6.3.8 Johnny Darter________________________________________________ 100 6.3.9 Sculpin _____________________________________________________ 100

References ________________________________________________________ 122

Appendix A __________________________________________________________ 126

Appendix B __________________________________________________________ 145

Appendix C __________________________________________________________ 149

Appendix D__________________________________________________________ 156

2


LIST OF FIGURES Section 2

Figure 2.01. Residential areas, roads, dams and elevation of Ganaraska River Watershed.

Figure 2.02. Elevation of the Ganaraska River Watershed

Figure 2.03. Main tributaries of the Ganaraska River Watershed

Figure 2.04. Catchments of the Ganaraska River Watershed

Figure 2.05. Surficial geology of the Ganaraska River Watershed

Figure 2.06. Land uses classification of the Ganaraska River Watershed

Section 4

Figure 4.01. Mean density of brook trout (all sizes combined) at each sampling station.

Figure 4.02. Mean density of brook trout (<70mm T.L) at each sampling station.

Figure 4.03. Density and biomass of brook trout (all sizes combined) capture vs distance

to Lake Ontario.

Figure 4.04. Density and biomass of brook trout (<70mmT.L) captured vs distance to

Lake Ontario.

Figure 4.05. Mean density of brown trout (all sizes combined) at each sampling station.

Figure 4.06. Mean density of brown trout (<70mm T.L) at each sampling station.

Figure 4.07. Density and biomass of brown trout (all sizes combined) captured vs

distance to Lake Ontario.

Figure 4.08. Density and biomass of brown trout (<70mm T.L) captured vs distance to

Lake Ontario.

Figure 4.09. Mean density of rainbow trout (all sizes combined) at each sampling station.

Figure 4.10. Mean density of rainbow trout (<70mm T.L) at each sampling station.

Figure 4.11. Density and biomass of rainbow trout (all sizes combined) captured vs

distance to Lake Ontario

Figure 4.12. Density and biomass of rainbow trout (<70mm T.L) captured vs


Figure 4.13. Mean density of white sucker (all sizes combined) at each sampling station.

Figure 4.14. Density and biomass of white sucker (all sizes combined) captured vs


3


Figure 4.15. Mean density of blacknose dace (all sizes combined) at each sampling

station.

Figure 4.16. Density and biomass of blacknose dace (all sizes combined) captured vs


Figure 4.17. Mean density of longnose dave (all sizes combined) at each sampling

station.

Figure 4.18. Density and biomass of longnose dace (all sizes combined) captured vs


Figure 4.19. Mean density of creek chub (all sizes combined) at each sampling station.

Figure 4.20. Density and biomass of creek chub (all sizes combined) captured vs


Figure 4.21. Mean density of Johnny darter (all sizes combined) at each sampling station.

Figure 4.22. Density and biomass of Johnny darter (all sizes combined) captured vs


Figure 4.23. Mean density of sculpin (all sizes combined) at each sampling station.

Figure 4.24. Density and biomass of sculpin (all sizes combined) captured vs


Figure 4.25. Maximum summer water temperature of the Ganaraska River Watershed

Figure 4.26. Average water depth measured at each sampling station.

Figure 4.27. Average wetted width measured at each sampling station

Figure 4.28. Percentage of fines substrate (<2mm) measured in point particle counts at

each sampling station.

Figure 4.29. Percentage of gravel substrate (>2 - 100mm) measured in point particle

counts at each sampling station.

Figure 4.30. Percentage of cobble substrate (100 – 1000 mm) measured in point particle

counts at each sampling station.

Figure 4.31. Percentage of clay substrate measured in point particle counts at each

sampling station.

Figure 4.32. Mean alkalinity measured as CaCO3 (mg/L) at each of the water quality

sampling station.

4


Figure 4.33. Range of variation in the alkalinity as CaCO3 (mg/L) measured across the

tributaries.

Figure 4.34. Range of variability in the pH measurements across the tributaries.

Figure 4.35. Mean conductivity (US/cm2) measured at each water quality sampling

station.

Figure 4.36. Range of variability in the conductivity (US/cm2) measurements across the

tributaries.

Figure 4.37. Range of variability in the chloride (mg/L) measurements across the

tributaries.

Figure 4.38. Mean nitrate (mg/L) measured at each water quality sampling station.

Figure 4.39. Range of variability in the nitrate (mg/L) measurements across the

tributaries.

Figure 4.40. Range of variability in the ammonia-ammonium (mg/L) measurements

across the tributaries.

Figure 4.41. Range of variability in the phosphorus (mg/L) measurements across the

tributaries.

Figure 4.42. Mean E.coli (CFU/100mL) measured at each water quality sampling station.

Figure 4.43. Range of variability in the E.coli (CFU/100mL) measurements across the

tributaries.

Figure 4.44. Mean total coliform (CFU/100mL) measured at each water quality

sampling station.

Figure 4.45. Range of variability in the total coliforms (CFU/100mL) measurements

across the tributaries. Section 5 Figure 5.01. Scree plot displays the eigenvalue numbers

Figure 5.02. Projection of the fish species variables used on the factor-plane (1x2).

Figure 5.03. Projection of the site variables on factor plan (1x2).

Figure 5.04. Fish community groups classified by using the first three factors of the

principal component analyses.

5


Section 6 Figure 6.01. Sampling station locations sorted by sampling periods and catchments.

Figure 6.02. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of brook trout

sampled within each zone and sampling period.

Figure 6.03. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of brook trout


Figure 6.04. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of brown

trout sampled within each zone and sampling period.

Figure 6.05. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of brown


Figure 6.06. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of rainbow


Figure 6.07. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of rainbow


Figure 6.08. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of white

sucker sampled within each zone and sampling period.

Figure 6.09. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of white

sucker sampled within each zone and sampling period.

Figure 6.10. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of blacknose

dace sampled within each zone and sampling period.

Figure 6.11. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of blacknose


Figure 6.12. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of longnose


Figure 6.13. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of longnose


Figure 6.14. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of creek chub


Figure 6.15. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of creek chub


6


Figure 6.16. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of Johnny

darter sampled within each zone and sampling period.

Figure 6.17. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of Johnny

darter sampled within each zone and sampling period.

Figure 6.18. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of sculpin


Figure 6.19. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of sculpin


LIST OF TABLES Section 2 Table 2.01 List of fish species first sampled in the Ganaraska River Watershed Section 5 Table 5.01. Principal component factor loading scores of the fish species relative abundance. Section 6 Table 6.01. Summary of the Mann-Whitney U critical Z and p-value

7


Section 1: Project Introduction

Background

Management of Ontario’s aquatic environment and resources is a shared

responsibility between multiple governments of the federal, provincial, tribal, and

municipal level. Partnership responsibilities included development of habitat

management objectives, collecting sound background science to understand the

relationships of habitat and biotic communities, and creating baseline standards

for successful monitoring of the aquatic ecosystem.

The Lindsay District Fisheries Management Plan guided the Ganaraska River

Watershed resources until 2000, when the plan expired. The involved agencies

took initiative to develop and new management plan that would care for the fish

communities and aquatic habitat within the watershed. These agencies include

the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans (DFO), and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA).

The OMNR has developed a Watershed-based Fisheries Management Plan

Guideline to assist in the development process of building a Fisheries

Management Plan in the Southern Ontario Region.

The Fisheries Management Process (FMP)

Developing a plan has fours stages

• Issue identification and data collection;

• Analysis and planning;

• Implementation; and

• Monitoring

The planning process encourages the creation of partnerships involving

conservation authorities, municipalities, and other key stakeholders. The

development process is a social and technical procedure. To ensure the FMP is

8


relevant it must not only reflect the background science, it must reflect the

interests of the public and stakeholders. Public involvement is essential in every

step of the process, guiding and shaping the planning process, and with

implementation of the projects and programs, monitoring, reporting, and

reviewing watershed plans.

This document describes and characterizes the physiography, hydrology,

resource use, and ecosystem changes of the Ganaraska River Watershed. The

main focus of this document however, is the analysis and interpretation of

complied background scientific data. Data standardization, data sources, and

data variation are all described within the report. The fish species data was

represented as trends, identified as longitudinal distribution patterns and

temporal distributions. A Technical Steering Committee was established to

review the data analysis and guide the development of the background report.

See appendix C.2 for a list of the Technical Steering Committee members.

Objective

The objective of a Fisheries Management Plan is to integrate all existing

knowledge of the fisheries resources and the aquatic environment into an optimal

management tool that will protect, enhance, and rehabilitate the Ganaraska River

Watershed, providing sustainable resources for our future.

To ensure the objectives are achieved and maintained the FMP must be

supported by accurate scientific data. Data summary provides a benchmark

state of resources that will allow future monitoring and for the selection of

accurate indicator measures essential for the future monitoring of the FMP.

9


Section 2: Watershed Characteristics

2.1 Introduction

This section provides historic and current information on the characteristics of the

Ganaraska River Watershed. The characteristics discussed were selected to

support the interpretations of observed spatial and temporal trends in the aquatic

ecosystem of the Ganaraska River Watershed. This section also describes

important geological events that helped create the basin shape, surface and

groundwater hydrological regime, and natural resources. The geology and

hydrology sections described are summarized from the Draft Source Water

Protection Water Budget Report (GRCA, 2006). The resource uses section

describes the historical conditions, influential restoration and research projects,

and current conditions of the watershed.

2.2 Watershed Description

The Ganaraska River watershed is a triangular basin that covers approximately

279.5km2 extending north of Kirby in the west to north of Campbellcroft in the

east and south to Port Hope (Figure 2.01). The Ganaraska River Watershed

centrally located in the Municipality of Port Hope and Municipality of Clarington,

with its eastern extent in the Township of Hamilton.

The Ganaraska River Watershed has eight main tributaries; the Mainstem, North

Ganaraska Branch, Little Ganaraska Branch, Duck Pond Branch, Quay’s Branch,

Soper Branch, Cold Springs Creek, and Burnham Branch (Figure 2.03) These

tributaries were divided into 16 catchment areas to help facilitate state of

resource reporting (Figure 2.04) Majority of the tributaries drain off the Oak

Ridges Moraine flowing in a south-easterly direction to its outlet on Lake Ontario.

The Mainstem (Catchments 1,2,3 and 4) has the largest drainage area of 94km2,

longest channel length of 45km, highest discharge, and an average gradient of

5.5m/km in the Ganaraska River Watershed. The North Ganaraska Branch

10


(Catchment 6,7 and 6) has the second largest drainage area of 70km2, channel

length of 24km, and an average gradient of 9.2m/km. Little Ganaraska Branch

(Catchment 10 and 11) has a drainage area of 33km2, channel length of 15km,

and an average gradient of 13m/km. Duck Pond Branch has a drainage area of

21km2, channel length of 14km, and an average gradient of 12m/km. Quay’s

Branch has a drainage area of 21km2, channel length of 13km, and an average

gradient of 10m/km. Soper Branch has a drainage area of 15km2, channel length

of 8km, and an average gradient of 20m/km. Cold Springs Creek has a drainage

area of 13km2, channel length 12km, and an average gradient of 16m/km.

Burnham Branch has the smallest drainage area of 10km2, channel length of

8km, and steepest average gradient of 23m/km. These values were calculated

using Ontario Flow Assessment Tool (NESI, 2002).

2.3 Physiography

The Ganaraska River watershed encompasses three major physiographic

regions; Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM), South Slope, and Lake Iroquois Plain

(Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The ORM is positioned along the northern

boundary of the watershed dominating the landscape. The Moraine is a long

broad build up of sand and gravel that was deposited at the toe of two large ice

sheets during the last ice age in Southern Ontario (Chapman and Putnam, 1984).

The ORM is between 2 and 14km wide along the northern extent of the

watershed, and stretches approximately 35km (Figure 2.05). The crest of the

ORM is 395 meters above sea level(masl) dropping to an elevation of

approximately 210 to 250masl on the southern flank (Figure 2.02).

South of the ORM lies a drumlinized till plain called the South Slope. Numerous

branches of the Ganaraska River originate in the Oak Ridges Moraine, carving

the till plain as they flow into Lake Ontario, where the banks are lined with recent

river deposits. The ground surface topography continues from the flanks of the

ORM, reaching an elevation of approximately 160masl at the historical glacial

11


Lake Iroquois shoreline. The glacial Lake Iroquois continues to extend south to

Lake Ontario as lacustrine clay and sand plains. Ground surface elevation along

Lake Ontario shoreline is approximately 75masl.

Regional surficial geologic mapping (Figure 2.05), indicates land south of the

ORM consists of several till sheets overlain by glacial lake deposits of either

silt/clay or sand/gravel. Overtime the lake deposits are cut through and overlain

by river deposits (Barnett et al., 1998). Beneath the glacial and lacustrine

overburden lies limestone bedrock coupled with shaley partings of the Lindsay

Formation of the Simcoe Group dated within the Ordovician period. The bedrock

surface slopes gently to the south-southeast, to an elevation of 80 to 90masl

near the Municipality of Port Hope. The limestone bedrock is frequently

outcropped along the Ganaraska River near the Town of Port Hope, and along

the Lake Ontario shoreline.

2.4 Hydrology

2.4.1 Surface Water Hydrology The Ganaraska River has a triangular shaped basin with a total area of

279.5km2. The Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) supplies the dominant water source

for the Ganaraska River at an elevation of 305masl, flowing south-easterly for

45km to the Lake Ontario outlet in the Town of Port Hope. The river follows a

well-defined valley through the till plains situated through Concession 6, 7, and 8

of the Municipality of Clarington, continuing across the sand plains while

increasing in width and depth through Concession 4, 5, and 6 in Municipality of

Port Hope. The stream continues into the beveled till plains of Canton where the

North Ganaraska Branch flows into the Mainstem. After this confluence, the river

flows southward through Concessions 3, 2, and 1 of the Town of Port Hope

where the channel has eroded to limestone bedrock in the final reach to the Lake

Ontario outlet. The Ganaraska River descends 161m from source to confluence.

12


2.4.2 Groundwater The Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) serves as a major recharge zone within the

Ganaraska watershed. Precipitation reaching the ORM surface infiltrates

through the sand and gravel substrate, providing recharge to the underlying

aquifers (Chapman and Putnam, 1984). The surface water flowing off the ORM

and groundwater discharge from the flanks of the ORM is responsible for

headwater flows in the majority of streams, creeks, and rivers in the Ganaraska

River Watershed (Dyke et al., 1997).

Investigation of groundwater and surface water interactions has been completed

in the Bowmanville, Soper, and Wilmot Creek Watershed west of the Ganaraska

River Watershed (Funk, 1977 and Singer, 1981). Numerous monitoring wells

across the above drainage basins indicate that groundwater recharge conditions

dominate the till plain and the laustrine clay and sand plain, where river valleys

are not in vicinity.

Flowing artesian wells are commonly found in stream valleys (Singer, 1981), and

flowing artesian wells are present along the remnants of the Lake Iroquois

shoreline (Funk, 1977andSinger, 1981), contributing groundwater flow to surface

waters throughout the Ganaraska River Watershed. This discharge occurs on

the Mainstem between Osaca and Canton, where glacial lake deposits of sand

and gravel are exposed to the surface. Several studies have shown that

groundwater discharge from deep aquifers contribute to the formation of Lake

Ontario’s low lying groundwater fed marshes and streams (Singer, 1974). As a

result, all groundwater in the Ganaraska River Watershed is discharged into Lake

Ontario.

The groundwater in the Ganaraska River Watershed generally flows south,

following the ground surface topography and bedrock. The regional cross-

section observations showed that aquifers are found in the overburden and

bedrock, with both near surface and deeper overburden aquifers in the zones of

13


sand and gravel. Fluctuations of the water table were noted in the shallow

aquifers (Singer, 1974). The deep regional groundwater aquifers are primarily

recharged in the northern portion of the watershed, in the ORM (Chapman and

Putnam, 1984). The deep groundwater then flows south to be intersected by

streams, rivers, groundwater wells, and Lake Ontario. The deep aquifers are

generally under confined conditions crating high groundwater pressure heads,

resulting in occasional artesian wells in the watershed.

2.4.3 Climate The Global atmospheric circulation has direct affects on local climate, and local

climate effects many local biological systems including hydrological regime.

Precipitation (in the form of both rain and snow), evaporation, and temperature,

all are climate variables that have a dominant effect on hydrological regime.

These factors can provide a better understanding of the abiotic influences on the

aquatic ecosystem.

Local climate may also be profoundly affected by the proximity of water and local

topographical relief. Topography significantly influences local temperature and

precipitation in the Ganaraska River Watershed where elevations range from 75-

366masl. However, average annual temperature and precipitation values show

minor variations throughout the watershed, and is most likely as result of the

small catchment drainage area. The most significant factor affecting the

Ganaraska Watershed climate is its proximity to Lake Ontario. The lake

influence has a significant moderation effect on local climate. Climate

moderation is most prominent in the immediate vicinity of Lake Ontario shores,

and beings to diminish towards the northern inland slopes. On the moraine

upland the climate cools, exhibiting sharper winters and later springs than the

remaining drainage area.

Precipitation in the Ganaraska watershed shows noticeable local variation., The

mean annual precipitation along the lake shore varies from 755 to 830mm; while,

on the northern upland slopes varies from 875 to 900mm. Precipitation values

14


continue to increase up to an average 1000mm/yr on the Oak Ridges Moraine

slopes and low regions of the watershed.

2.5 Resource Uses and Ecosystem Changes

2.5.1 Prior to European Colonization Pre-European colonization, the Ganaraska River Watershed resource uses was

minimal. The Ganaraska River Watershed was densely wooded with massive

stands of oak and pine trees. Migrant Huron aboriginals were the area’s first

inhabitants, however, their occupation was inconsistent from ongoing Iroquois

raids (GRCA, 1981). The Huron’s eventually left the area in the 1650s and the

Iroquois remained to fish, hunt and trap the Ganaraska River. The Iroquois

named the river Ganaraska, meaning the “spawning place” which referred to the

historical abundance of Atlantic salmon (Department of Energy and Resources

Management, 1966). The Ganaraska River was a major trade route and had

several small huts along the river. In the watershed, there were 3 main walking

trails similar to the present Walton Street downtown Port Hope, Highway 2, and

County Road 28 (Richardson, 1944). The watershed was completely forested

except for several tall grass prairie fields along the headwaters. The mouth of the

river was a large coastal wetland that supported a variety of Lake Ontario fishes

such as Atlantic salmon and lake sturgeon that entered the river to spawn

(Richardson, 1944).

2.5.2 European settlement The French entered the area soon after Canada became a Royal Province of

France in 1663 (GRCA, 1981). The French harvested oak and some pine timber

for building Royal Navy vessels. Interest in the white pine resources grew after

Canada became a British Colony in 1763.

Permanent settlement in the Ganaraska River Watershed was not until 1793

near the mouth of the river (Richardson, 1944). Settlement increased rapidly after

the founding of Port Hope in 1798. By the 1840’s, communities were founded as

far north as the present day 8th Concession road. Between 1860 and 1880 many

15


of the communities in the watershed doubled in population (Richardson, 1944).

These newly founded communities had settled along all the tributaries of the

Ganaraska River and were centered on waterpower structures.

The waterpower structures were designed for several different purposes, mainly

for sawing and planing lumber, gristmills and a few woolen mills. The first

waterpower dam was built in 1795 near the present Mill Street located east of the

Ganaraska River. The number of dams built on the river continued to increase

until the 1860’s where construction stopped, leaving 37 active waterpower

structures operating in the watershed. There were 10 waterpower structures built

on the main branch, 2 on Duck Pond Branch, 1 on Quay’s Branch, 13 on North

Ganaraska Branch, 1 on Little Ganaraska Branch, 2 on Soper Branch, and 1 on

Burnham Branch (Richardson, 1944). By 1876, the mouth of the river was

dredged for the first time, forming a larger harbor area.

During this time, much of the old growth forest was being actively harvested. As

the settlement moved north, the watershed was clear-cut for agricultural use. It

was reported that by the 1860s the lower reaches of the watershed were

completely cleared and by the 1890s the entire watershed was completely

deforested (Richardson, 1944). The fertile soils of the headwater quickly

deteriorated into large areas of barren sandy soils. The watershed experienced

increased periods of drought and frequent flooding events.

The aquatic ecosystem shifted during this period of severe landscape

degradation and modification. The drastic changes to the landscape and

watercourse negatively impacted the Atlantic salmon and brook trout populations.

Prior to the landscape changes, Atlantic salmon populations in the early 1800s

were reported to be so abundance that in “1801, James Sculthorpe, together with

an uncle, speared 300 salmon in one evening” (Richardson, 1944). Shortly after

the first dam was built residence began noticing a decline in Atlantic salmon

populations (Christie, 1973). By the early 1860s the decline was so evident that

16


Samuel Wilmot, a resident of Wilmot Creek, started operating a hatchery to rear

young Atlantic salmon. Samuel Wilmot obtained adult fish from the Ganaraska

River for the hatchery stock and later tried stocking the river with the offspring.

However, despite the efforts to sustain the dwindling Atlantic salmon population,

they eventually disappeared from the Lake Ontario basin by 1895 (Department of

Energy and Resources Management, 1966). Brook trout populations were also

declining in considerable numbers during this period. Brook trout were reported

to historically range throughout the entire Ganaraska River Watershed. “It is

stated by residents of the district that native trout were, by 1880, gone from the

southern waters of the rivers and were, by 1890, very scarce in the northern

reaches” (Richardson, 1944).

2.5.3 From Restoration to the Present Ecosystem Clearing of the forest and damming of the river changed the rivers flow regime.

This resulted in numerous flooding events in the Port Hope area. Resource

managers responded in 1922 by initiating the first restoration program for the

Ganaraska River Watershed and active management of the water control

structures (GRCA, 1981). This initiation involved purchasing and opening Orono

Crown Land Nursery, to provide trees for reforestation the Ganaraska River

Watershed headwaters.

Researchers from the Royal Ontario Museum conducted the first fish species

inventory of the Ganaraska River in 1921. Sampling was conducted on the lower

mainstem of the Ganaraska River, near Highway 2. In 1927, the Department of

Game and Fisheries sampled further up stream along the main branch, finding

many tributaries supported brook trout. They reported brook trout were captured

in considerable numbers in the headwaters of the river; however it was noted

brook trout size and abundance decreased in the headwaters compared to brook

trout captured in the mainstem (Richardson, 1944). A list of the fish species first

sampled is summarized in Table 2.01. The Department of Game and Fisheries

and private landowners had been stocking brook trout in the Ganaraska River

two years prior of initial sampling in 1927.

17


The Department of Game and Fisheries first introduced European brown trout to

the Ganaraska River through a stocking program in 1933 (Department of Energy

and Resources Management, 1966). The first year, approximately 675 yearlings

were stocked in the lower reaches of the river. The next year, approximately

equal numbers of both yearlings and adults were stocked. At this time, resource

managers were placing efforts on stocking brown trout. They believed brown

trout would be more adapted to survive in the harsh environment of the lower

reaches than brook trout, which previously inhabited the lower reaches

Ganaraska River. Stocking of brook trout and brown trout in the river continued

on a rotational basis until the mid 1960s (Department of Energy and Resources

Management, 1966) and there is still some private stocking in ponds occurring

today in the watershed.

In 1941, the Guelph Conference was held at the Ontario Agricultural College.

This conference included the Ontario Government, Ontario Conservation and

Reforestation Association, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, The Ontario

Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Southern Ontario Section of the

Canadian Society of Forest Engineers, the Canadian Agricultural Society, the

Canadian Conservation Association, the Canadian Legion, and the Royal

Canadian Institute. The above organizations met for several meetings regarding

their increasing concerns over environmental problems linked to previous

mismanagement of the landscape (Richardson, 1944). The Ganaraska River

Watershed was chosen for the first conservation demonstration survey in the

province. The Chief Conservation Engineer of the Ontario Department of

Planning and Development, Dr. A.H. Richardson, was responsible for planning

and compiling the survey. The findings were produced in The Ganaraska Report.

The Ganaraska Report recommended many needed changes including

reforestation of the headwaters to control erosion, increased dam construction to

control flooding, and modification of the main channel for flood control; including

channel straightening and deepening. The Ganaraska Forest Center was

established to protect and restore the degraded agricultural lands of the

18


headwaters along the Oak Ridges Moraine. In 1946, the Conservation Authorities

Act was passed in Ontario Legislature and the Ganaraska River became one of

the first rivers regulated by a Conservation Authority in Canada (GRCA, 1981).

Over the next 5 years over 5,000,000 trees were planted on the newly acquired

460 hectares (1,150 acres) of conservation land. Today, the Ganaraska Forest

covers 4,200 hectares (10,400 acres) of the Ganaraska River Watershed

headwaters.

A supplementary report to the Ganaraska Report followed in 1966; this report

focused on the forest and wildlife present in the watershed. During August and

September of 1963, the Fish and Wildlife Branch of Lindsay District conducted a

large watershed study on the distribution of fish species present in the

Ganaraska River (Department of Energy and Resources Management, 1966).

Newly documented fish species from the study can be found listed in Table 2.01.

The remaining fisheries studies conducted since the 1963 inventory are

described and analysed in the following sections.

Since 1974, the Ganaraska Fishway has been in operation at Corbett’s dam.

Prior to its construction, migratory fish were manually lifted over the dam.

Corbett’s dam was the first barrier on the river that prevented migratory fish from

completing their annual journey into the upper watershed. The fishway was

designed to serve as a lamprey barrier but also acts as an excellent means of

evaluating the rainbow trout populations entering the river. An electronic fish

counter was installed in 1987 to record the number of migratory rainbow trout

passing through the fishway. A fish sanctuary is in place from Highway 401 south

to Jocelyn Street to protect the large concentration of salmon and trout as they

rest and prepare to run up the fishway steps. The Ganaraska River Fishway was

made possible due to a joint venture of the Ganaraska Region Conservation

Authority, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ontario Federation of

Anglers and Hunters, the Ganaraska Sportsmen’s Association, the Municipality

of Port Hope, and a host of volunteers from Port Hope and the surrounding area.

19


Land use can have a large influence on the structuring of the aquatic ecosystem.

The most recent land use information was revised in 2002 and is based on the

Ecological Land Classification System (ELC) for Southern Ontario (Figure 2.06).

Agriculture is the dominant land use in the Ganaraska watershed and accounts

for 57 percent of the total watershed area. The next dominant land use is forest

habitat, which accounts for 40 percent of the total watershed. The Ganaraska

Forest covers 16 percent of the Ganaraska River watershed. Urban areas (Port

Hope) accounts for 1.4 percent and rural residential areas accounts for 5.4

percent of the watershed cover. Two quarries located north of Kendal and

Canton represent 0.4 percent of the watershed land use. The Ganaraska River

watershed is among the least developed watersheds along the Lake Ontario

shoreline. Considerable effort has taken place over years to restore, conserve,

and maintain this healthy coldwater river and its watershed.

20


Figure 2.01. Residential areas, major roads, and large dams in the Ganaraska River Watershed

21


22

Figure 2.02. Elevation of the Ganaraska River Watershed.

GAN

Figure 2.

ARASKA RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT

23


4 5

8

6 9

10 7

13

32

15

16

11 14

1

12

03. Main tributaries of Ganaraska River Watershed 23

1

14 11

16

15

23

710

9 6

8

5

kson Dam

`12

13 4

Catchment 1. Corbett Dam to Canton Dam

2. Canton Dam to Osaca

3. Osaca to Kendal – downstream of Jac

11.Lower Little Ganaraska – downstream Elizabethville

Dam to Cold Springs Creek

12. Soper Branch

13. Burnham Branch

14. Duck Pond Branch

15. Elliott Stream

16. Welcome “Henwood Stream”


4. Headwater mainstem – upstream of Jackson Dam

5. Quay’s Branch

6. North Ganaraska -Canton

7. North Ganaraska – upstream Garden Hill Dam

8. North Ganaraska – upstream Fudge’s Mill Dam

9. Cold Springs Creek

10. Upper Little Ganaraska- upstream Elizabethville Dam

Figure 2.04. Ganaraska River Watershed Catchments

Jen

GANAR

Figure 2.05

ASKA RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT

25. Surficial Geology of the Ganaraska River Watershed, with a 1.5km surrounding buffer

This map is for information purposes only and the Ganaraska RegionConservation Authority takes no responsibility for, nor guarantees, theaccuracy of the information contained within the map. Prepared byGanaraska Region Conservation Authority: January 2007. Producedusing information provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources, GRCAand other municipal sources, Copyright (c) Queen's Printer, 2007


Figure 2.06. Land use/land cover of the Ganaraska River Watershed using Ecological Land Classification (

This map is for information purposes oConservation Authority takes no responaccuracy of the information containedGanaraska Region Conservation Authusing information provided by the Ministand other municipal sources, Copyright (

26ELC) from 2002 26

nly and the Ganaraska Regionsibility for, nor guarantees, the within the map. Prepared byority: January 2007. Producedry of Natural Resources, GRCAc) Queen's Printer, 2007


Table 2.01. List of the fish species first documentation in the Ganaraska River Watershed

Scientific Name Common Name First Documented Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon 1993 ** Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook salmon 1997 ** Oncorhynchus mykiss rainbow trout 1963 * Salmo salar Atlantic salmon 1673 **** Salmo trutta brown trout 1933 **** Salvelinus fontinalis brook trout 1673 **** Umbra limi central mudminnow 1993 ** Catostomus commersoni white sucker 1921 **** Hypentelium nigricans northern hog sucker 1993 ** Phoxinus eos northern redbelly dace 1963 * Phoxinus neogaeus finescale dace 2004 Hybognathus hankinsoni brassy minnow 2004 Nocomis biguttatus hornyhead chub 1963 * Notemigonus crysoleucas golden shiner 1995 ** Notropis atherinoides emerald shiner 1999 ***** Luxilus cornutus common shiner 1963 * Notropis heterolepis blacknose shiner 1973 ****** Notropis hudsonius spottail shiner 1995 ** Pimephales notatus bluntnose minnow 1921 **** Pimephales promelas fathead minnow 1963 * Rhinichthys obtusus western blacknose dace 1921 **** Rhinichthys cataractae longnose dace 1963 * Semotilus atromaculatus creek chub 1921 **** Ameiurus nebulosus brown bullhead 1998 ***** Culaea inconstans brook stickleback 1963 * Ambloplites rupestris rock bass 1963 * Lepomis gibbosus pumpkinseed 1973 *** Micropterus dolomieu smallmouth bass 1973 *** Micropterus salmoides largemouth bass 1973 ****** Perca flavescens yellow perch 1993 ** Etheostoma nigrum johnny darter 1921 **** Etheostoma caeruleum rainbow darter 1963 * Cottus bairdi mottled sculpin 1993 ** Cottus cognatus slimy sculpin 1963 *

*Department of Energy and Resources Management, 1966. ** Habprog database, retrieved May 2004. *** Ministry of Natural Resources, 1976. **** Richardson, 1944. *****Unpublished dataset, 2001 ******Unpublished dataset, 1973

27


Section 3: Fisheries Data and Standardization

3.1 Data Sets

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Ganaraska Region Conservation

Authority, and various other academics and environmental agencies have

conducted fisheries research on the Ganaraska River Watershed over the past

40 years.

Fisheries data were compiled for the Ganaraska River Watershed from a variety

of watershed based projects. Fisheries data were obtained from an Aquatic

Inventory Survey conducted in 1973, Fisheries Monitoring program in 1974,

1975, 1977, and 1978, Stream Juvenile Migratory Salmonid Index in 1993 –

ongoing, Atlantic Salmon Fry Stocking Assessment project in 1995, 1996, 1997,

1998 and 1999, Oak Ridges Moraine Watershed Study project in 1995, OMNR

Fish Survey for the Ganaraska River project in 1997, 1998, and 1999, Lake

Ontario Bioregional Modeling project in 2002, and Ganaraska River Fisheries

Management Plan project in 2004 and 2005.

3.1.1. Fisheries Data The original raw data were obtained from the Aquatic Habitat Inventory Survey

and Fisheries Monitoring program sampled in 1973 to 1978. The data set

included 34 sites representing the entire watershed. Sampling was intensive

1973 and a monitoring program continued to sample 10 of the 34 sites from 1974

to 1978. Fish were captured using backpack electrofishing and only catch

numbers were recorded. Representative samples were taken from all the fish

species captured and sent to the Royal Ontario Museum for species verification.

Digital copies of the data sets were obtained from the Stream Juvenile Migratory

Salmonid Index project, which began in 1993 and continues to be a yearly

monitoring program of the OMNR’s Lake Ontario Management Unit. The data set

28


includes five sites; three sites are located on the Mainstem and two sites are on

Cold Spring’s Creek. Fisheries data includes catch numbers, fork length, and

weight measurements. Fish were captured using electrofisher backpack unit at

GN04, GN05 and GN08 sites, and a streamside electrofisher shore unit at GN06

and GN07 sites (Bowlby, 1995). Blocker nets were placed at the top of each site.

Fish were identified in the field and any unidentifiable fish were later identified in

the lab.

The digital data set of the Atlantic Salmon Fry Stocking Assessment, Oak Ridges

Moraine Watershed Study, and the Lake Ontario Bioregional Modeling projects

were obtained from the master copy of Habprog’s database (Microsoft Access

based) maintained by OMNR’s Great Lakes Stream Ecology Unit in Glenora, ON.

The Atlantic Salmon Fry Stocking Assessment project had 15 monitoring sites

from 1995 to 1999. The majority of the sites were located on North Ganaraska

Branch and a few sites were located in the Headwater mainstem. The Oak

Ridges Moraine Watershed Study project sampled 3 sites randomly located in

the watershed. The Lake Ontario Bioregional Modeling project sampled 9 sites

across the headwaters of the watershed. Fisheries data was collected following

the standard Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (Stanfield, 2005). Fisheries

data included catch numbers, individual total length and weight measurements

for salmonid species and bulk weight measurement for all other species

Digital data set of OMNR Fish Survey for the Ganaraska River project was

obtained from Leon Carl at the USGS Great Lakes Science Center. Fish and

aquatic habitat data were collected from 19 sites along the Mainstem and Soper

Branch, however only 15 sites were included in this report, as the location of 4

sites were unknown (J.D. Whall Environmental, 2001). Fish were captured using

an electrofisher shore unit or an electrofisher towboat. Shocker seconds and

catch numbers were recorded. Weight and total length were recorded for the first

twenty-five fishes of each species from each size class (>75mm and <75mm).

29


Digital data set copies of Ganaraska River Fisheries Management Plan project

was obtained from the Habprog’s database stored at the Ganaraska Region

Conservation Authority office. Fish and aquatic habitat data were collected from

30 sites located across the watershed from 2002 to 2004. Data were collected

following the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (Stanfield, 2005). Fish were

captured using an electrofishing backpack unit. Fisheries data included catch

numbers, individual total length and weight measurements for salmonid species

and bulk weight measurements for all other species.

3.1.2. Physical Habitat Data The original physical habitat raw data were obtained from the Aquatic Habitat

Inventory Survey and Fisheries Monitoring program sampled in 1973 to 1978.

Aquatic habitat data were collected from all 34 sites in the first sampling season

between June 25 and July 24. Site length was sampled at a standard 40 meters

length (Dodge et al., 1979) and majority of sites, were sampled up stream of a

road crossing. Aquatic habitat data collected included channel width, water

depth, water velocity, percent substrate distribution (visual estimates), instream

cover, dominant riparian vegetation, stream slope, water quality, and water

temperature. The Stream Juvenile Migratory Salmonid Index project did not

collect aquatic habitat data. Site length and wetted width were measured for each

sampling event.

The Atlantic Salmon Fry Stocking Assessment, Oak Ridges Moraine Watershed

Study, and Lake Ontario Bioregional Modeling projects collected aquatic habitat

data for all 27 sites. Habitat data was collected following the standard Ontario

Stream Assessment Protocol (Stanfield, 2005). Habitat data collected included

site length, wetted width, water depth, hydraulic head, point and maximum

substrate measurements, instream cover, dominant vegetation, and water

temperature.

The OMNR Fish Survey for the Ganaraska River project collected aquatic habitat

data at all the fish sampling stations each year. Aquatic habitat data collected

30


followed the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol with some modifications (J.D.

Whall Environmental, 2001). Aquatic habitat data collected included site length,

wetted width, water depth, hydraulic head, point and maximum substrate

measurements, and water temperature.

The Ganaraska River Fisheries Management Plan project collected aquatic

habitat data at the 30 sampling stations,. Habitat data were collected following

the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (Stanfield, 2005). The Aquatic habitat

data set included site length, wetted width, water depth, hydraulic head, point

and maximum substrate measurements, instream cover, dominant vegetation,

and water temperature.

3.1.3. Water Quality Data The Ganaraska Region Water Quality Monitoring Network (GRWQMN) is a water

quality monitoring program that is run independently by the Ganaraska Region

Conservation Authority. The GRWQMN began in the summer of 2002 and

supplements the data collected by the Provincial Water Quality Monitoring

Network (PWQMN). The PWQMN is a partnership between the Ganaraska

Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) and the Ministry of Environment (MOE),

which has nine sites in the GRCA watershed and samples 36 parameters. The

PWQMN program has been running since 1965 with most sites dating back to

the mid 1970s.

The samples in this program were collected in periods of lower flows in an effort

to minimize effects of altered water chemistry during high flows. This was done

because of the limited sample numbers; higher flows are sampled by the

PWQMN.

The parameters collected in the GRWQMN are alkalinity, pH, conductivity, total

suspended solids (TSS), turbidity, chloride (sampling initiating 2004), dissolved

oxygen, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia ammonium, unionized ammonia, phosphorus,

Escherichia coli, and total coliforms.

31


3.1.4 Water Quantity Data Set Water quantity is a measure of the volume of water flowing past a fixed point in a

fixed unit of time. Stream discharge measurements are used to map the

distribution of baseflow within a watershed, as discharge is not uniformly

distributed due to the nature of groundwater flow and variations in topography

and geology.

In 2004 the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority attempted to quantify the

volumes of water that each of the tributaries are providing to the Ganaraska

River. The data collected was gathered during periods of low flow. This is defined

as a period with at least 72 hours of dry weather. Data were collected using a

standard panel method for quantifying flows (Hinton, 2004). The points measured

were selected near road crossings and evenly distributed throughout the system.

All sites were measured using the same Gurley Pygmy meter. Sampling points

were selected to be in laminar flow conditions. The number of point

measurements used at each site was 20 as a rule but was lower in some very

small systems; all point measurements used 1 minute duration.

The main source of error for this section is water consumption occurring

upstream of the area sampled without the knowledge of the sampler. This is

likely to occur due to the fact that all measurements were taken during periods of

low flow when irrigation is most likely occurring. However, an attempt was made

to view all of the road crossings on a branch during the time it was sampled but

this will only identify water takings at roads and will miss any which are away

from public roadways. Human error is another factor, which is most likely to occur

during flow readings. If the stream is too shallow there can be friction on the

meter, and substrates consisting of large stones may influence stream flow.

These problems were addressed by looking for areas with laminar flow of over

90mm depth (Hinton, 2004). There are also several dams on the system that can

have great influence when water levels are adjusted in private ponds.

32


3.2 Sources of Variation in the Data Sets

3.2.1 Fish Identification For most of the fisheries data collected, fish were identified to the level of species

in the field. Some of the species present in the Ganaraska River Watershed have

exceedingly similar morphometric and meristic characters that make field

identification difficult. The sculpin (Cottidae) family is an example where both

mottled and slimy sculpin species have been documented in the watershed. It is

difficult to be certain on their identification, as the key difference is the presences

or absences of palatine teeth (Scott and Crossman, 1985). Therefore in this

study the sculpin family was not separated to species.

3.2.2 Electrofishing Effort Electrofishing effort was not taken into account when standardizing the catch

data. Most projects conducted a single pass survey that results in the capture of

approximately 60-70 % of the total present fish population (Stanfield, 2005).

3.3 Standardization Procedures

Fisheries data was standardized for the area sampled (Appendix A). The area

sampled was calculated by multiplying the mean width by the site length. The

area sampled was then divided by the total number of fish sampled for each

species at each sampling station. The bulk weight for each species sampled at

each station was then divided by area sampled.

Fisheries and aquatic habitat data were transformed before being statistical

analyzed. Each variable was transformed using the standard score equation. The

standard score equation is the raw value subtracted by the mean then divided by

the standard deviation. This transformation places each variable on the same

relative scale but does not alter the distribution of observations within a variable

(Zar, 1999).

33


Section 4: Longitudinal distribution pattern

4.1 Objectives

The objective of this section is to describe the fish species distribution patterns and

habitat conditions in the Ganaraska River Watershed. A series of descriptive maps and

figures are provided, describing the density and biomass patterns for the most common

species present in the river along with habitat characteristics measured from sites. The

maps and figures will be presented in a longitudinal pattern. Patterns for each species

and habitats will be discussed. This section is linked to the next section, which explores

whether theses species are found in associated with each other and reflect distinct

communities that can be associated with habitat.

4.2 Methods

A series of distribution maps and figures were created for the dominant fish species in

the basin. The salmonid catches were separated into two size categories based on the

length frequency graphs, which showed binomial distribution (Appendix B). The break in

length distributions was used to estimate the criteria for sorting young of the year and

juvenile/adult. Brook trout length distributions showed separation occurring at less than

90mm total length and greater than 90mm total length (Appendix B.1). Brown trout

length distributions showed separation occurring at less than 100mm total length and

greater than 100mm total length (Appendix B.2). Rainbow trout length distributions

showed separation occurring at less than 90mm total length and greater than 90mm

total length (Appendix B.3). All other fish species were not sorted into size categories.

All catches were standardized as described previously (Section 3.3). Sites were

classified into five categories that reflect the percentiles of the maximum average

density observed. These were calculated by averaging the density estimates at each

site and then ranking this value as a percentile of all observations, where the highest

34


density represented the 100th percentile. The ranks were as follows: zero catches, >0 -

25th, 26th – 50th, 51th – 75th, and >75th percentile.

Each map has a legend that provides the range of density values that comprise each of

the five ranks. Each map will have different threshold values between the categories

that reflect density differences between the species. The species plotted are as follows:

brook trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, white sucker, blacknose dace, longnose dace,

creek chub, Johnny darter, sculpins, and all other species captured.

A similar process was followed for creating the physical habitat, water quality, and water

quantity maps. Sites were separated into categories that reflect the amount of that

variable at each site. Physical habitat variables plotted included summer maximum

water temperature, percent rock and percent wood as cover (particles that were at least

100 mm along their median axis), percent substrate particle compositions (fines <2mm,

gravel 2-100, cobble 2 – 100, cobble 101 – 1000, and clay). Water quality variables

sampled to reflect the physical, chemical and biological conditions of the sites. Water

quality variables sampled include alkalinity, pH, turbidity, ammonia-ammonium, nitrate,

phosphorus, Escherichia coli (E.coli), and total coliforms. Averages were taken from the

water quality variables sampled in 2003, 2004, and 2005 between May and October.

Water quality variables were sorted by percentile then by Ontario standard for maximum

acceptable limits set in the Provincial Water Quality Objectives guidelines (PWQO’s)

(MOE, 1999) and by Canadian Environmental Water Quality Guidelines (CEWQ)

(CCME, 2003).

4.3 Fish Species Distribution Patterns

4.3.1 Brook Trout

Brook trout were found in the headwaters and upper tributary reaches of watershed

(Figure 4.01 and 4.02). The only exception was along the Cold Springs Creek,

(Catchments 9 and 11), where brook trout were sampled throughout the tributary.

35


Brook trout showed a longitudinal trend increasing in density and biomass towards the

headwaters (Figure 4.03 and 4.04).

4.3.2 Brown Trout

Brown trout were widely distributed throughout the watershed. The highest densities

were found in highest density in the upper reaches of the Mainstem (Catchments 3 and

4), Soper Branch and North Ganaraska Branch (Catchment 7) section above Canton

dam towards the 7th Concession, respectively (Figure 4.05 and 4.06). Brown trout

density did not show any longitudinal correlation, however biomass did show positive

correlation towards the headwaters (Figure 4.07 and 4.08).

4.3.3 Rainbow Trout

Rainbow trout were present in all tributaries except for the North Ganaraska Branch

(Figure 4.09 and 4.10). Highest rainbow trout abundance was found on the Mainstem

(Catchment 2). There were no significant correlation with upstream distance and

density or biomass of rainbow trout (Figure 4.11and 4.12).

4.3.4 White Sucker

White sucker were mainly found in the lower reaches of the Mainstem and North

Ganaraska Branch (Figure 4.13). White sucker were sampled in high abundance above

several large dams indicating that there are resident populations in the watershed

(Figure 4.14).

4.3.5 Blacknose Dace

The highest blacknose dace abundance was found in the North Ganaraska Branch,

Quay’s Branch, and Duck Pond Branch (respectively) (Figure 4.15). Blacknose dace

were also present in lower densities along the Mainstem and decreased in abundance

towards the headwaters (Figure 4.16).

36


4.3.6 Longnose Dace

The highest longnose dace abundance was found in North Ganaraska Branch, Quay’s

Branch, Duck Pond Branch and the lower reaches of the Mainstem (respectively)

(Figure 4.17). Longnose dace density and biomass showed positive inverse relationship

with distance to Lake Ontario (Figure 4.18).

4.3.7 Creek Chub

The highest Creek Chub abundance was present in the North Ganaraska Branch,

Quay’s Branch, Duck Pond Branch and lower reaches of the main branch (respectively)

(Figure 4.19). Creek chub showed no relationship with distance to Lake Ontario (Figure

4.20).

4.3.8 Johnny Darter

Johnny darter(s) was present in Quay’s Branch, Duck Pond Branch and lower reaches

of the Mainstem (respectively) (Figure 4.21). Johnny darter density and biomass

showed an inverse relationship with distance to Lake Ontario (Figure 4.22)

4.3.9 Sculpins

Slimy and mottled sculpin are both present in the watershed. Highest abundance of

slimy sculpin was found in the upper reaches of the Mainstem and Soper Creek. Mottled

sculpin were only confirmed to be present in Duck Pond Branch. No sculpins were

sampled in Cold Spring Creek and North Ganaraska Branch section above Canton dam

towards the 7th Concession (Figure 4.23). Sculpin density and biomass increased

towards the headwaters (Figure 4.24).

4.4 Habitat Patterns

4.4.1 Water Temperature

Summer water temperatures along the main branch of the river showed decreasing

thermal regime from warmer in lower reaches to colder in the headwaters (Figure 4.25).

Based on the summer daily maximum thermal classification (Stoneman and Jones,

37


1996) all sites were classified as coldwater (below 19oC) or coolwater (19 – 25oC)

habitat, there were no warmwater (above 25oC) sites sampled.

Welcome “Henwood Stream” was the only warmwater catchment in the entire

watershed, with a temperature of 26.7oC. Half of the Ganaraska River Watershed

catchments were defined as coolwater, and dominate the central-south east portions of

the watershed. The remaining catchments are coldwater, which can be found in the

headwaters of the watershed, with the exception of Catchments 9 and 13.

4.4.2 Physical Habitat

A variety of physical habitat parameters were sampled at most of the fish sampling

stations. Physical habitat parameters sampled include average wetted channel width,

average water depth, and point particle counts to represent the substrate composition

(shown as percent fines, gravel, cobble and clay). The average wetted channel width

and average water depth showed a decreasing longitudinal trend towards the

headwaters (Figure 4.26 and 4.27). Sites with a high percent fines were sampled mostly

along the headwaters with a few exceptions throughout the tributaries (Figure 4.28).

High percent gravel sites were sampled along the main branch headwaters, Soper

Branch and North Ganaraska (Figure 4.29). Percent cobble substrate did not show

distinct patterns in any tributaries however cobble is present throughout the watershed

and would be better represented by examining maximum particle per sample of the

percent cobble (Figure 4.30). Percent clay substrate were sampled throughout the lower

Mainstem and in the headwaters of the North Ganaraska Branch (Figure 4.31)

4.4.3 Water Quality

The Ganaraska River overall has healthy water quality. Physical water quality

parameters sampled were within the normal range of fresh water streams. Alkalinity

was within the typical levels for stable fresh water streams (Figure 4.32 and 4.33). PH

was sampled to be on the alkaline (or basic) scale but was still within the normal range

of fresh water streams (Figure 4.34). Most tributary mean conductivity measurements

38


were within the normal range for fresh water streams and within the desired range for

supporting healthy productive fisheries (EPA, 2003) (Figure 4.35). Duck Pond Branch,

Quay’s Branch and Cold Springs Creek tributaries had higher than desired conductivity

measurements however, were within the acceptable range (Figure 4.36). Chloride

samples were well below the water quality objectives (Figure 4.37).

Most chemical water quality parameters sampled were within normal range of fresh

water streams. Nitrate concentrations varied across the tributaries but were all below

the maximum acceptable limit (13 mg/L) for sustaining aquatic life (CCME, 2003)

(Figure 4.38 and 4.39). Nitrate concentrations of 4 mg/L are considered typical for fresh

water streams while concentration above 10 mg/L begin to have negative impacts on

the aquatic community (MOE, 1999). Ammonia-ammonium was sampled in very low

concentrations (compared to the standard set of 10 mg/L for drinking water and 20 mg/L

for PWQO) all throughout the watershed (Figure 4.40). The mean phosphorus

concentrations sampled were all above the PWQO in the Mainstem and Cold Springs

Creek (Figure 4.41).

Biological water quality parameters sampled exceeded the PWQO. Most tributary mean

E.coli counts were sampled below the PWQO’s standard except for Quay’s and

Burnham Branch (Figure 4.42 and 4.43). A similar pattern was observed with total

coliform counts where Quay’s and Burnham Branch were the only tributaries that

exceeded the PWQO (Figure 4.44 and 4.45).

4.4.5 Water Quantity

Water sources for many of the tributaries originate from the Oak Ridges Moraine, which

serves as a major recharge zone within the watershed (Chapman and Putnam, 1984).

Summer base flow measurements of 2004 identified several discharge zones along

different reaches of the basin. The highest discharge area was above Canton to Osaca

on the Mainbranch. This area is associated with the Lake Iroquois shoreline and has

groundwater discharge occurring (Funk, 1977). Other areas along the Oak Ridges

39


Moraine also showed net gain in surface water discharge; these reaches were along the

headwaters of the Mainstem, Soper Creek and North Ganaraska Branch (above Garden

Hill). Loses in surface water discharge were sampled in several different reaches in the

Ganaraska River Watershed. Surface water loses were sampled below Canton on the

Mainstem, lower Little Ganaraska, the reach on North Ganaraska from Canton to

Campbellcroft, Welcome tributary, and lower reach of Quay’s Branch (respectively). The

surface water loss sampled on the Mainstem below Canton is due to the water pumping

station and large irrigation system operating along this section. The surface water loss

sampled at the confluence of Little Ganaraska and Cold Springs has an operating water

pumping station. The surface water loss along the North Ganaraska Branch above

Canton Dam to Garden Hill Dam may have been influenced by the operations regime of

the downstream hydroelectric dam. The surface water loss sampled on Welcome

tributary is a smaller tributary with low flow and depth except behind the large beaver

dam, since the sampling event the headwaters have been drained.

40


rpo

41

Figure 4.01. Mean density of brook trout (all sizes combined) at each of the sampling station. Mean density of every station was separated into 5 categories: none captured, 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th percentile and greater than 75th percentile.

This map is for information pu ses only and the Ganaraska RegionConservation Authority takes no responsibility for, nor guarantees, theaccuracy of the information contained within the map. Prepared byGanaraska Region Conservation Authority: January 2007. Producedusing information provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources, GRCAand other municipal sources, Copyright (c) Queen's Printer, 2007


42

Figure 4.02. Mean density of brook trout (<70mm TL) at each sampling station. Mean density of every station was separated into 5 categories: none captured, 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th percentile and greater than 75th percentile.



0.0

0

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00

Distance to Lake Ontario (km)

0.00

0.09

0.18

0.26

0.36

0.47

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.11

1.20

Bro

ok T

rout

Den

sity

(#/m

2 )

Headwater Mainstem (4) Mainstem (69) Burnham Branch (2) Soper Creek (16) Cold Springs Creek (13) Little Ganaraska Branch (5) Elliott Stream (1) North Ganaraska (50) Welcome Branch (1) Quay's Branch (5) Duck Pond Branch (5)

0.00

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.0

0


0.00

0.76

1.57

2.94

3.86

5.00

6.00

7.00

7.81

9.00

Bro

ok T

rout

Bio

mas

s (g

r/m2 )

Headwater Mainstem (4) Mainstem (40) Burnham Branch (2) Soper Creek (7) Cold Springs Creek (13) Little Ganaraska Branch (5) Elliott Stream (1) North Ganaraska (50) Welcome Branch (1) Quay's Branch(5) Duck Pond Branch (5)

Figure 4.03. Density and biomass of brook trout (all sizes combined)captured vs distance to Lake Ontario.

43


0.0

0

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.

78

40.0

0

45.

00


0.00

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.15

0.18

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Bro

wn

Trou

t Den

sity

(#/m

2 )


0.0

0

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.0

0


0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

22.00

24.00

Bro

wn

Trou

t Bio

mas

s (g

r/m2 )


Figure 4.04. Density and biomass of brook trout (<70mmT.L.) captured vs distance to Lake Ontario.

44

GANARASKA RIVER W

Figure 4.05

station was greater than

ATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT

This map is for information purposes only and the Ganaraska RegionConservation Authority takes no responsibility for, nor guarantees, theaccuracy of the information contained within the map. Prepared by Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority: January 2007. Produced using information provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources, GRCAand other municipal sources, Copyright (c) Queen's Printer, 2007

. Mean density of brown trout (all sizes combined) at each sampling station. Mean density of every separated into 5 categories: none captured, 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th percentile and 75th percentile.

45

GANARASKA RIVER

Figure 4.06station wasgreater than

WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT

This map is for information purposes only and the GanaraskaRegion Conservation Authority takes no responsibility for, norguarantees, the accuracy of the information contained within themap. Prepared by Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority:January 2007. Produced using information provided by theMinistry of Natural Resources, GRCA and other municipalsources, Copyright (c) Queen's Printer, 2007

46

. Mean density of brown trout (<70mm TL) at each sampling station. Mean density of every separated into 5 categories: none captured, 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th percentile and 75th percentile.


0.00

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00

Dis tan ce t o La ke Onta rio (km)

0.00

0.03

0.06

0.09

0.15

0.18

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

Bro

wn

Trou

t Den

sity

(#/

m2 )


0.00

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00


0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

22.00

24.00

Bro

wn

Trou

t Bio

mas

s (g

r/m2 )


Figure 4.07. Density and biomass of brown trout (all sizes combined)captured vs distance to Lake Ontario.

47


0.0

0

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00


0.00

0.01

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.07

0.10

0.12

0.14

Bro

wn

Trou

t Den

sity

(#/m

2 )


0.0

0

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.

00

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00

Di stance to L ake On tario (km)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Bro

wn

Trou

t Bio

mas

s (g

r/m2 )


Figure 4.08. Density and biomass of brown trout (<70mm TL) captured vs distance to Lake Ontario.

48

GANARASK

A RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT


Figure 4.09. Mean density of rainbow trout (all sizes) at each sampling station. Mean densstation was separated into 5 categories: none captured, 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th pegreater than 75th percentile.

49

ity of everyrcentile and

GANARASKA RIVER

Figure 4.10station wasgreater than

WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT


. Mean density of rainbow trout (<70mm TL) at each sampling station. Mean density of every separated into 5 categories: none captured, 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th percentile and 75th percentile.

50


0.00

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.0

0

D ist ance t o La ke Ont ar io (km)

0.00

0.06

0.13

0.19

0.26

0.35

0.45

0.60

0.70

0.78

0.90

Rai

nbow

Tro

ut D

ensi

ty (#

/m2 )


0.0

0

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.

78

40.0

0

45.

00


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.60

2.80

Rai

nbow

Tro

ut B

iom

ass

(gr/m

2 )


Figure 4.11. Density and biomass of rainbow trout (all sizes combined) captured vs distance to Lake Ontario.

51


0.00

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.0

0


0.00

0.06

0.11

0.17

0.30

0.35

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

Rai

nbow

Tro

ut D

ens

ity (#

/m2 )

Headwater Mainstem (4) Mainstem (40) Burnham Branch (2) Soper Creek (7) Cold Springs Creek (13) Little Ganaraska Branch(5) Elliott Stream (1) North Ganaraska (50) Welcome Branch (1) Quay's Branch (5) Duck Pond Branch (5)

0.0

0

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.0

0


0.00

0.15

0.30

0.46

0.63

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

Rai

nbow

Tro

ut B

iom

ass

(gr/m

2 )


Figure 4.12. Density and biomass of rainbow trout (<70mmTL) captured vs distance to Lake Ontario.

52



Figure 4.13. Map displays mean density of white sucker (all sizes combined) at each samplingMean density of every station was separated into 5 categories: none captured, 25th percentile,percentile, 75th percentile and greater than 75th percentile.

53

station. 50th


0.0

0

4.18

7.4

6

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00

Di sta nce to Lake Onta rio (km)

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.10

0.11

0.12

0.14

0.16

Whi

te S

ucke

r Den

sity

(#/m

2 )


0.0

0

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00


0.00

0.84

1.82

2.64

4.00

5.99

8.00

10.00

11.43

Whi

te S

ucke

r Bio

mas

s (g

r/m2 )


Figure 4.14. Density and biomass of white sucker (all sizes combined) captured vs distance to Lake Ontario.

54


55

Figure 4.15. Mean density of blacknose dace (all sizes combined) at each sampling station. Mean density of every station was separated into 5 categories: none captured, 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th percentile and greater than 75th percentile.

This map is for information purposes only and the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority takes no responsibility for, nor guarantees, the accuracy of the information contained within the map. Prepared by Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority: January 2007. Produced using information providedby the Ministry of Natural Resources, GRCA and other municipal sources, Copyright (c) Queen's Printer, 2007


0.00

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00


0.00

0.11

0.22

0.34

0.45

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.13

1.40

1.60

Bla

ckno

se D

ace

Den

sity

(#/m

2 )


0.00

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00


0.00

0.28

0.58

0.87

1.22

1.50

1.97

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Bla

ckno

se D

ace

Bio

mas

s (g

r/m2 )


Figure 4.16. Density and biomass of blacknose dace (all sizes combined) captured vs distance to Lake Ontario.

56

GANA

RASKA RIVER W

Figure 4.17. MMean density opercentile, 75t


57


ap displays mean density of longnose dace (all sizes combined) at each sampling station. f every station was separated into 5 categories: none captured, 25th percentile, 50th

h percentile and greater than 75th percentile.


0.00

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00


0.00

0.03

0.06

0.10

0.13

0.16

0.20

0.25

0.29

0.34

0.39

0.43

Long

nose

Dac

e D

ensi

ty (#

/m2 )


0.0

0

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.0

0


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

2.40

2.77

3.00

Long

nose

Dac

e B

iom

ass

(gr/m

2 )


Figure 4.18. Density and biomass of longnose dace (all sizes combined) captured vs distance to Lake Ontario.

58

GANARASKA RIVE

Figure 4.1station wasgreater tha

R WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT

59


9. Mean density of creek chub (all sizes combined) at each sampling station. Mean density of every separated into 5 categories: none captured, 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th percentile and n 75th percentile.


0.00

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00


0.00

0.14

0.32

0.45

0.60

0.80

0.92

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

Cre

ek C

hub

Den

sity

(#/m

2 )


0.00

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.0

0


0.00

0.63

1.24

1.95

2.63

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

Cre

ek C

hub

Bio

ma

ss (g

r/m2 )

Headwater Mains tem (4) Mains tem (40) Burnham Branch (2) Soper C reek (7) Cold Springs Creek (13) L it tle Ganaraska Branch (5) El liot t S tream (1) North Ganaraska (50) W elcome Branch (1) Quay's Branch (5) Duck Pond Branch (5)

Figure 4.20. Density and biomass of creek chub (all sizes combined) captured vs distance to Lake Ontario.

60

GANARA

SKA RIVER WA

Figure 4.21. Mevery station wpercentile and

TERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT


ean density of Johnny darter (all sizes combined) at each sampling station. Mean density of as separated into 5 categories: none captured, 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th

greater than 75th percentile.

61


0.0

0

4.18

7.4

6

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00


0.00

0.01

0.03

0.05

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

0.22

John

ny D

arte

r De

nsity

(#/m

2 )


0.0

0

4.18

7.4

6

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00

Di sta nce to Lake Onta rio (km)

0.00

0.02

0.03

0.05

0.07

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

0.22

0.24

John

ny D

arte

r Bio

mas

s (g

r/m2 )


Figure 4.22. Density and biomass of Johnny darter (all sizes combined) captured vs distance to Lake Ontario.

62



Figure 4.23. Mean density of sculpin (all sizes combined) at each sampling station. Mean density ofstation was separated into 5 categories: none captured, 25th percentile, 50th percentile, 75th percengreater than 75thpercentile.

63

every tile and


0.0

0

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00


0.00

0.06

0.11

0.18

0.24

0.30

0.38

0.50

0.56

0.69

0.80

Scu

lpin

Den

sity

(#/m

2 )


0.00

4.18

7.46

10.7

0

14.0

0

18.0

0

22.8

1

26.0

6

29.1

0

32.2

1

35.7

8

40.0

0

45.

00


0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.51

0.62

0.75

1.00

1.17

1.40

Scu

lpin

Bio

mas

s (g

r/m2 )


Figure 4.24. Density and biomass of sculpin (all sizes combined) captured vs distance to Lake Ontario.

64

GANARAS

Figure 4the Ganar

Cold

Cool

Warm

Catchment

Site Temp

Coldw

Coolw

Warm

No d

KA RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT

65

Maximum summer water temperature (°C) by site and median maximum summer water temperature (°C) by catchment inatershed.

water (<18.9)

re (°C)

rature (°C)

.25.aska River W

water (19 – 25)

water (>25.1)

Temperatu

e This map is for information purposes only and the Ganaraska RegionConservation Authority takes no responsibility for, nor guarantees, theaccuracy of the information contained within the map. Prepared byGanaraska Region Conservation Authority: January 2007. Producedusing information provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources, GRCAand other municipal sources, Copyright (c) Queen's Printer, 2007

ater (<18.9)

ater (19 – 25)

water (>25.1)

ata

65

GANARASKA RI

Figure 4.

VER WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT


66

26. Average water depth measured at each sampling station.


67


Figure 4.27. Average wetted width measured at each sampling station.

GANARASKA RIVE

Figure 4.28


68


. Percentage of fines substrate (<2mm) measured in point particle counts at each sampling station.


69


Figure 4.29. Percentage of gravel substrate (>2 – 100mm) measured in point particle counts at each sampling station.

GANARASKA RIVE

Figure 4sampling


70


.30. Percentage of cobble substrate (100 – 1000 mm) measured in point particle counts at each station.

GANA

RASKA RIVE

Figure


71


4.31. Percentage of clay substrate measured in point particle counts at each sampling station.



Figure 4.32. Mean alkalinity measured as CaCO3 (mg/L) at each water quality sampling station

72

.

GANAR

ASKA RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT

73

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Main Stem Quay's Duck Pond NorthGanaraska

LittleGanaraska

Cold Springs Soper Burnham

Alk

alin

ity a

s C

aCO

3 (m

g/L

Min

25th

Mean

75th

Max

Figure 4.33. Range of variability in the alkalinity as CaCO3 (mg/L) measured across the tributaries.


6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

Main Branch Quay's Duck Pond NorthGanaraska

LittleGanaraska


pHPWQO 8.5

PWQO 6.5

Figure 4.34. Range of variability in the pH measurements across the tributaries.

74

Min

25th

Mean

75th

Max

GANARASKA RIVE

Figure 4


75


.35. Mean conductivity (US/cm2) measured at each water quality sampling station.


76

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400


LittleGanaraska


Con

duct

ivity

(US/

CM

2

Min

25th

Mean

75th

Max

Figure 4.36. Range of variability in the conductivity (US/cm2) measurements across the tributaries.

GANA

RASKA RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT

77

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Main Stem Quay's Duck Pond North Ganaraska Little Ganaraska Cold Springs Soper

Chl

orid

e (m

g/L) Min

25th

Mean

75th

Max

CWQG 250mg/l

Figure 4.37. Range of variability in the chloride (mg/L) measurements across the tributaries.



Figure 4.38. Mean nitrate (mg/L) measured at each water quality sampling station.

78

GANARA

SKA RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT

79

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


LittleGanaraska


Nitr

ate

(mg/

L)

Min

25th

Mean

75th

Max

CWQG 13mg/l

Figure 4.39. Range of variability in the nitrate (mg/L) measurements across the tributaries.


80

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


LittleGanaraska


Am

mon

ia-A

mm

oniu

m (m

g/L)

Min

25th

Mean

75th

Max

Figure 4.40. Range of variability in the ammonia-ammonium (mg/L) measurements across the tributaries.


81

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04


LittleGanaraska


Phos

phor

us (m

g/L)

Min

25th

Mean

75th

Max

PWQO .03mg/l

Figure 4.41. Range of variability in the phosphorous (mg/L) measurements across the tributaries.

GANARASKA RIVE

Figure 4.


82


42. Mean E.coli (CFU/100mL) measured at each water quality sampling station.


83

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000


LittleGanaraska


E.co

li (C

FU/1

00m

l

Min

25th

Mean

75th

Max

PWQO 100CFU/100ml

Figure 4.43. Range of variability in the E.coli (CFU/100mL) measurements across the tributaries.

GANARASKA RIVE

Figure 4.


84


44. Mean total coliform (CFU/100mL) measured at each water quality sampling station.


85

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000


LittleGanaraska


Tota

l Col

iform

s (C

FU/1

00m

L

Min

25th

Mean

75th

Max

PWQO 1000 CFU/100mL

Figure 4.45. Range of variability in the total coliforms (CFU/100mL) measurements across the tributaries.


Section 5: Longitudinal Distribution Analyses

5.1 Objective

The objective of this section is to analyze the fish species distribution patterns for

distinct community structure in the Ganaraska River. This section builds on the

previous section by analyzing the fisheries data for associations in the fish

species distribution patterns seen in the previous section. Habitat conditions will

be further explored to determine if there are associations with the fish species.

5.2 Methods for Analyzing the Fish Species Distribution Patterns

The mean relative abundance per sampling station was used to detect patterns

in the data set. The data set was normalized (using the standard score equation

= (raw score – mean)/ standard deviation). A normality test was then run on the

fisheries data to ensure that the data was normally distributed, which would

satisfy the assumptions required to run a parametric test.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is a multivariate parametric test commonly

used to quantify patterns in fish communities (McGarigal et al., 2000; Scheiner

and Guevitch, 1993). Principal component analyses were based on a correlation

matrix of the variance within fish communities sampled. Eigenvalue numbers

were calculated to describe the explanatory power of the principal components:

larger the eigenvalue greater the explanatory power of the principal component

(McGarigal et al., 2000). Scree plot criterion was used to determine the number

of significant components to retain and interpret (McGarigal et al., 2000).

Principal component loading values greater than ±0.35 were considered

significant, however more meaning was placed on loading scores greater than

±0.60 when classifying and interpreting the fish species density patterns

(McGarigal et al., 2000). The principal component analysis loading scores were

used to classify and group the dominant community patterns in the dataset.

86


5.3 Results

Principal component analyses of fish species standardized mean relative

abundance per sample stations were used to identify species associations within

the Ganaraska River basin. The scree plot curve indicated that the first four

component loading scores should be retained to explain the variance sampled

within fish community (Figure 5.01). The first four components of the principal

component analysis explained 70 percent of the total variance within fish species

mean density (Figure 5.01).

The first principal component explained 31% of the total variance of the relative

abundance. The first component represented a gradient from sculpin dominated

sites to cyprinids and white sucker dominated sites (Figure 5.02). The first

component sorted the community structure by pulling out sites with low species

diversity in a positive direction to sites with high species diversity in a negative

direction.

The second principal component explained 15% of the total variance of the

relative abundance. The second component represented a gradient of positive

loading scores for longnose dace presences to negative loading scores for

sculpin, brown trout and brook trout (Figure 5.02). The second component

separated sites sampled in the lower reach of the Mainstem, Quay’s Branch and

Duck Pond Branch in a positive direction and headwater sites in a negative

direction.

The third principal component explained 13% of the total variance of the relative

abundance. The third component represented a gradient of positive loading

scores for brown trout to negative loading scores for rainbow trout and Johnny

darter (Table 5.01). The third component further sorted headwater sites from

lower reach sites.

87


The fourth component explained 12% of the total variance of the relative

abundance. The fourth component represented a gradient of positive loading

scores for sites composed of brown trout and rainbow trout and negative loading

scores for brook trout dominated sites (Table 5.01).

Principal component loading scores indicated four dominate fish community

patterns sampled in the Ganaraska River Watershed. The first two component

loading scores sorted the fish community by either cyprinid dominated or sculpin

dominated sites (Figure 5.03). The third component loading scores sorted the

cyprinid dominated sites into classes, those dominated by brown trout and

cyprinids and those dominated by rainbow trout and cyprinids. The fourth

component scores further sorted the sites dominated with high abundance of

sculpin into brook trout and sculpin community, and brown trout and sculpin

community. The above results classified sites into four community groups,

characterizing clear community distribution pattern in the Ganaraska River

Watershed (Figure 5.04).

88

GANARASKA RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT Eigenvalues of correlation matrix

31.04%

14.78% 12.88% 11.83%

9.65% 7.51%

5.79% 4.72%

1.80%

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1

Eigenvalue number

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Eige

nval

ue

1

Figure 5.01. Scree plot displays the eigenvalue numbers that explains the amount of variance associated with each variable. The red line indicated the threshold separating factors with variance contributing greater than 1.

89


rainbow trout

brown troutbrook trout

white sucker blacknose dace

longnose dace

creek chub

johnny darter

sculpin

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

Factor 1 : 31.04%

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Fact

or 2

: 14

.78%

-

Figure 5.02. Projection of the fish species variables used on the factorplane (1x2).

90


8CO396

ORM495

KANADA02GAN0604

KEN90495

KEN90295GAN0504

GAN1004GAN0904

GN0493GN0494GN0495GN0497

GN0498GN0400GN0401GN0402

GN0403GN0404GAN0404

MCCR97MCCR98MCCR99GAN1104HEND97HEND98HEND99

LANG97LANG98

LANG99GAN1204GN1_493

SWMP97

SWMP98SWMP99DELLRD02

LADY97LADY98LADY99

GAN0304GAn0104

PATH98PATH99GAN0204GNMD97GNMD98GNMD99GAN1304GAN1404

GN0593GN05947GN0595GN0597GN0598GN0500GN0501GN0503GN0804GAN1504MCMILLIN02

GAN1804GAN1904GAN2004

GN1_593

WIGGINS02GN1_292FFUP97FFUP98FFUP99

FFDN97FFDN98FFDN99DRRG97DRRG98DRRG99SHAM97SHAM98SHAM99

GN0793GN0794GN0795GN0797GN0798GN0700GN0701GN0702GN0703GN0704LEUT97LEUT98LEUT99

FS0195

FS0295CHY295

CHY296CHY297CHY298CHY299CHY595

CHY596CHY597

CHY598CHY599

NOM395NOM396

NOM397NOM398NOM399NOM595

NOM596NOM597NOM598NOM599PIG395PIG396PIG397PIG398PIG399

PIG495PIG496PIG497

PIG499PIG696PIG697

PIG698PIG699

7CO3967CO6957CO6967CO7957CO796

GAN0405

GAN2104

DELL02GN1_192

GN1_393WILSON02WRIGHT02

ORM195

OAKHILL02WALKERS02BLDR97BLDR98BLDR99

GAN0305

GAN2204ORM895GAN2304GAN2504

GAN2404

GAn2604GAN2704GAN2804

GAN3004GAn0205

GN0693

GN0694

GN0695

GN0697GN0698

GN0600

GN0601GN0602GN0603

GN0604THMY97THMY98THMY99GRCA97GRCA98GRCA99

-18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Factor 1: 31.04%

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6Fa

ctor

2: 1

4.78

%

Rainbow Trout

Brown Trout and Brook Trout

Cyprinids

Figure 5.03. Projection of the site variables on factor plan (1x2).

91


Table 5.01. Principal component factor loading scores of the fish species relative abundance.

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Rainbow Trout 0.3396 -0.0066 -0.7331 0.3494

Brown Trout 0.3384 -0.3559 0.4800 0.5564 Brook Trout 0.2908 -0.4234 -0.0427 -0.7802 White Sucker -0.7108 -0.2148 0.1780 0.0701

Blacknose Dace -0.8345 -0.2712 0.0720 0.0227

Longnose Dace -0.3935 0.5756 0.0605 -0.0296

Creek Chub -0.8114 -0.4243 -0.1084 0.0485

Johnny Darter -0.5166 -0.0520 -0.5603 0.0619

Sculpin 0.4446 -0.6248 -0.1531 0.1088

92

GANARASKA RIVER W

Figure 5.04 component


This map is for information purposes only and the GanaraskaRegion Conservation Authority takes no responsibility for, norguarantees, the accuracy of the information contained withinthe map. Prepared by Ganaraska Region ConservationAuthority: January 2007. Produced using informationprovided by the Ministry of Natural Resources, GRCA andother municipal sources, Copyright (c) Queen's Printer, 2007

. Fish community groups classified by using the first three factors of the principal analyses.

93


Section 6: Temporal Analysis

6.1 Objective

The objective of this section is to examine the fisheries data set for evidence of

temporal trends. Fisheries data has been collected for several decades on the

Ganaraska River. The presence of temporal trends could support the patterns

identified in structuring of the fish communities.

6.2 Methods

The data set analyzed in this section was compiled from several different

fisheries assessment projects on the Ganaraska River previous discussed in

Section 3. No long-term monitoring stations were sampled prior to 1993. This

resulted in comparing sampling stations located within proximity to each other.

Data were summarized by catchments and sampling periods (Figure 6.01).

The data set represented in this section sampling periods ranged from 1973 to

2005. The data were sorted into three sampling periods. The first sampling

period was collected between 1973 and 1978. The second sampling period was

collected between 1993 and 1999. The third sampling period was collected

between 2000 and 2005. The break between the second and third sampling

periods was chosen arbitrarily.

For each catchment and sampling period the weight mean, minimum, maximum,

and standard error of the density of the dominant fish species were calculated

(Appendix C.1). Box plot graphs were made for each fish species per catchment

to examine the data set for trends over time. The species mean density per

catchment was tested for significant differences across the sampling periods

using a non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test (Zar, 1999). The sum of means

calculated for the Mann-Whitney U test were reported in Appendix C.2. The

results of the Mann-Whitney U test are reported in Table 6.01.

94


6.3 Results Similar temporal trends were observed throughout the watershed. Most fish

species density showed a significant decreased from the 1970s (1973-1978)

sampling period to the 1990s (1933-1999) sampling period followed by significant

increases in density in the 2000s (2000-2005) sampling period. Differences in

species and catchment densities are discussed individually in the preceding

section.

6.3.1 Brook Trout

Brook trout showed significant temporal changes in density across the

watershed. Densities have decreased in Catchments 2 and 3, where they are

currently not present. However, densities have increased in Cold Springs Creek

(Catchments 9 and 11). Through out the rest of the watershed brook trout

densities have not changed from the 1970s to the 2000s (Appendix C1). Cold

Springs Creek (Catchment 9 and 11) brook trout density increased from the

1970s to 2000s when the highest mean density was 0.31m2 in the 1990s

sampling period, which increased from 0.04/m2 in the 1970s and 0.18/m2 in the

1990s (Figure 6.03).

Brook trout were sampled in the Mainstem north of Canton up to the headwaters

in the 1970s sampling period. Brook trout were in low abundance (0.001/m2) at 1

of 5 sampling events on the Mainstem between Canton to Osaca (Catchment 2)

and increased in abundance to 0.03/m2 at 2 of 12 sampling stations between

Osaca to Jackson Dam (Catchment 3) (Figure 6.02). Highest abundance was

sampled at 4 of 5 sampling stations and had a mean density of 0.12/m2 in the

headwaters above Jackson Dam (Catchment 4).

Brook trout were only sampled in the headwaters of the Mainstem above

Jackson Dam in the 1990s and 2000s (Figure 6.02). Brook trout highest mean

density was found in the upper Little Ganaraska Branch (Catchment 10) where

the densities were 0.31/m2 in the 1990s and 0.18/m2 in the 2000s (Figure 6.02).

95


Brook trout showed no differences in density along the North Ganaraska branch

(Catchment 6, 7 and 8), Little Ganaraska above Elizabethville Dam (Catchment

10), and Burnham Branch above County Road 9 (Catchment 13) (Table 6.01).

6.3.2 Brown Trout

Along the lower reaches of the Mainstem, brown trout density has increased from

the 1970s to the present (Catchments 1,2, and 6) (Figure 6.04). In Catchment 1

brown trout were not present, but were found at low density of 0.0007/m2 in the

1990s and increased to 0.0011 in the 2000s. Canton to Osaca (Catchment 2)

brown trout mean density was 0.004/m2 in the 1970s and remained similar in the

1990’s (0.0065/m2) then increased to 0.0128 in the 2000s, which was

significantly higher than the 1970s density (Table 6.01).

The brown trout density in the upper reaches of the Mainstem (Catchments 3 and

4) and the headwater areas (Catchments 7, 8, 9,10, and 11) have remained the

similar and show no significant changes from the 1970s to the present.

Along the lower North Ganaraska Branch (Catchment 6), brown trout significantly

increased in mean density from 0.003/m2 to 0.045/m2 in 1970s and 1990s (Figure

6.04).

Brown trout mean density significantly decreased in the Cold Springs Creek

(Catchment 9 and 11). Brown trout mean density was 0.02/m2 in the 1970s, and

no brown trout were collected in the 1990s, however they were detection again

(0.01/m2 ) in the 2000s (Figure 6.05).

6.3.3 Rainbow Trout

Rainbow trout mean density increased through the entire Mainstem (Catchments

1,2,3 and 4) since the. Adult migratory rainbow trout were blocked at Corbett’s

dam until 1974 when a fishladder was installed (OMNR and GRCA, 2002). Adult

migratory rainbow trout were still restricted due to limited jumping pool depth on

96


the flat bedrock below Corbett’s dam until 1983 when channel structures were

redesigned (Karges, 1987).

Along the main branch, rainbow trout mean density significantly increased from

the 1970s sampling period to the 1990s and 2000s (Figure 6.06). In the 1970s,

rainbow trout were not sampled on the main branch above Corbett’s dam to

Canton (Catchment 1). Rainbow trout mean density increased to 0.036/m2 in the

1990s and 0.03/m2 in the 2000s above Corbett’s dam to Canton. Rainbow trout

mean density in the Mainstem (Catchment 2) was the highest reach sampled

across the time periods. Rainbow trout highest mean density was 0.31/m2 in

2000s, a significant increase from 0.19/m2 in the 1900s and 0.005/m2 in the

1970s (Table 6.01). Rainbow trout mean density sampled on the Mainstem

between Osaca and Jackson Dam (Catchment 3) showed similar significant

patterns. Rainbow trout mean density was 0.067/m2 in 1970s increasing to

0.16/m2 in the 1990s and 0.23/m2 in the 2000s (Figure 6.06). In the headwaters

of the Mainstem branch above Jackson Dam (Catchment 4), rainbow trout were

not present in the 1970s, but where in low density (0.017m2) by 1990s and

continued to increase in density (0.02/m2 ) by the 2000s.

Rainbow trout density showed no changes in Cold Springs Creek (Catchment 9

and 11), Soper Branch (Catchment 12), and the Little Ganaraska Branch

(Catchment 10). Rainbow trout were present in low abundance (0.01/m2) in the

2000s samples in Catchment 10, but were previously not present in 1970s

(Figure 6.07). Rainbow trout are not present in the North Ganaraska Branch

(Catchment 6,7 and 8), as the Canton Hydroelectric Dam prevents their

migration.

6.3.4 White Sucker

White sucker populations show minimal significant temporal changes in mean

density, only occurring in catchments 1, 3 and 9. Along the main branch above

Corbett’s dam to Canton (Catchment 1), white sucker mean density was

97


0.009/m2 in the 1970s sampling period followed by an increase to 0.017/m2 in

the1990s, then significant decline to 0.0005/m2 in the 2000s (Figure 6.08). Along

the Mainstem between Canton and Osaca (Catchment 2), white sucker mean

density was 0.03/m2 in the 1970s sampling period followed a density of 0.017/m2

in the 1990s and a decline to 0.009/m2 in the 2000s, however not significant

(Figure 6.08). Along the Mainstem between Osaca and Jackson Dam

(Catchment 3), white sucker mean density was 0.01/m2 in the 1970s and 1990s

followed by a significant decline to 0.004/m2 in the 2000s (Table 6.01).

Along the main section of the North Ganaraska Branch (Catchment 6), no

significant changes in mean density were observed. White sucker were present

above Garden Hill dam (Catchment 7) in the 1970s but not present in the 1990s

and 2000s sampling events. White sucker mean density decline from 0.13/m2 to

0.05/m2 above Fudge Mill dam (Catchment 8).

Along Cold Springs Creek (Catchment 9 and 11), white sucker mean density was

0.07/m2 in the 1970s sampling period, and were not present in 1990s and 2000s

sampling events (Figure 6.09).

6.3.5 Blacknose Dace

Blacknose dace populations showed temporal mean density changes across

some of the catchments. Along the Mainstem from Corbett’s dam to Canton

(Catchment 1), blacknose dace mean density was 0.02/m2 in the 1970s followed

by a increase to 0.04/m2 in the 1990s, and to 0.14/m2 in the 2000s (Table 6.01).

From Canton to Osaca (Catchment 2), blacknose dace mean density showed

similar trends to the previous zone. Blacknose dace mean density was 0.025/m2

in the 1970s with little change to 0.02/m2 in the 1990s and significant increase to

0.074/m2 in the 2000s (Figure 6.10). From Osaca to Jackson Dam (Catchment

3), blacknose dace mean density was 0.015/m2 in the 1970s, and declined to

0.004/m2 in the 1990s and 0.0007/m2 in the 2000s. No mean density differences

were sampled along the Mainstem headwaters (Catchment 4). Blacknose dace

98


mean density in the North Ganaraska Branch (Catchment 6, 7 and 8) was similar

over time (Figure 6.10). There has been significant decline of blacknose dace in

the Cold Springs Creek (Catchment 9) since the 1970s. Blacknose dace mean

density was 0.23/m2 in the 1970s followed by a decline to 0.008/m2 in the 1990s

and 0.02/m2 in the 2000s (Figure 6.11).

6.3.6 Longnose Dace

Longnose dace population showed temporal mean density changes across a few

catchments (Figure 6.12 and 6.13). Longnose dace mean density was

significantly higher in the 2000s along the lower Mainstem from Corbett’s Dam to

Osaca (Catchment 1 and 2). Along the Mainstem from Corbett’s Dam to Canton

(Catchment 1), longnose dace mean density was 0.04/m2 in the 1970s followed

by an increase to 0.13/m2 in the 1990s and a further increase to 0.31/m2 in the

2000s (Table 6.01). From Canton to Osaca (Catchment 2), longnose mean

density was 0.04/m2 in the 1970s and in the 1990s followed by a significant

increase to 0.09/m2 in the 2000s (Table 6.01). No difference was found in mean

density along the Mainstem from Osaca to Jackson Dam (Catchment 3). No

differences were observed on the North Ganaraska Branch (Catchment 6,7 and

8). Longnose dace mean density in Cold Springs Creek (Catchment 9 and 11)

significantly declined from 0.02/m2 in the 1970s to no fish present in the 1990s

and 2000s.

6.3.7 Creek Chub

Some temporal changes were observed in the creek chub mean densities

(Catchment 3). No significant differences were observed in the lower Mainstem

from Corbett’s Dam to Osaca (Catchment 1 and 2). Along the Mainstem from

Osaca to Jackson Dam (Catchment 3), creek chub mean density declined from

0.001/m2 in the 1970s, no fish present in the 1990s and 2000s. There were no

significant differences sampled in creek chub mean density along the North

Ganaraska Branch (Catchment 6, 7 and 8) (Figure 6.14) and throughout the

northern head waters (Figure 6.15).

99


6.3.8 Johnny Darter

Johnny darter showed temporal change only in Catchment 1 of the Mainstem.

Mean density was 0.01/m2 in the 1970s, 0.03/m2 in the 1990s and 0.02/m2 in the

2000s (Figure 6.16). Johnny darter mean density between Canton and Osaca

(Zone 2) was 0.01/m2 across all sampling periods. No significant differences

were observed along the North Ganaraska branch (Figure 6.17).

6.3.9 Sculpin

Mean density of sculpin showed temporal changes across some of the

catchments. Along the Mainstem from Corbett’s Dam to Canton (Catchment 1),

sculpin were not present in the samples until the 2000s. No differences in their

mean density were observed on the Mainstem from Canton to Osaca (Catchment

2). On the Mainstem from Osaca to Jackson Dam (Catchment 3), sculpin mean

density significantly increase from 0.025/m2 in the 1970s to 0.09/m2 in the 1990s

to 0.20/m2 in the 2000s (Figure 6.18). No differences in the mean density in the

headwaters of the Mainstem (Catchment 4). Sculpins were not present in the

North Ganaraska Branch (Catchment 6), however were present above Garden

Hill Dam (Catchment 7) and Fudge’s Mill Dam (Catchment 8). On Cold Springs

Creek (Catchment 9 and 11), sculpin mean density was significantly higher in

1970s. Sculpin mean density was 0.20/m2 in the 1970s, not present in the 1990s

and were sampled at 0.03/m2 in the 2000s. On Little Ganaraska Branch

(Catchment 10), sculpin mean density was also sampled higher in the 1970s at

0.19/m2 compared to 0.07/m2 in the 2000s (Figure 6.19). No differences were

sampled in the mean density of sculpin in Soper Creek Branch (Catchment Zone

12).

100


Figure 6.01 Sampling station locations sorted by sampling periods and catchments.

GANARASKA RIVER FISHERIES AND AQUATIC HABITAT BACKGROUND REPORT 101


BBRWBLCJS

BBRWBLCJS

Table 6.01 Summary of the Mann-Whitney U critical Z and p-value based on the mean density of the dominant species sampled at each zone (continues on next page).

Catchment 1 Catchment 2 Time Period 70s vs 90s 70s vs 00s 90s vs 00s 70s vs 90s 70s vs 00s 90s vs 00s

rook Trout 2.00 (0.046) 1.00 (0.317) rown Trout -2.04 (0.041) -1.75 (0.081) -0.47 (0.635) -1.36 (0.174) -1.80 (0.072) -2.04 (0.042)ainbow Trout -2.99 (0.003) -2.56 (0.011) 0.37 (0.711) -3.40 (0.001) -2.64 (0.008) -0.54 (0.587)hite Sucker -0.21 (0.831) 2.56 (0.011) 2.90 (0.004) -0.70 (0.486) 0.37 (0.712) 1.43 (0.154)lacknose Dace -0.74 (0.457) -2.45 (0.014) -2.96 (0.003) 0.62 (0.535) -2.20 (0.027) -2.92 (0.003)ongnose Dace -0.96 (0.339) -2.45 (0.014) -2.13 (0.033) 0.54 (0.588) -2.20 (0.027) -1.97 (0.049)reek Chub 0.32 (0.750) 0.73 (0.462) 0.37 (0.711) -0.62 (0.534) 0.26 (0.798) 0.95 (0.340)ohnny Darter -2.55 (0.011) -2.45 (0.014) 0.28 (0.781) -1.55 (0.121) -1.47 (0.142) -0.27 (0.786)culpin -1.34 (0.180) -2.43 (0.015) -1.94 (0.052) -1.23 (0.219) 0.82 (0.415)

Catchment 3 Catchment 4 Time Period 70s vs 90s 70s vs 00s 90s vs 00s 70s vs 90s 70s vs 00s 90s vs 00s

rook Trout 2.83 (0.005) 2.52 (0.012) -0.51 (0.609) 0.76 (0.445) 0.367 (0.714)rown Trout -0.98 (0.327) -1.12 (0.262) -2.17 (0.030) -0.98 (0.325) -1.05 (0.294) -0.35 (0.734)ainbow Trout -3.05 (0.002) -3.30 (0.001) -2.05 (0.041) -1.68 (0.094) -2.56 (0.010) -1.07 (0.285)hite Sucker -1.48 (0.140) 0.81 (0.417) 3.77 (0.0001) 1.15 (0.248) 1.00 (0.317) lacknose Dace 2.23 (0.026) 2.98 (0.003) 1.39 (0.166) 1.15 (0.248) 1.00 (0.317) ongnose Dace 0.12 (0.905) 1.06 (0.288) 1.48 (0.166) reek Chub 2.63 (0.009) 2.32 (0.020) 0.00 (1.00) ohnny Darter -0.01 (0.419) -0.63 (0.527) 0.26 (0.791) culpin -2.15 (0.031) -2.69 (0.007) -2.60 (0.009) -0.89 (0.372) -0.89 (0.376) 0.54 (0.593)

102


Catchment 6 Catchment 7 Catchment 8 Catchment 9 and 11 Time Period 70s vs 90s 70s vs 00s 70s vs 00s 70s vs 90s 70s vs 00s 90s vs 00s

Brook Trout -0.32 (0.749) 1.07 (0.286) -0.89 (0.374) -2.71 (0.007) -2.41 (0.016) 1.93 (0.053)Brown Trout -2.36 (0.018) 1.31 (0.187) -0.82 (0.414) 2.21 (0.027) 0.68 (0.495) -1.94 (0.052)Rainbow Trout -1.26 (0.205) -0.58 (0.564) 0.88 (0.386)White Sucker -1.06 (0.288) 1.41 (0.157) 0.58 (0.564) 2.79 (0.005) 3.50 (0.001) Blacknose Dace -1.24 (0.215) 1.41 (0.157) 2.05 (0.041) 2.43 (0.015) -0.42 (0.676)Longnose Dace -1.36 (0.174) 1.41 (0.157) -0.82 (0.414) 1.93 (0.054) 2.50 (0.012) Creek Chub -0.59 (0.555) 1.41 (0.157) 0.59 (0.554) 1.93 (0.054) 1.43 (0.140) -1.09 (0.274)Johnny Darter 1.41 (0.157) 1.00 (0.317) 1.34 (0.178) Sculpin 1.41 (0.157) 0.65 (0.519) 2.35 (0.019) 2.25 (0.024) -0.75 (0.456)

Catchment 10 Catchment 12 Time Period 70s vs 00s 70s vs 90s 70s vs 00s 90s vs 00s

Brook Trout -0.58 (0.564) 0.74 (0.461) -0.31 (0.759) -0.69 (0.490)Brown Trout -0.82 (0.414) -0.18

(0.861) 0.13 (0.897) 1.01 (0.313)

Rainbow Trout -1.29 (0.197) 0.18 (0.861) 1.58 (0.115) 1.42 (0.155)White Sucker -0.57

(0.566) 0.00 (1.00) 0.70 (0.483)

Blacknose Dace Longnose Dace Creek Chub Johnny Darter Sculpin 1.73 (0.083) -0.68

(0.497) -0.30 (0.767) 1.41 (0.158)

103


Catchment 1 Catchment 2 Catchment 4 Catchment 3


Figure 6.02. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of brook trout

density within each zone and sampling period.

104


Catchment 9 & 11 Catchment 10 Catchment 12 Catchment 13

Figure 6.03. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of the density of

brook trout sampled within each zone and sampling period.

105




Figure 6.04. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of brown trout

density sampled within each zone and sampling period.

106



Figure 6.05. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of brown trout

density sampled within each zone and sampling period

107




Figure 6.06. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of rainbow trout


108



Figure 6.07. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of rainbow trout


109




Figure 6.08. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of white sucker


110



Figure 6.09. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of white sucker


111




Figure 6.10. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of blacknose dace


112



Figure 6.11. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of blacknose dace

density f sampled within each zone and sampling period

113




Figure 6.12. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of longnose dace


114



Figure 6.13. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of longnose dace


115




Figure 6.14. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of creek chub


116



Figure 6.15. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of creek chub


117




Figure 6.16. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of Johnny darter


118



Figure 6.17. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of Johnny darter


119




Figure 6.18. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of sculpin density

sampled within each zone and sampling period

120



Figure 6.19. Mean, minimum, maximum, and standard error of sculpin density of

sampled within each zone and sampling period

121


References

Allan, D.J. 1995. Stream Ecology. Chapman and Hall, London, UK

Barnett, P.J., D.R. Sharpe, H.A.J. Russell, T.A. Brennand, G. Gorrell, F.M.

Kenny, and A. Pugin, 1998. On the origin of the Oak Ridges Moraine.

Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences. 35: 1152-1167.

Barnett, P.J. 1992. Quaternary Geology of Ontario. In Geology of Ontario.

Bowlby, J. 1995. Field Protocol for Juvenile Migratory Salmonid Index. Internal

document Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Glenora, Ontario.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. (CCME). Updated 2003.

Summary Table. In: Canadian Water Quality Guidelines. Manitoba

Statutory Publications, Winnipeg.

Chapman, L.J and Putnam, D.F. 1984. The Physiography of Southern Ontario,

Third edition. Ontario Geological Survey, Special Volume 2.

Christie W.J 1973. Review of the Changes in the Fish species composition of

Lake Ontario. Great Lakes Fish. COMM. PECH. REP. 23: 65p.

Csuros, M. 1994. Environmental Sampling and Analysis for Technicians. Lewis

Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.

Department of Energy and Resources Management. 1966. Ganaraska Region

Conservation Report.

Dodge, D.P., G.A. Goodchild, J.C. Tilt, and D.G. Waldriff. 1979. Manual of

instructions Aquatic habitat inventory surveys. Fisheries Branch. Ontario

Ministry of Natural Resources. Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario.

122


Dyke, L.D., Sharpe, D.R., Ross, I., Hinton, M. and Stacey, P. 1997. Potential

Springs in the Oak Ridges Moraine, Southern Ontario: Mapping from

Aerial Thermography. Geological Survey of Canada and Ministry of

Natural Resources, Geological Survey of Canada. Open File 3374. Scale

1:200,000.

Funk, G. 1977. Geology and Water Resources of the Bowmanville, Soper and

Wilmot Creeks IHD Representative Drainage Basin. Water Resources

Report 9a. Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch.

Toronto, Ontario.

Ganaraska River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2006. Draft Source Water

Protection Water Budget. Port Hope, Ontario.

Ganaraska River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 1981. 35 Years of Watershed

Management. The Haynes Printing Company Ltd, Cobourg, Ontario.

Hinton, M.J. 2004. Methodology to determining the spatial distribution of low flow

in a watershed. Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

J.D. Whall Environmental Consultants. 2001. Final Data Report: Ontario Ministry

of Natural Resources Fish Survey for the Ganaraska River, 1997 to 1999.

Prepared for Leon Carl, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Trent

University. Peterborough, Ontario.

Karges, R. 1987. Life history, reproductive success, and abundance of rainbow

trout (Salmo gairdneri) in the Ganaraska River, Ontario. M.Sc. thesis.

University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.

McGarigal, K., Cushman, S., and Stafford, S. 2000. Multivariate Statististics for

Wildlife and Ecoloy Research. Springer-Vergal, New York, NY.;

123


Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 1999. Water Management Policies

Guidelines Provincial Water Quality Objectives for the Ministry of

Environment and Energy. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. pp. 43-62.

Naiman, R.J. and B.E. Robert, 1998. River Ecology and Management. Springer

–Verlag, New York, NY.

Northeast Science and Information (NESI). 2002. Ontario Flow Assessment

Techniques (OFAT), Version 1.0. Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen’s

Printer for Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ganaraska Region Conservation

Authority (OMNR and GRCA). 2002. Draft Operational Manual for

Ganaraska Fishway Corbett’s Dam. Port Hope, Ontario.

Richardson, A.H. 1944. The Ganaraska Watershed: a study in land use with

plans for the rehabilitation of the post-war period. The Dominion and

Ontario Governments, Toronto.

Scheiner, S.M., and J. Guevitch, 1993. Design and Analysis of Ecological

Experiments. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.

Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1985. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries

Research Board of Canada Bulletin. Ottawa, Ontario.

Singer S.N., 1981. Evaluation of the Groundwater Responses Applied to the

Bowmanville, Soper and Wilmot Creeks – IHD Representative Drainage

Basin; Ministry of the Environment, Water resources Branch, Toronto.

124


Singer S.N., 1974. A Hydrogeological Study along the North Shore of Lake

Ontario in the Bowmanville–Newcastle Area. Water Resources Report 5d;

Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch, Toronto.

Stanfield, L. (Editor). 2005. Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol. Version 7, Fish

and Wildlife Branch. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough,

Ontario.

Stoneman, C.L. and Jones, M.L. 1996. A Simple Method to Classify Stream

Thermal Stability with Single Observations of Daily Maximum Water and

Air Temperature. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:

728-737.

Thurston, H.R. Williams, R.H. Sutcliffe and G.M. Stott. Ontario Geological

Survey, Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Special

Volume 4, Part 2. pp. 1011-1088. Bowlby, J. 1995. Field Protocol for

Juvenile Migratory Salmonid Index. Internal document Ontario Ministry of

Natural Resources. Glenora, Ontario.

United States Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA). 2003. Conductivity. In:

Monitoring and Assessing Water Quality. Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/stream/vms59.html

(Accessed December 2005).

Wootton, R.J. 1998. Ecology of Teleost Fishes, (2nd Ed.). Kluwer Academic

Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey.

125

http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/stream/vms59.html


Appendix A

126


Appendix A.1. Summary of the mean density, standard deviation, and rank of brook trout for each sampling station

Sampling Station Easting Northing

# Samples

Distance to mouth (km)

Mean Density

Standard Error Rank

7C03 707774 4878998 1 19.7 0.000 0 7C06 707744 4879161 2 19.9 0.000 0.000 0 7C07 707744 4879236 2 20.0 0.001 0.001 1 8C03 692454 4878558 1 41.9 0.355 4 BLDR 713407 4874609 3 9.9 0.000 0.000 0 CHY2 710017 4876920 5 15.2 0.000 0.000 0 CHY5 710073 4876979 5 15.4 0.000 0.000 0 DELL 710694 4882602 1 27.4 0.090 3

DELLRD 696838 4881539 1 37.1 0.237 4 DRRG 707977 4876201 3 18.0 0.000 0.000 0 FFDN 707178 4876833 3 19.7 0.000 0.000 0 FFUP 706850 4876958 3 20.1 0.000 0.000 0 FS01 710599 4876294 1 14.0 0.000 0 FS02 710472 4876294 1 14.0 0.000 0

GAN0104 702503 4876622 1 28.1 0.000 0 GAN0204 703576 4876317 1 26.1 0.000 0 GAN0205 718111 4881375 1 18.4 0.000 0 GAN0304 701447 4877360 1 29.8 0.000 0 GAN0305 713465 4874356 1 9.8 0.000 0 GAN0404 699833 4877322 1 32.5 0.000 0 GAN0405 707890 4881372 1 23.0 0.000 0 GAN0504 697821 4877481 1 34.9 0.000 0 GAN0604 695945 4878086 1 37.6 0.010 1 GAN0904 697425 4878905 1 36.3 0.059 2 GAN1004 698980 4877758 1 33.7 0.000 0 GAN1104 700406 4878450 1 31.7 0.000 0 GAN1204 699117 4879552 1 33.8 0.000 0 GAN1304 703507 4877175 1 24.8 0.006 1 GAN1404 701759 4878082 1 27.1 0.133 3 GAN1504 700719 4879485 1 29.0 0.158 3 GAN1804 703199 4879038 1 26.7 0.000 0 GAN1904 702053 4880790 1 29.1 0.053 2 GAN2004 701223 4880923 1 30.1 0.061 2 GAN2104 711711 4881775 1 27.7 0.087 2 GAN2204 713589 4874721 1 10.0 0.000 0 GAN2304 713503 4877070 1 12.6 0.000 0 GAN2404 712960 4879230 1 16.5 0.032 1 GAN2504 713268 4878994 1 16.6 0.000 0 GAN2604 715767 4874832 1 7.5 0.000 0 GAN2704 714991 4876231 1 10.0 0.000 0 GAN2804 714869 4877712 1 12.0 0.000 0 GAN3004 716464 4879887 1 15.9 0.000 0

127


GN04 699833 4877322 10 32.5 0.000 0.000 0 GN05 701426 4878344 8 27.5 0.303 0.107 4 GN06 716764 4873606 10 5.6 0.000 0.000 0 GN07 709601 4875365 10 15.6 0.000 0.000 0 GN08 701234 4878608 1 27.9 0.194 3 GNMD 704971 4876374 3 24.0 0.000 0.000 0 GRCA 717380 4872918 3 4.2 0.000 0.000 0 HEND 700178 4878721 3 32.2 0.000 0.000 0

KANADA 694363 4878767 1 41.1 0.029 1 KEN902 697227 4877749 1 35.8 0.000 0 KEN904 697034 4877923 1 36.2 0.000 0 LADY 701360 4877563 3 30.0 0.000 0.000 0 LANG 699327 4879404 3 33.4 0.000 0.000 0 LEUT 712276 4874480 3 11.5 0.000 0.000 0 MCCR 700554 4878271 3 31.4 0.000 0.000 0

MCMILLIN 698667 4881944 1 32.9 0.329 4 NOM3 709513 4877522 5 16.5 0.000 0.001 1 NOM5 708501 4878177 5 18.1 0.000 0.000 0

OAKHILL 705996 4883243 1 26.7 0.206 4 ORM1 705842 4882767 1 26.1 0.039 2 ORM4 692426 4878567 1 41.9 1.111 4 ORM8 713577 4875795 1 10.7 0.000 0 PATH 703079 4876541 2 27.1 0.000 0.000 0 PIG3 708209 4878243 5 18.5 0.000 0.000 0 PIG4 708197 4878253 4 18.5 0.000 0.000 0 PIG6 708189 4878271 4 18.6 0.000 0.000 0

SHAM 709357 4875334 3 15.9 0.000 0.000 0 SWMP 697940 4881168 3 36.0 0.101 0.143 3 THMY 716906 4873398 3 5.2 0.000 0.000 0

WALKERS 704108 4884738 1 29.1 0.024 1 WIGGINS 699638 4882561 1 32.7 0.310 4 WILSON 707699 4881989 1 23.7 0.193 3 WRIGHT 707473 4882576 1 24.1 0.072 2

128


Appendix A.2. Summary of the mean density, standard deviation, and rank of brown trout for each sampling station


# Samples


Standard Error Rank

7C03 707774 4878998 1 19.7 3 7C06 707744 4879161 2 19.9

Mean Density 0.042 0.016 0.009 2

7C07 707744 4879236 2 20.0 0.063 0.002 3 8C03 692454 4878558 1 41.9 0.009 1 BLDR 713407 4874609 3 9.9 0.002 0.001 1

710017 4876920 5 15.2 0.024 0.012 2 CHY5 710073 4876979 5 15.4 0.036 0.016 2 DELL 710694 4882602 1 27.4 0.000 0



GN04 699833 4877322 10 32.5 0.086 0.041 4

CHY2

129


GN05 701426 4878344 8 27.5 0.002 0.003 1 GN06 716764 4873606 10 5.6 0.001 0.001 1 GN07 709601 4875365 10 15.6 0.008 0.006 1 GN08 701234 4878608 1 27.9 0.036 2 GNMD 704971 4876374 3 24.0 0.014 0.001 2 GRCA 717380 4872918 3 4.2 0.000 0.000 1 HEND 700178 4878721 3 32.2 0.131 0.039 4


MCMILLIN 698667 4881944 1 32.9 0.000 0 NOM3 709513 4877522 5 16.5 0.038 0.018 3 NOM5 708501 4878177 5 18.1 0.038 0.020 3


SHAM 709357 4875334 3 15.9 0.007 0.004 1 SWMP 697940 4881168 3 36.0 0.124 0.043 4 THMY 716906 4873398 3 5.2 0.000 0.000 1


130


Appendix A.3. Summary of the mean density, standard deviation, and rank of rainbow trout for each sampling station


# Samples


Mean Density

Standard Error Rank




131




MCMILLIN 698667 4881944 1 32.9 0.000 0 NOM3 709513 4877522 5 16.5 0.000 0.000 0 NOM5 708501 4878177 5 18.1 0.000 0.000 0


SHAM 709357 4875334 3 15.9 0.173 0.047 3 SWMP 697940 4881168 3 36.0 0.038 0.066 2 THMY 716906 4873398 3 5.2 0.026 0.005 1


132


Appendix A.4. Summary of the mean density, standard deviation, and rank of white sucker for each sampling station


# Samples


Mean Density

Standard Error Rank




133




MCMILLIN 698667 4881944 1 32.9 0.000 0 NOM3 709513 4877522 5 16.5 0.058 0.038 4 NOM5 708501 4878177 5 18.1 0.028 0.021 3


SHAM 709357 4875334 3 15.9 0.015 0.019 2 SWMP 697940 4881168 3 36.0 0.000 0.000 0 THMY 716906 4873398 3 5.2 0.030 0.025 4


134


Appendix A.5. Summary of the mean density, standard deviation, and rank of blacknose dace for each sampling station


# Samples


Mean Density

Standard Error Rank




GN04 699833 4877322 10 32.5 0.001 0.002 1

135


701426 4878344 8 27.5 0.005 0.015 1 GN05 716764 4873606 10 5.6 0.101 0.071 3 GN06 709601 4875365 10 15.6 0.059 0.028 2 GN07 701234 4878608 1 27.9 0.000 0 GN08 704971 4876374 3 24.0 0.012 0.010 2 GNMD 717380 4872918 3 4.2 0.015 0.014 2 GRCA 700178 4878721 3 32.2 0.000 0.000 0 HEND

KANADA 694363 4878767 1 41.1 0.000 0 KEN902 697227 4877749 1 35.8 0.000 0 KEN904 697034 4877923 1 36.2 0.000 0 LADY 701360 4877563 30.0 0.000 0.000 0 LANG 699327 4879404 3 33.4 0.000 0.000 0 LEUT 712276 4874480 3 11.5 0.043 0.022 2 MCCR 700554 4878271 3 31.4 0.000 0.000 0

MCMILLIN 698667 4881944 1 32.9 0.000 0 NOM3 709513 4877522 5 16.5 0.170 0.110 3 NOM5 708501 4878177 5 18.1 0.175 0.086 3


SHAM 709357 4875334 3 15.9 0.010 0.006 1 SWMP 697940 4881168 3 36.0 0.000 0.000 0 THMY 716906 4873398 3 5.2 0.039 0.029 2


3

136


Appendix A.6. Summary of the mean density, standard deviation, and rank of longnose dace for each sampling station


# Samples


Mean Density

Standard Error Rank




GN04 699833 4877322 10 32.5 0.000 0.002 1

137




MCMILLIN 698667 4881944 1 32.9 0.000 0 NOM3 709513 4877522 5 16.5 0.036 0.022 2 NOM5 708501 4878177 5 18.1 0.175 0.036 4


SHAM 709357 4875334 3 15.9 0.007 0.004 1 SWMP 697940 4881168 3 36.0 0.000 0.000 0 THMY 716906 4873398 3 5.2 0.051 0.045 3


138


Appendix A.7. Summary of the mean density, standard deviation, and rank of creek chub for each sampling station


# Samples


Mean Density

Standard Error Rank




139




MCMILLIN 698667 4881944 1 32.9 0.000 0 NOM3 709513 4877522 5 16.5 0.080 0.037 3 NOM5 708501 4878177 5 18.1 0.051 0.022 3


SHAM 709357 4875334 3 15.9 0.010 0.006 1 SWMP 697940 4881168 3 36.0 0.000 0.000 0 THMY 716906 4873398 3 5.2 0.023 0.023 2


140


Appendix A.8. Summary of the mean density, standard deviation, and rank of Johnny darter for each sampling station


# Samples


Mean Density

Standard Error Rank




141


GN04 699833 4877322 10 32.5 0.000 0.000 0 GN05 701426 4878344 8 27.5 0.000 0.000 0 GN06 716764 4873606 10 5.6 0.031 0.032 3 GN07 709601 4875365 10 15.6 0.014 0.009 2 GN08 701234 4878608 1 27.9 0.000 0

704971 4876374 3 24.0 0.000 0.000 1 GRCA 717380 4872918 3 4.2 0.046 0.038 4 HEND 700178 4878721 3 32.2 0.000 0.000 0


MCMILLIN 698667 4881944 1 32.9 0.000 0 NOM3 709513 4877522 5 16.5 0.000 0.000 0 NOM5 708501 4878177 5 18.1 0.000 0.000 0


SHAM 709357 4875334 3 15.9 0.006 0.004 2 SWMP 697940 4881168 3 36.0 0.000 0.000 0 THMY 716906 4873398 3 5.2 0.016 0.010 2


GNMD

142


Appendix A.9. Summary of the mean density, standard deviation, and rank of sculpin for each sampling station


# Samples


Mean Density

Standard Error Rank



GAN0104 702503 4876622 1 28.1 0.266 4 GAN0204 703576 4876317 1 26.1 0.122 3 GAN0205 718111 4881375 1 18.4 0.000 0 GAN0304 701447 4877360 1 29.8 0.228 4 GAN0305 713465 4874356 1 9.8 0.000 0 GAN0404 699833 4877322 1 32.5 0.300 4 GAN0405 707890 4881372 1 23.0 0.000 0 GAN0504 697821 4877481 1 34.9 0.380 4 GAN0604 695945 4878086 1 37.6 0.253 4 GAN0904 697425 4878905 1 36.3 0.000 0 GAN1004 698980 4877758 1 33.7 0.033 2 GAN1104 4878450 1 31.7 0.108 3 GAN1204 699117 4879552 1 33.8 0.006 1 GAN1304 703507 4877175 1 24.8 0.000 0 GAN1404 701759 4878082 1 27.1 0.000 0 GAN1504 700719 4879485 1 29.0 0.000 0 GAN1804 703199 4879038 1 26.7 0.243 4 GAN1904 702053 4880790 1 29.1 0.075 2 GAN2004 701223 4880923 1 30.1 0.121 3 GAN2104 711711 4881775 1 27.7 0.063 2 GAN2204 713589 4874721 1 10.0 0.000 0 GAN2304 713503 4877070 1 12.6 0.000 0 GAN2404 712960 4879230 1 16.5 0.000 0 GAN2504 713268 4878994 1 16.6 0.000 0 GAN2604 715767 4874832 1 7.5 0.024 1 GAN2704 714991 4876231 1 10.0 0.000 0 GAN2804 714869 4877712 1 12.0 0.012 1 GAN3004 716464 4879887 1 15.9 0.022 1

GN04 699833 4877322 10 32.5 0.175 0.091 3

700406

143



KANADA 694363 4878767 1 41.1 0.000 0 697227 4877749 1 35.8 0.563 4

KEN904 697034 4877923 1 36.2 0.196 3 LADY 701360 4877563 3 30.0 0.075 0.040 3 LANG 699327 4879404 3 33.4 0.034 0.010 2 LEUT 712276 4874480 3 11.5 0.000 0.000 1 MCCR 700554 4878271 3 31.4 0.026 0.002 2

698667 4881944 1 32.9 0.000 0 709513 4877522 5 16.5 0.000 0.000 0

NOM5 708501 4878177 5 18.1 0.000 0.000 0 OAKHILL 705996 4883243 1 26.7 0.000 0

705842 4882767 1 26.1 0.122 3 ORM4 692426 4878567 1 41.9 0.691 4 ORM8 713577 4875795 1 10.7 0.000 0 PATH 703079 4876541 2 27.1 0.028 0.023 2 PIG3 708209 4878243 5 18.5 0.000 0.000 0 PIG4 708197 4878253 4 18.5 0.000 0.000 0 PIG6 708189 4878271 4 18.6 0.000 0.000 0

709357 4875334 3 15.9 0.006 0.004 1 SWMP 697940 4881168 3 36.0 0.216 0.114 4

716906 4873398 3 5.2 0.000 0.000 0 704108 4884738 1 29.1 0.000 0 699638 4882561 1 32.7 0.000 0 707699 4881989 1 23.7 0.000 0

WRIGHT 707473 4882576 1 24.1 0.000 0

KEN902

MCMILLIN NOM3

ORM1

SHAM

THMY WALKERS WIGGINS WILSON

144


Appendix B

145


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200+

Total Length (mm)

No

of O

bser

vatio

ns

Appendix B.1 Bar graph displays number of observations of individual brook trout by total length (mm) sampled in the

Ganaraska River basin.

146


0

50

100

150

200

250

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280

Total Length (mm)

No

of O

bser

vatio

ns

Appendix B.2. Number of brown trout sorted by total length (mm) from the Ganaraska River Watershed during all sampling efforts.

147


0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

475

500

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200+

Total Length (mm)

No

of O

bser

vatio

ns

Appendix B.3. Number of observations of individual rainbow trout by total length (mm) sampled in the Ganaraska River Watershed

148

GANRASKA RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND REPORT

Appendix C

149


Appendix C.1. Mean density of the dominant species sampled in each catchment

Main Branch - Corbett's Dam to Canton Main Branch - Canton to Osaca Main Branch - Osaca to Jackson Dam Catchment 1 Catchment 2 Catchment 3

Sample # 4 14 5 5 20 5 12 13 10Time Period 1970s 20 0s 1990s 2000s 1970s 1990s 0 1970s 1990s 2000s

Brook Trout 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0251 0.0000 0.0000Brown Trout 0.0000 0.0007 0.0011 0.0043 0.0065 0.0128 0.6187 0.0455 0.0807Rainbow Trout 0.0000 0.0367 0.0297 0.0051 0.1876 0.3090 0.0679 0.1596 0.2292White Sucker 0.0088 0.0170 0.0005 0.0322 0.0174 0.0099 0.0109 0.0136 0.0004Blacknose Dace 0.0200 0.0391 0.1403 0.0257 0.0231 0.0741 0.0151 0.0036 0.0007Longnose Dace 0.0433 0.1281 0.3143 0.0367 0.0440 0.0920 0.0129 0.0071 0.0015Creek Chub 0.0274 0.0190 0.0105 0.0042 0.0079 0.0034 0.0016 0.0000 0.0000Johnny Darter 0.0051 0.0311 0.0197 0.0035 0.0089 0.0091 0.0000 0.0001 0.0023Sculpin 0.0000 0.0000 0.0026 0.0031 0.0183 0.0079 0.0256 0.0938 0.2020

Main Branch - Headwater Quay's Branch North Ganaraska – Canton Dam to 7thConc Catchment 4 Catchment 5 Catchment 6

Sample # 5 4 3 1 1 2 2 40 0 Time Period 1970s 1990s 2000s 1970s 1990s 2000s 1970s 1990s 2000s

Brook Trout 0.1156 0.3667 0.0131 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 Brown Trout 0.0475 0.0627 0.0922 0.0101 0.0000 0.0018 0.0034 0.0449Rainbow Trout 0.0000 0.0116 0.0215 0.0000 0.1760 0.1259 0.0000 0.0000White Sucker 0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.0202 0.0264 0.0031 0.0131 0.0415Blacknose Dace 0.0013 0.0000 0.0000 0.5847 0.0968 0.2222 0.0489 0.2097Longnose Dace 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1915 0.0880 0.0173 0.0308 0.1026Creek Chub 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.2016 0.0792 0.1183 0.0369 0.0925Johnny Darter 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0605 0.1496 0.0311 0.0000 0.0000Sculpin 0.0844 0.3626 0.2108 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

150


North Ganaraska - above Garden Hill Dam North Ganaraska - above Fudge Mill Cold Springs Creek Catchment 7 Catchment 8 Catchment 9 and 11

Sample # 6 1 4 2 0 3 9 5 9 Time Period 1970s 1990s 2000s 1970s 1990s 2000s 1970s 1990s 2000s

Brook Trout 0.2773 0.0386 0.1239 0.0112 0.0590 0.0415 0.3198 0.1826Brown Trout 0.0897 0.1671 0.0174 0.0000 0.0047 0.0216 0.0000 0.0112Rainbow Trout 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0860 0.1412 0.1204White Sucker 0.0030 0.0000 0.0000 0.1297 0.0510 0.0743 0.0000 0.0000Blacknose Dace 0.0711 0.0064 0.0000 0.0056 0.3436 0.2307 0.0084 0.0152Longnose Dace 0.0859 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0724 0.0154 0.0000 0.0000Creek Chub 0.0178 0.0000 0.0000 0.0595 0.3071 0.0361 0.0000 0.0107Johnny Darter 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0097 0.0000 0.0000Sculpin 0.0613 0.1221 0.0000 0.1570 0.0210 0.1950 0.0000 0.0270

Little Ganaraska - above Elizabethville dam Soper Creek Burnham Branch Catchment 10 Catchment 12 Catchment 13

Sample # 2 0 3 6 12 3 1 0 1Time Period 1970s s 1990s 2000s 1970s 1990s 2000s 1970s 1990 2000s

Brook Trout 0.1062 0.1411 0.0365 0.0252 0.0789 0.1651 0.0588Brown Trout 0.0000 0.0020 0.1261 0.1723 0.1460 0.0000 0.0000Rainbow Trout 0.0000 0.0075 0.1081 0.0818 0.0328 0.0000 0.0000White Sucker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0084Blacknose Dace 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4481 0.5294Longnose Dace 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Creek Chub 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0756Johnny Darter 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Sculpin 0.1933 0.0653 0.0259 0.0762 0.0380 0.0708 0.0000

151


Appendix C.1. Mann-Whitney U test of the rank sum and mean calculated from the mean density of the dominant species for each of the sampling stations within each catchment.

Catchment 1

Time Period 70s vs 90s 70s vs 00s 90s vs 00s Rank-70s Rank-70s Rank-90s Mean Rank-00s Mean Rank-90s Rank-00s Mean

Brook Trout 38.0 133.0 28.0 20.0 25.0 10.0 140.0 50.0 35.0Brown Trout 20.0 30.0 151.0 10.0 14.0 31.0 4.0 135.0 55.0Rainbow Trout 10.0 161.0 0.0 10.0 35.0 0.0 144.0 46.0 31.0White Sucker 36.0 135.0 26.0 30.0 15.0 0.0 171.0 19.0 4.0Blacknose Dace 31.0 140.0 21.0 10.0 35.0 0.0 108.0 82.0 3.0Longnose Dace 29.0 142.0 19.0 10.0 35.0 0.0 117.0 73.0 12.0Creek Chub 41.0 46.0 130.0 25.0 23.0 22.0 7.0 144.0 31.0Johnny Darter 14.0 157.0 4.0 10.0 35.0 0.0 143.0 47.0 32.0Sculpin 38.0 133.0 28.0 16.0 29.0 6.0 126.0 64.0 21.0

Catchment 2Time Period 70s vs 90s 70s vs 00s 90s vs 00s

Rank-70s Rank-90s Mean Rank-70s Rank-00s Mean Rank-90s Rank-00s MeanBrook Trout 75.0 250.0 40.0 30.0 25.0 10.0 260.0 65.0 50.0Brown Trout 45.0 280.0 30.0 19.0 36.0 4.0 230.0 95.0 20.0Rainbow Trout 15.0 310.0 0.0 15.0 40.0 0.0 252.0 73.0 42.0White Sucker 41.0 259.0 31.0 21.5 23.5 8.5 281.0 44.0 29.0Blacknose Dace 58.0 242.0 32.0 11.0 34.0 1.0 217.0 108.0 7.0Longnose Dace 57.0 94.0 243.0 33.0 11.0 34.0 1.0 231.0 21.0Creek Chub 42.0 258.0 32.0 21.0 24.0 9.0 274.0 51.0 36.0Johnny Darter 30.0 270.0 20.0 14.0 31.0 4.0 256.0 69.0 46.0Sculpin 25.0 275.0 15.0 15.0 30.0 5.0 272.0 53.0 38.0

152






153


Catchment 6 Catchment 7 Catchment 8 Time Period 70s vs 90s 70s vs 00s 70s vs 00s

Rank-70s Rank-90s Mean Rank-70s Rank-00s Mean Rank-70s Rank-00s MeanBrook Trout 41.0 862.0 38.0 38.0 17.0 7.0 4.5 10.5 1.5Brown Trout 3.0 900.0 0.0 39.0 16.0 6.0 5.0 10.0 2.0Rainbow Trout White Sucker 25.0 878.0 22.0 9.0 12.0 2.0 7.0 8.0 2.0Blacknose Dace 22.0 881.0 19.0 9.0 12.0 2.0 5.5 9.5 2.5Longnose Dace 20.0 883.0 17.0 9.0 12.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 2.0Creek Chub 33.0 870.0 30.0 9.0 12.0 2.0 7.0 8.0 2.0Johnny Darter 43.0 860.0 40.0 7.0 14.0 4.0 6.0 9.0 3.0Sculpin 43.0 860.0 40.0 9.0 12.0 2.0 7.0 8.0 2.0

Catchment 9 and 11 Time Period 70s vs 90s 70s vs 00s 90s vs 00s


154


Zone10 Zone 12Time Period 70s vs 00s 70s vs 90s 70s vs 00s 90s vs 00s

Rank-70s Rank-00s Mean Rank-70s Rank-90s Mean Rank-70s Rank-00s Mean Rank-70s Rank-00s MeanBrook Trout 5.0 10.0 2.0 66.0 124.0 33.0 29.0 16.0 8.0 107.0 29.0 16.0Brown Trout 5.0 10.0 2.0 58.0 132.0 37.0 30.5 14.5 8.5 118.0 18.0 12.0Rainbow Trout 4.0 11.0 1.0 62.0 128.0 37.0 36.0 9.0 3.0 121.0 15.0 9.0White Sucker 14.0 106.0 11.0 6.0 9.0 3.0 113.5 22.5 16.5Blacknose Dace Longnose Dace Creek Chub Johnny Darter Sculpin 9.0 6.0 0.0 12.0 108.0 9.0 5.5 9.5 2.5 121.0 15.0 9.0 C.2. Technical Steering Committee Members

Dan Taillon OMNR Peterborough District District Fisheries Biologist

Marc Desjardins Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Fisheries Biologist

Jim Bowlby Lake Ontario Management Unit Assessment Biologist

Stephen Haayen Department of Fisheries and Oceans Fish Habitat Biologist

Jason Borwick OMNR Aurora District District Fisheries Biologist

Janice Szwarz Municipality of Clarington Senior Planning Director

Vannitha Chanthavong Municipality of Durham Planner

Brent Barnes Township of Hamilton Director of Planning

Mark Phillips Ontario Ministry of Environment Surface Water Scientist

155


Appendix D

156


Appendix D.1. All Fish data sites from the 1970s to the 2000s, names, locations,

and time periods for each catchment Catchment Site ID Year Easting Northing 1 BLDR (1993-1999) 713407 4874609 1 GAN0273 (1973-1978) 717145 4872598 1 GAN0373 (1973-1978) 716280 4873836 1 GAN0473 (1973-1978) 714128 4874167 1 GAN0573 (1973-1978) 713443 4874670 1 GN06 (1993-1999) 716764 4873606 1 GN06 (2000-2005) 716764 4873606 1 GRCA (1993-1999) 717380 4872918 1 THMY (1993-1999) 716906 4873398 1 GAN0173 (1973-1979) 716882 4871786 1 GAN1873 (1973-1978) 712286 4875281 2 DRRG (1993-1999) 707977 4876201

FFDN (1993-1999) 707178 4876833 2 FFUP (1993-1999) 706850 4876958 2 GAN0673 (1973-1978) 711434 4874729

GAN0773 (1973-1978) 709386 4875343 2 GAN0873 (1973-1978) 707294 4876636 2 GAN0973 (1973-1978) 705343 4877039

GN07 (1993-1999) 709601 4875365 2 GN07 (2000-2005) 709601 4875365 2 LEUT (1993-1999) 712276 4874480

SHAM (1993-1999) 709357 4875334 3 GAN0104 (2000-2005) 702503 4876622 3 GAN0204 (2000-2005) 703576 4876317

GAN0304 (2000-2005) 701447 4877360 3 GAN0404 (2000-2005) 699833 4877322 3 GAN1004 (2000-2005) 698980 4877758

GAN1073 (1973-1978) 705352 4876730 3 GAN1173 (1973-1978) 701583 4876830 3 GAN1273 (1973-1978) 700646 4877605

GAN1373 (1973-1978) 698137 4877282 3 GN04 (1993-1999) 699833 4877322 3 GN04 (2000-2005) 699833 4877322

GNMD (1993-1999) 704971 4876374 3 LADY (1993-1999) 701360 4877563 3 PATH (1993-1999) 703079 4876541

8CO3 (1993-1999) 692454 4878558 4 GAN0504 (2000-2005) 697821 4877481 4 GAN0604 (2000-2005) 695945 4878086

GAN1473 (1973-1978) 696736 4877950 4 GAN1573 (1973-1978) 692463 4878565 4 GAN1673 (1973-1978) 694949 4879009

KANADA (2000-2005) 694363 4878767 4 KEN902 (1993-1999) 697227 4877749 4 KEN904 (1993-1999) 697034 4877923

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

157


4 ORM4 (1993-1999) 692426 4878567 5 GAN1773 (1973-1978) 713642 4874878 5 GAN2204 (2000-2005) 713589 4874721

GAN2304 (2000-2005) 713503 4877070 5 GAN2404 (2000-2005) 712960 4879230 5 GAN2504 (2000-2005) 713268 4878994

ORM8 (1993-1999)

(1993-1999)

(1993-1999)

(1973-1978)

(1993-1999)

(1973-1978)

(1993-1999)

(2000-2005)

(2000-2005)

(2000-2005)

(1973-1978)

(2000-2005)4879552

12 GAN2073 (1973-1978) 700396 4878492 12 GAN3373 (1973-1978) 696487 4881803 12 HEND (1993-1999) 700178 4878721 12 LANG (1993-1999) 699327 4879404 12 MCCR (1993-1999) 700554 12 SWMP (1993-1999) 697940 4881168 13 GAN0904 (2000-2005) 697425 4878905 13 GAN2173 (1973-1978) 697674 4878627

5

5 713577 4875795 6 7CO3 (1993-1999) 707774 4878998 6 7CO6 (1993-1999) 707744 4879161

7CO7 707744 4879236 6 CHY2 (1993-1999) 710017 4876920 6 CHY5 (1993-1999) 710073 4876979

FS01 710599 4876294 6 FS02 (1993-1999) 710472 4876294 6 GAN2273 (1973-1978) 710804 4876315

GAN2373 707772 4879153 6 NOM3 (1993-1999) 709513 4877522 6 NOM5 (1993-1999) 708501 4878177

PIG3 708197 4878253 6 PIG4 (1993-1999) 708197 4878253 6 PIG6 (1993-1999) 708189 4878271

GAN2473 707400 4881766 7 GAN3473 (1973-1978) 705480 4883374 7 OAKHILL (2000-2005) 705996 4883243

ORM1 705842 4882767 7 WALKERS (2000-2005) 704108 4884738 7 WILSON (2000-2005) 707699 4881989

WRIGHT 707473 4882576 8 DELL (2000-2005) 710694 4882602 8 GAN0405 (2000-2005) 707890 4881372

GAN2104 711711 4881775 8 GAN2573 (1973-1978) 711550 4881558 8 GAN2673 (1973-1978) 712971 4882376

GAN1904 702053 4880790 10 GAN2004 (2000-2005) 701223 4880923 10 GAN2973 (1973-1978) 701072 4881169

GAN3073 699807 4883230 10 WIGGINS (2000-2005) 699638 4882561 12 DELLRD (2000-2005) 696838 4881539 12 GAN1104 700406 4878450 12 GAN1204 (2000-2005) 699117

6

6

6

6

7

7

7

8

10

10

4878271

158


159

14 GAN0205 (2000-2005) 718111 4881375 14 GAN2604 (2000-2005) 715767 4874832 14 GAN2704 (2000-2005) 714991 4876231 14 GAN2804 (2000-2005) 714869 4877712 14 GAN3004 (2000-2005) 716464 4879887 16 GAN0305 (2000-2005) 713465 4874356 9 and 11 GAN1973 (1973-1978) 705233 4876973 9 and 11 GAN1304 (2000-2005) 703507 4877175 9 and 11 GAN1404 (2000-2005) 701759 4878082 9 and 11 GAN1504 (2000-2005) 700719 4879485 9 and 11 GAN1804 (2000-2005) 703199 4879038 9 and 11 GAN2773 (1973-1978) 704241 4877344 9 and 11 GAN2873 (1973-1978) 703099 4879687 9 and 11 GAN3173 (1973-1978) 704267 4877221 9 and 11 GAN3273 (1973-1978) 700811 4879493 9 and 11 GN05 (1993-1999) 701426 4878344 9 and 11 GN05 (2000-2005) 701426 4878344 9 and 11 GN08 (2000-2005) 701234 4878608 9 and 11 MCMILLIN (2000-2005) 698667 4881944

Appendix D.2. Fisheries data sites from the 1970 to the 2000s, including site names, locations, and the number of sampling events for each catchment (the number of sampling events appear in brackets following the site name).

Jen

160

Documents

GANARASKA RIVER WATERSHED BACKGROUND …...Ganaraska River Watershed Background Report blacknose dace, longnose dace, and creek chub, but is dominated by brown trout and minnow species