Technical Background Summary
for the Trout Creek Community-Based
Watershed Strategy
Draft
November 2009
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iii
List of Maps .................................................................................................................................. iii
1.0 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................... 1
1.1 Trout Creek Watershed ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose of the Community-Based Strategy.......................................................................... 2
2.0 Abiotic Resources.................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 The Land ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.1 Topography .................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.2 Geology.......................................................................................................................... 3
2.1.3 Physiography.................................................................................................................. 3
Surficial Geology ................................................................................................................ 4
Bedrock Geology ................................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Groundwater Conditions (Hydrogeology) ............................................................................ 4
2.3 Surface Water Quality........................................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Summary of Parameters and Results ............................................................................. 7
Total Phosphorus ................................................................................................................ 7
Nitrate ................................................................................................................................. 8
Chloride............................................................................................................................... 9
Suspended Solids .............................................................................................................. 10
Bacteria ............................................................................................................................. 11
Conductivity...................................................................................................................... 12
Metals................................................................................................................................ 13
Copper........................................................................................................................... 13
Lead............................................................................................................................... 14
Zinc ............................................................................................................................... 16
2.3.2 Wildwood Beach Monitoring ...................................................................................... 18
2.3.3 Reservoir Research Project .......................................................................................... 19
2.3.4 Wildwood Dam Discharge Aeration............................................................................ 19
2.3.5 Stratford Central Secondary School Monitoring Project ............................................. 19
2.4 Wildwood Dam................................................................................................................... 19
Flooding ........................................................................................................................ 19
Water Quality................................................................................................................ 19
Wildwood Dam Structure ............................................................................................. 20
3.0 Biotic Resources .................................................................................................................... 22
3.1 Aquatic Natural Heritage .................................................................................................... 22
Background Data Collection and Maintenance ............................................................ 23
Field Data Collection .................................................................................................... 23
Results and Findings ..................................................................................................... 23
3.1.1 Benthic Monitoring...................................................................................................... 23
3.2 Forest and other Vegetation Cover ..................................................................................... 24
Vegetation Cover Types ............................................................................................... 25
Wetland Cover .............................................................................................................. 25
Woodlot Size................................................................................................................. 25
Significant Natural Sites ............................................................................................... 26
Riparian Cover .............................................................................................................. 27
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
i
Forestry Projects ........................................................................................................... 27
4.0 Cultural Resources................................................................................................................ 28
4.1 Settlements & Built Culture................................................................................................ 28
Wildwood Conservation Area....................................................................................... 28
St. Marys ....................................................................................................................... 28
Zorra Township............................................................................................................. 28
Townships of Perth South/Perth East ........................................................................... 29
Harrington ..................................................................................................................... 29
Harrington Dam ............................................................................................................ 30
Harrington Mill ............................................................................................................. 30
Ducks Unlimited Viewing Area.................................................................................... 31
Harmony ....................................................................................................................... 31
4.2 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 31
Highway 7 and 8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class EA Study ................... 31
4.3 Agriculture .......................................................................................................................... 32
Conservation Practices.................................................................................................. 32
Tillage Practices............................................................................................................ 33
Farms Producing and/or Using Livestock Manure ....................................................... 34
Best Management Practices .......................................................................................... 34
Environmental Farm Plan ............................................................................................. 34
Clean Water Program.................................................................................................... 35
Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... 36
References.................................................................................................................................... 37
Maps ............................................................................................................................................. 40
Appendix 1. Aquatic Resources ................................................................................................. 49
Fisheries Monitoring..................................................................................................... 52
Fisheries Management Planning ................................................................................... 55
Fish Habitat................................................................................................................... 55
Mussels Monitoring ...................................................................................................... 57
Dams and Barriers......................................................................................................... 58
Summary of Aquatic Resources.................................................................................... 59
Appendix 2. Trout Creek Benthic Sampling Results............................................................... 60
Appendix 3: Trout Creek Fish Sampling Results .................................................................. 111
Appendix 4: TRFMP Summary of Public Input.................................................................... 127
Resource (refers to fish, fish habitat and their use) .................................................... 127
Issues........................................................................................................................... 128
The Plan ...................................................................................................................... 129
Opportunities............................................................................................................... 130
TRFMP Public Workshop Rough Notes - Public Input for Trout Creek subwatershed
..................................................................................................................................... 131
Appendix 5. Aquatic Ecosystem Categories ........................................................................... 138
Appendix 6: Dams and Barriers.............................................................................................. 141
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Trout Creek Watershed ................................................................................................ 1
Figure 2.1: Aquifers and wells........................................................................................................ 5
Figure 2.2: Phosphorus levels in Trout Creek ................................................................................ 7
Figure 2.3: Nitrate concentrations in Trout Creek .......................................................................... 8
Figure 2.4: Chloride levels in Trout Creek ..................................................................................... 9
Figure 2.5: Suspended solids levels in Trout Creek ..................................................................... 10
Figure 2.6: E. coli concentrations in Trout Creek......................................................................... 11
Figure 2.7: Conductivity levels in Trout Creek ............................................................................ 12
Figure 2.8: Copper concentrations in Trout Creek downstream of Wildwood Reservoir ............ 13
Figure 2.9: Copper concentrations in Trout Creek upstream of Wildwood Reservoir................. 14
Figure 2.10: Lead concentrations in Trout Creek downstream of Wildwood Reservoir.............. 15
Figure 2.11: Lead concentrations in Trout Creek upstream of Wildwood Reservoir................... 15
Figure 2.12: Zinc concentrations in Trout Creek downstream of Wildwood Reservoir .............. 16
Figure 2.13: Zinc concentrations in Trout Creek upstream of Wildwood Reservoir ................... 17
Figure 2.14: Wildwood Reservoir Operation Guidelines ............................................................. 21
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Landforms...................................................................................................................... 3
Table 2.2: Summary of Recreational Guideline Exceedances at Wildwood Reservoir Beach .... 18
Table 3.1: Vegetation Cover Types .............................................................................................. 25
Table 3.2: Forest Patch Size.......................................................................................................... 25
Table 3.3: Significant Natural Sites .............................................................................................. 26
Table 4.1: Trout Creek Watershed Tillage Practices and Area Used ........................................... 33
Table 4.2: Trout Creek Watershed Manure Application and Associated Land Base ................... 34
Table 4.3: Clean Water Program Projects in the Trout Creek Watershed .................................... 35
Table A1.1: Trout Creek Benthic Water Quality Sampling Summary......................................... 49
Table A1.2: Trout Creek Fish Species Summary ......................................................................... 53
Table A1.3: Trout Creek Mussel Species Summary..................................................................... 57
Table A2.1: Benthic Sampling Results......................................................................................... 60
Table A3.1: Fish Sampling Results ............................................................................................ 111
Table A5.1 Aquatic Categories Component Summary............................................................... 140
List of Maps
Map 1: Trout Creek Watershed..................................................................................................... 40
Map 2: Land Cover ....................................................................................................................... 41
Map 3: Physiography .................................................................................................................... 42
Map 4: Soils .................................................................................................................................. 43
Map 5: Monitoring........................................................................................................................ 44
Map 6: Natural Heritage ............................................................................................................... 45
Map 7: Naturalization and Enhancement Projects........................................................................ 46
Map 8: Soil Loss Potential............................................................................................................ 47
Map 9: Watercourse Information.................................................................................................. 48
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
iii
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 Trout Creek Watershed
The Trout Creek watershed (Figure 1.1, Map 1) is approximately 161 square kilometres in area and is
located in the center of the Upper Thames watershed. Trout Creek outlets into the North branch of the
Thames River in the town of St. Marys. The watershed includes portions of the Townships of Zorra
(44%), Perth South (32%), Perth East (22%), Town of St. Marys (3%) and the City of Stratford (1%) as
seen in Figure 1.1.
Trout Creek is a tributary of the North Thames River, and has the following tributaries: Harrington Creek,
Kerr Lupton Drain, Central Drain, Lange Drain and Birches Creek Drain. Wildwood Reservoir is located
upstream of Highway 7 on Trout Creek.
Land use (Map 2) within the Trout Creek watershed is primarily agriculture (78%). Other land uses
include wooded (17%), urban (3%) and water (2%).
Figure 1.1: Trout Creek Watershed
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
1
1.2 Purpose of the Community-Based Strategy
The Trout Creek Watershed Community-Based Strategy began in late 2008. The strategy focuses on two
components: a technical background summary and an action plan. The technical summary provides an
overview of abiotic, biotic and cultural aspects of the Trout Creek watershed. The action plan prioritizes
the issues and considerations of the community and makes recommendations for restoration work that
improves the environmental health of the watershed.
The technical background summary was prepared in 2009 by a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
that consists of
 Four watershed municipalities - Zorra, Perth South, Perth East, and the Town of St. Marys,
 Ontario Ministries of Natural Resources, the Environment, and Agriculture, Food and Rural
Affairs,
 Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.
The research for this document builds on the work done in the Oxford Natural Heritage Study (Oxford
County 2006) and the 2001 and 2007 Upper Thames River Watershed Report Cards.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
2
2.0 Abiotic Resources
2.1 The Land
2.1.1 Topography
The highest elevation in the Trout Creek watershed is found in the Lakeside area (Harrington Highlands)
which reaches approximately 385 metres above sea level (masl) elevation. The lowest elevation is where
Trout Creek empties into the Thames River at approximately 300 masl. Much of the Trout Creek
watershed is relatively flat, with the exception of the prominent portions of the Lakeside Moraine
(Harrington Highlands) where the relief changes by 25 metres along Trout Creek east of St. Marys and up
to 30 m in the upper headwater areas of the creek. However, in general, local relief does not exceed 15 m.
2.1.2 Geology
Ontario was completely covered by the ice of the Laurentide Ice Sheet approximately 20,000 years ago.
As the ice sheets melted, large amounts of meltwater eroded bedrock and deposited sediments across
southern Ontario, burying the older Paleozoic bedrock surface. The bedrock is buried under 5 to 40 m of
till throughout most of the watershed. During the Paleozoic period (350 to 500 million years ago), North
America was covered by a series of inland seas that deposited limestone, dolomite and shale. Today, these
rocks are economic commodities and a source for lime, cement and building stone (e.g., St. Marys
quarry).
2.1.3 Physiography
Physiography describes the land surface or landforms primarily composed of unconsolidated materials.
Table 2.1 summarizes the extent of each landform in the watershed. The physiography of the Trout Creek
watershed (Map 3) (summarized from Karrow, 19771) is comprised of glacially-deposited features such as
undrumlinized and drumlinized till plains and moraines (e.g., Harrington Highlands). Landforms created
by the scouring action of glacial meltwater and the deposition of the resultant sediment include outwash
landforms, meltwater channels and spillways. These latter landforms comprise a smaller portion of the
watershed and are comprised largely of sand and gravel. The subglacial meltwater channels consist of the
St. Marys Esker system on the northeast side of Wildwood Reservoir; a high level terrace flanking the
Trout Creek valley east of St. Marys, and spillways (predominantly along the creek channel).
Table 2.1: Landforms
Landform
Percent of Trout Creek
Watershed Occupied
Undrumlinized Till Plain
54
Drumlinized Till Plain
14
Spillway
16
Moraine (e.g. Lakeside Moraine)
7
Esker
6
Clay Plain
1
Water
1
The Trout Creek valley was a major glacial meltwater drainageway flowing eastward (opposite to its
current course) from the melting glacier at the Mitchell Moraine as the glacial ice retreated to Lake
Huron. As the ice retreated, trapped lakes were formed and a geologic unit identified as Wildwood Silts, a
remnant of a glacial age lake bed, remains in the Wildwood Reservoir area. High elevation gravel terrace
remnants flank Trout Creek east of St. Marys.
1
Karrow, P. F. 1977. Quaternary Geology of the St. Marys Area Southern Ontario. Geoscience Report 148
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
3
Several Earth Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) are found in the watershed,
including the Harmony Cut, St. Marys Cement Company South Quarry, and the Wildwood Silts.
Limestone bedrock can be observed in river cuts along the lower reaches of the Trout Creek valley.
Map 4 shows soils in the Trout Creek watershed.
Surficial Geology
The overburden varies in thickness from 40 metres in the Lakeside area to less than 5 metres along
portions of Trout Creek2. The physiography reflects the surficial geology and includes moraines, outwash
landforms, lacustrine features and eskers. The surficial geology forms the aquifers and provides
overburden material to filter out contaminants in the groundwater.
Bedrock Geology
The Trout Creek watershed and surrounding area is entirely underlain by Devonian age carbonate
formations. The Lucas Formation consists of brown limestone and dolomite and is found in a north to
south line just east of St. Marys. The younger Dundee Formation is a gray to brown fossiliferous
limestone and it underlies (subcrops) the western end of the subwatershed. There are good exposures of
the Lucas and Dundee formations in the quarry at St. Marys. Oil production in southern Ontario is largely
confined to the Dundee and Lucas Formations and isolated pockets of oil have been observed near St.
Marys. Oil staining has been observed in the quarry but oil is not an economic resource in this area. Sink
holes are also associated with the Dundee and Lucas formations and are found just west of St. Marys
outside of the Trout Creek watershed. The Lucas and Dundee formations are a good source of
groundwater.
2.2 Groundwater Conditions (Hydrogeology)
The Town of St. Marys has relied on groundwater as a source of drinking water throughout its settlement
history. Willis Chipman, appointed Chief Engineer in July 1899, evaluated four sources of drinking water
for the town including two within the Trout Creek watershed (Trout Creek itself above the GTR bridge
(now CN) and artesian wells). Chipman quickly discounted the surface water source due to the vast extent
of agriculture in the vicinity of the creek and commenced drilling the first well near the railway bridge in
1899. The well was artesian and the first flow was struck at a depth of 14 metres (48 feet) in bedrock. The
well was sunk ultimately to 32 m (105 feet) and the water rose to nearly 2 metres (6 feet) above land
surface and, therefore, was an artesian well.3 Another two wells were installed shortly afterward and the
waterworks for the town were completed throughout most of 1900. The water supply was provided
entirely from three drilled wells, each six inches (15 cm) in diameter and approximately 100 feet (30
metres) deep3. Chipman commented that the water was clear, cold and palatable for all domestic
purposes, but harder than most surface waters. A trace of sulphur showed at the wells but was not
detected at consumer taps3 . Today, three wells still supply water for St. Marys, but none are the original
drilled wells.
Groundwater can be found filling the spaces between the grains of sand and gravel, in rock crevices and
in fractures. Groundwater flows slowly through water-bearing zones or formations, known as aquifers, at
different rates. It is not confined to channels or depressions in the same way that surface water is
concentrated in streams and lakes. Groundwater exists almost everywhere underground (Figure ) yet has a
close connection with surface water bodies and circulates as part of the hydrologic cycle. Groundwater
represents one of the safest and cleanest forms of water supply. Understanding how and where
2
International Water Consultants, 2002. Town of St. Marys, Ontario Perth County Hydrogeologic Investigation
2001 to 2002. Prepared for the Town of St. Marys.
3
Chipman, W. 1901. Final Report upon Water Works System as Constructed, Town of St. Marys. Toronto.
Provided by the St. Marys Museum.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
4
groundwater moves through the watershed and the factors that control this movement will help to protect
and manage this resource.
Groundwater moves from recharge areas (where precipitation percolates into the ground) to discharge
areas where water appears above the ground in seeps, streams and lakes. The groundwater recharge and
discharge varies for each aquifer at depth. Recharge occurs throughout the Trout Creek watershed in all
areas. Groundwater flows at different rates according to the nature of the aquifer, but the most shallow
groundwater levels mimic the topography and are associated with the moraines. Aquifers occur at various
depths in the overburden and in the bedrock in the Trout Creek watershed (Waterloo Hydrogeologic Inc.,
2007). Most of the aquifers of importance in the Trout Creek watershed are found in the bedrock aquifers.
Groundwater characteristics such as recharge and discharge areas are often controlled by physiography
and topography. In general, groundwater flow is from east to west and the groundwater drainage area or
“groundwater watershed” is much larger than the Trout Creek in most cases. The flow of Trout Creek has
little influence on the groundwater flow in the deeper, more extensive aquifers. Localized shallow
aquifers are in communication with streams and the stream flow is controlled by groundwater during dry
periods.
Figure 2.1: Aquifers and wells
The location and extent of the overburden and bedrock aquifers and their water bearing capacities vary
throughout the watershed. Aquifers are often found at shallow depths adjacent to the river in the spillway.
In the higher, moraine areas, the more productive, confined aquifers are located deep within the
overburden; however, there are also local, less extensive aquifers at shallow depths that are also important
for natural habitat. In some parts of the watershed, groundwater is only found in the deeper, bedrock
aquifer.
The highest groundwater elevations occur along the Lakeside Moraine, also known as the Harrington
Highlands, in the overburden aquifers. Lower water elevations are usually observed in the bedrock
aquifers. The highest bedrock aquifer elevation also occurs in the Lakeside area.
Similar to Figure 2.1 above there are various types of wells in the Trout Creek subwatershed. When the
wells in St. Marys were first drilled, they were flowing artesian wells from a deep confined aquifer where
shallow wells are not available and only a deep aquifer is present. This deep aquifer is associated with the
Dundee Formation/ Lucas Formation and water moves along the fractures of the rock.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
5
Currently, the UTRCA has one groundwater monitoring well in the Trout Creek subwatershed as part of
the provincial groundwater monitoring network. Water quality samples are collected once per year and
water levels are measured hourly.
The Town of St. Marys is the owner and operator of a large municipal residential drinking water system
supplied by a groundwater source. It provides potable water to approximately 2,400 residential, industrial,
institutional and commercial premises within the Town. Three deep bedrock wells are connected to the
water system, each of these wells are equipped with pumping, treating and monitoring operations. The
Ministry of the Environment concluded that all three wells are GUDI (Groundwater under the Direct
Influence of surface water) with effective in-situ filtration. The remainder of the system consists of a
booster pump station (used in fire emergency only) and one elevated water storage tank facility located
within the distribution system.
The town water supply for St. Marys is maintained by the Municipality and the water is of good quality.
Water
quality
information
is
available
at
the
St.
Marys
website
www.townofstmarys.com/indexlarge.aspx?id=92. There are no water quantity issues identified. St.
Marys’ water supply is generally hard, high in iron and has naturally occurring elevated fluoride levels
but still meets the drinking water standards.
2.3 Surface Water Quality
Trout Creek has been monitored as part of the Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) Provincial Water
Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) since 1979. Trout Creek is sampled once a month from April to
December at two locations: downstream of Wildwood reservoir at Perth Line 9 and upstream of
Wildwood reservoir at the 33rd line. Sampling is conducted through the range of stream flow conditions
from baseflow to rain event sampling. This report summarizes data collected through this monitoring
program for nine parameters that reflect landuse activities in the watershed.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
6
2.3.1 Summary of Parameters and Results
Total Phosphorus
Fate and Behaviour
While phosphorus is an essential nutrient for plant and animal life, excess phosphorus loading can result
in significant increases in plant growth. Phosphorus is not directly toxic to aquatic life but elevated
concentrations can lead to undesirable changes in a watercourse. These changes include reduced oxygen
levels, reduced biodiversity, and algae blooms affecting recreational water.
Sources
Potential phosphorus sources can include commercial fertilizers, animal waste, domestic and industrial
wastewater, including soaps and cleaning products. Phosphorus binds to soil and is readily transported to
streams with eroding soil.
Standards
Ontario’s interim Provincial Water Quality Objective is 30 micrograms/L total phosphorus to prevent the
nuisance growth of algae. Algae blooms and excessive plant growth should be eliminated at total
phosphorus concentrations below 0.03 mg/L and can be a relevant site specific assessment of total
phosphorus.
Monitoring Results
Total phosphorus has been monitored in Trout Creek since 1979. Over this time period, total phosphorus
has been consistently above the provincial guideline (Figure 2.2). Phosphorus concentrations downstream
of Wildwood have remained fairly consistent over time at approximately three times the provincial
objective. Samples upstream of Wildwood have shown more increase in the last 15 years.
Figure 2.2: Phosphorus levels in Trout Creek
75th percentiles showing phosphorous levels in 5 year time blocks.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
7
Nitrate
Fate and Behaviour
Nitrate is a nutrient that does not adsorb to sediment and moves readily through surface runoff to streams
and through soil into groundwater. Elevated levels in a watercourse can be toxic to aquatic organisms,
especially amphibians. A condition called blue baby syndrome can result from young children drinking
water with elevated nitrates.
Sources
Nitrate sources can include animal waste, commercial fertilizers, municipal waste water, septic systems,
and atmospheric deposition.
Standards
The Province does not have an objective for aquatic life but the Canadian Environmental Quality
Guideline to protect aquatic life is 2.93 mg/L. The Ontario Drinking Water Standard for nitrate is a
maximum acceptable concentration of 10 mg/L.
Monitoring Results
Nitrate levels have been monitored in Trout Creek since 1979. Figure 2.3 shows concentrations of nitrates
routinely exceeding the Canadian guideline (CCME) for the protection of aquatic life over the monitoring
period. Nitrate levels upstream of Wildwood have been consistently higher than levels at the downstream
site. Nitrates had been generally increasing over the long term in Trout Creek but are showing
improvement in recent years.
Figure 2.3: Nitrate concentrations in Trout Creek
75th percentiles showing nitrate levels in 5 year time blocks
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
8
Chloride
Fate and Behaviour
Chloride moves easily with water and persists in the river system. Nearly all chloride added to the
environment will eventually migrate to surface water or groundwater. Chloride can be toxic to aquatic
organisms at high concentrations, and affects growth and reproduction at lower concentrations.
Sources
The highest loadings of chloride are typically associated with the application and storage of road salt (e.g.
calcium chloride). Urban streams tend to have the highest chloride concentrations.
Standards
Ontario does not have a Provincial Water Quality Objective for aquatic life. An Environment Canada/
Health Canada assessment report (2001) documents toxicity for sensitive aquatic species at 210 mg/L.
Monitoring Results
Chloride has been monitored in Trout Creek since 1979. Figure 2.4 shows chloride concentrations well
below recommended guideline levels since monitoring began. Chloride levels have been increasing in
Trout Creek since 1979 with some recent improvements at the site downstream of Wildwood.
Figure 2.4: Chloride levels in Trout Creek
75th percentiles showing chloride levels in 5 year time blocks
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
9
Suspended Solids
Fate and Behaviour
Suspended solids consist of silt, clay, and fine particles of organic and inorganic matter. These particles
are significant carriers of phosphorus, metals, and other hazardous contaminants. Suspended solids can be
detrimental to aquatic organisms including fish (covers spawning beds, damages gills, etc). Oxygen levels
in the stream can be impaired by organic solids from sources such as wastewater treatment plants and
storm sewers.
Sources
Soil erosion is the most common source of suspended solids to a watercourse. Erosion from cultivated
land, construction/development sites and eroded stream banks can all contribute sediment to surface
water. Natural erosion of streambeds and banks are also sources.
Standards
There are no established standards for suspended solids, although standards are built into the Provincial
Water Quality Objective for turbidity. Turbid water is undesirable for water supplies, healthy aquatic life,
recreation and aesthetics. Suspended solids can also transport quantities of trace contaminants.
Monitoring Results
Suspended solids have been monitored in Trout Creek since 1979 (Figure 2.5). The site upstream of
Wildwood has been variable over the years with an overall increase in suspended solids. The downstream
site shows lower suspended solids and more consistency over time.
Figure 2.5: Suspended solids levels in Trout Creek
75th percentiles showing suspended solids levels in 5 year time blocks
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
10
Bacteria
Fate and Behaviour
E. coli is a member of the total coliform group of bacteria and is the only member that is found
exclusively in the feces of humans and other mammals. Its presence in water indicates not only recent
fecal contamination of the water but also the possible presence of intestinal disease-causing bacteria,
viruses, and protozoa. Bacteria in surface water can also contaminate groundwater, putting drinking water
sources at risk.
Sources
E. coli and other fecal bacteria are found in the feces of humans and animals. Potential sources of fecal
bacteria include runoff from biosolids/sewage or livestock waste application, faulty private septic
systems, inadequate manure storage, wildlife, and urban storm water runoff.
Standards
The Provincial Water Quality Objective for recreational waters is 100 E. coli/100 mL. The Ontario
Drinking Water Standard for bacteria states that there should be no bacteria present in a drinking water
supply.
Monitoring Results:
Fecal bacteria have been monitored in Trout Creek since 1979. Bacteria levels in surface water tend to
fluctuate widely and monthly sampling gives a minimal assessment of bacteria in a creek. Based on this
data, E. coli/fecal coliforms are routinely above the recreational guideline of 100 E. coli/100 mL at the
two sampling sites (Figure 2.6). E. coli levels have shown some overall increase since monitoring began.
Figure 2.6: E. coli concentrations in Trout Creek
Geometric mean of data over 5 year blocks of time.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
11
Conductivity
Fate and Behaviour
Conductivity is a measure of water’s ability to conduct an electrical current and provides an indication of
the amount of dissolved ions present. Conductivity is used as a general indicator of pollutants in water.
Standards
There are no provincial or federal water quality standards for conductivity.
Monitoring Results
Conductivity levels at the site upstream of Wildwood are consistently higher than the downstream site
indicating higher levels of pollutants (Figure 2.7).
Figure 2.7: Conductivity levels in Trout Creek
75th percentiles of data over 5 year blocks of time.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
12
Metals
Copper
Fate and Behaviour
Copper is relatively immobile because of its strong adsorption to soil particles. It can be toxic to aquatic
animals at elevated levels but can also have serious impacts when in deficiency.
Sources
Some sources for copper include textile manufacturing, sewage treatment plant effluent, paints, pesticides
and fungicides, wood preservative, and electrical conductors. Higher levels of copper in the aquatic
environment are usually found in more urbanized and industrial areas.
Standards
The Provincial Water Quality Objective for copper is 5 ug/L.
Monitoring Results
Copper has been monitored in Trout Creek since 1998 (Figures 2.8 and 2.9). All samples for both sites
remain below the provincial objective of 5 ug/L.
Figure 2.8: Copper concentrations in Trout Creek downstream of Wildwood Reservoir
Boxplot graph presenting 50% of the data within the gray box (the 25th to 75th percentiles), the 10th and 90th
percentiles are the end of the “whiskers,” and the 5th and 95th percentiles are the dots.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
13
Figure 2.9: Copper concentrations in Trout Creek upstream of Wildwood Reservoir
Boxplot graph presenting 50% of the data within the gray box (the 25th to 75th percentiles), the 10th and 90th
percentiles are the end of the “whiskers,” and the 5th and 95th percentiles are the dots.
Lead
Fate and Behaviour
Lead can be toxic to aquatic organisms at elevated levels as this element is a cumulative toxin that can
affect the central nervous system of both animals and humans. The solid form of lead binds strongly to
soils, particularly clay, and the soluble form of lead is very mobile and bioavailable and has a more direct
toxic effect on aquatic organisms.
Sources
The main source of lead in Canada is the production of acid storage batteries. Other sources include
smelting of lead, burning of fossil fuels, municipal wastewater, sewage sludge, phosphate fertilizers, and
pesticides.
Standards
The Provincial Water Quality Objective for lead is 5 ug/L.
Monitoring Results
Lead has been monitored in Trout Creek since 1998 (Figures 2.10 and 2.11). Samples for both sites
remain below the provincial objective of 5 ug/L.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
14
Figure 2.10: Lead concentrations in Trout Creek downstream of Wildwood Reservoir
Boxplot graph presenting 50% of the data within the gray box (the 25th to 75th percentiles), the 10th and 90th
percentiles are the end of the “whiskers,” and the 5th and 95th percentiles are the dots.
Figure 2.11: Lead concentrations in Trout Creek upstream of Wildwood Reservoir
Boxplot graph presenting 50% of the data within the gray box (the 25th to 75th percentiles), the 10th and 90th
percentiles are the end of the “whiskers,” and the 5th and 95th percentiles are the dots.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
15
Zinc
Fate and Behaviour
Zinc is essential for good health and the functioning of biological processes in plants and animals but in
elevated levels in can be toxic to aquatic organisms. It can cause increased behavioural changes and
mortality as well as decreased benthic invertebrate diversity and abundance. Zinc adheres strongly to
aquatic particles, especially organic matter.
Sources
The main sources of zinc are galvanized products used in the automobile and construction industry. Other
sources include domestic and industrial wastewater, fossil fuels, road surface runoff, corrosion of zinc
alloy and galvanized surfaces and soil erosion. Higher levels of zinc in the aquatic environment are
usually found in more urbanized and industrial areas.
Standards
The Provincial Water Quality Objective for lead is 20 ug/L.
Monitoring Results
Zinc has been monitored in Trout Creek since 1998 (Figures 2.12 and 2.13). Samples for both sites
remain below the provincial objective of 20 ug/L.
Figure 2.12: Zinc concentrations in Trout Creek downstream of Wildwood Reservoir
Boxplot graph presenting 50% of the data within the gray box (the 25th to 75th percentiles), the 10th and 90th
percentiles are the end of the “whiskers,” and the 5th and 95th percentiles are the dots.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
16
Figure 2.13: Zinc concentrations in Trout Creek upstream of Wildwood Reservoir
Boxplot graph presenting 50% of the data within the gray box (the 25th to 75th percentiles), the 10th and 90th
percentiles are the end of the “whiskers,” and the 5th and 95th percentiles are the dots.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
17
2.3.2 Wildwood Beach Monitoring
The beach at Wildwood reservoir is monitored for recreational water quality by the Perth County Health
Unit. The beach is posted by the Health Unit when E. coli bacteria levels in the water are unsuitable for
swimming. Table 2.2 summarizes the number of recreational guideline exceedances for bacteria data from
1979 to 2008. Bacteria levels vary from year to year and the timing of elevated levels often relates to
periods of increased rain and runoff.
Table 2.2: Summary of Recreational Guideline Exceedances at Wildwood Reservoir Beach
Geometric Means of sites located in swimming area at Wildwood Reservoir
Year
1st Time Geometric
Mean Exceeded
RG*
No. of Times
Geometric Mean
Exceeded RG*
No. of Days
Beach Sampled
1979
August 10
1
12
1980
August 25
2
7
1981
--
0
4
1982
August
1
5
1983
August 12
1
8
1984
July 17
12
25
1985
August 28
1
13
1986
July 30
2
11
1987
--
0
12
1988
August 15
6
13
1989
August 1
5
16
1990
July 31
15
30
1991
July 23
6
17
1992
August 26
3
12
1993
--
0
14
1994
August 15
2
9
1998
July 29
5
12
1999
August 26
1
6
2000
August 23
1
8
2001
August 7
1
6
2002
August 12
7
12
2003
September 10
1
8
2004
August 16
2
7
2005
August 4
4
15
2006
July 31
7
12
2007
August 1
4
7
2008
August 5
2
10
*RG=Recreational Guideline of 100 CFU
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
18
2.3.3 Reservoir Research Project
A study was conducted in 2004 to 2006 by Freshwater Research (G. Nurnberg, 2006) to assess the water
quality of the North Thames River watershed with a focus on the impacts of the major reservoirs,
including Wildwood. The study concluded that Wildwood does not adversely affect downstream water
quality on an annual basis, but may do so occasionally in the summer. Wildwood continues to act as a
nutrient and sediment ‘sink,’ slowing water flow and retaining nutrients and other sediment runoff in its
bottom sediments. The study reports that the annual export of contaminants from Wildwood is smaller
than the input from upstream. The study suggests that this could potentially change in the future with
excess accumulation in bottom sediments.
Most of the data in Figures 2.2 to 2.13 from the two Trout Creek sites support the conclusions of the
study with contaminant levels at the site upstream of Wildwood generally higher than the downstream
site.
2.3.4 Wildwood Dam Discharge Aeration
Over the years there has been some deficiency in dissolved oxygen in the water on the downstream side
of Wildwood dam. This situation had resulted in periodic conditions detrimental to aquatic life such as
benthic invertebrates and fish. In 2002 a submerged vertical fountain was installed below Wildwood dam
to aerate discharge water, improving oxygen levels for fish. The fountain, developed at the University of
Western Ontario, works on water pressure from the reservoir and requires no other energy source.
Follow-up monitoring has determined that the system improves dissolved oxygen downstream.
2.3.5 Stratford Central Secondary School Monitoring Project
Students at Stratford Central Secondary School have been involved in a conservation project for a number
of years along Trout Creek. This project involved testing Trout Creek water quality during the summers
of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. The students tested at nine sites upstream of Wildwood Reservoir. Each
site was tested six times every other week for a total of 12 weeks, except for 2005 where each site was
tested five times every other week for a total of 10 weeks. Samples were taken such that a number of
rainfall events were captured each year.
The students used a Hach DR/700 Colorimeter to test for phosphates, potassium, nitrates, and dissolved
oxygen. Lamotte test kits were used to test for dissolved oxygen and turbidity. The mFC agar method was
used to count fecal coliform colonies.
2.4 Wildwood Dam
The Upper Thames Valley Conservation Report prepared in 1952 was the result of many years of effort
by the Province to study the upper Thames watershed. Technical investigations pertaining to the
management of land, water, forestry and wildlife resources were discussed. Relevant to water resources,
significant observations were noted in the report dealing with historical flooding and water quality
problems within the upper Thames watershed.
Flooding
Over 100 years of flooding problems were noted, and the most recent events of 1937, 1947, and 1948 in
the upper Thames watershed brought to light the need to address these problems as a high priority.
Significant damages and loss of life that occurred in 1937 on the South Thames River in Woodstock,
Ingersoll and London, and the North Thames River in Mitchell, Stratford and St. Marys led to the
development of an integrated flood control plan for the upper Thames watershed. This plan identified dam
and channel works on the South Thames, and for the North Thames at Wildwood near St Marys.
Water Quality
Substantial problems were cited and were attributed to a number of factors, not all of them necessarily
understood at the time, such as: the general land use changes that had occurred in the watershed due to the
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
19
long term transformation of the land to agriculture and the intensive practices noted at the time, the
pollution resulting from inadequate treatment of urban sewage, and the general lack of stream flow
available during the summer periods. The development of the plan included the utilization of
recommended dams and the reservoirs that would be created to increase flows and improve water quality
problems downstream.
Wildwood Dam Structure
Original design concepts were prepared in the 1940s and this dam was first proposed in 1948 as the first
major project of the Authority after it was formed in 1947. Originally designed as a flood control
reservoir, the project received considerable opposition and was shelved as it was thought more effective
methods to improve flood control could be undertaken by improving land use practices that would help to
control flooding.
Further design concepts for this dam were prepared in the '52 Report in accordance with the plan
developing at the time, which included the objectives of providing flood protection to downstream
communities throughout the watershed during the prevalent annual maximum flood periods experienced
during the spring due to snow melt, and to improve base flows such as during the drier summer months.
In 1961 engineering designs were reopened in general accordance with the Report. The major change
from previous designs was an increase in the height of the dam by 12 feet and a corresponding increase in
storage of 2½ times. Construction was started at the dam site in 1962 and completed in 1965. The cost of
the dam and land base at that time was close to $3,500,000. The design details of the dam are such to
allow for the full extent of necessary operations to take place for flood control and flow augmentation
purposes.
The outflow from the dam is controlled by utilizing three main operating features:
 Four large low level sluice gates set across the main opening of the dam provide coarse control of
flows from the dam and are primarily used during the spring runoff period (March to April) and
frequently during the fall and early winter when the soil is likely to be frozen or saturated and
runoff from snow melt or rainfall is potentially high. Other factors such as temperature, which
affects evaporation and therefore soil moisture, and vegetation cover, which intercepts rainfall but
is seasonal, also have a significant bearing on the amount of water that finds its way into streams
during the spring and fall months.
 Three small valves set in penstocks are located in the core of the dam below the winter water
level. Their purpose is to provide the fine control of outflow during the summer and also most
remaining times of the year to provide small releases to downstream when often even less flow
enters into the reservoir. By agreement with the Ministry of the Environment, a minimum release
is provided to downstream during the summer months. The lowest valve also allows the reservoir
to be further lowered for maintenance purposes if required. The valves allow discharges of cooler
water from the bottom of the reservoir during the summer.
 Concrete baffle walls above the gates provide some automatic control during the early summer
months when the reservoir level is at or close to its highest level, by allowing flow to spill over
the walls when the water levels rise following summer storms. The level the walls are at is slightly
above the normal highest summer level in order to capture some storm runoff so that in the
following dry period, flow to downstream can be equalized over a longer period of time as much
as possible.
An annual operating cycle guideline was established within the original design intent for the dam and
reservoir (Figure 2.14). The cycle indicates substantial fluctuations in water levels during the year need to
be allowed for. The fluctuations are necessary to provide optimum year round flood control capability to
protect downstream communities in a manner that does not endanger the safe operation of the dam under
a variety of circumstances and to provide a water quality benefit to downstream during adverse (dry)
summer conditions.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
20
With the beginning of the annual cycle considered to commence prior to spring runoff which generally
falls in the period of February to early April, the reservoir water level is considered to be at its minimum
and its storage volume capacity to be at its maximum. A significant amount of storage capacity is
available in the reservoir at this time of year, which on average enables the containment of the entire
spring snow melt runoff volume into the reservoir. The water level in the reservoir can be seen to rise
from the winter level to the summer level in less than one week. Timely operations coordinated with
observations and forecasts of downstream water levels on various watercourses can be utilized to
minimize some flooding impacts downstream. The possibility of more severe situations must be allowed
for to ensure the safety of the dam during these conditions.
Following spring runoff the reservoir level is jockeyed toward a summer starting level for May and June.
During this period climatic conditions can fluctuate significantly over short periods of time to influence
the filling of the reservoir to the desired level. Knowledge of the volume potentially available from spring
runoff is no longer available. As the growing season begins one can neither anticipate a future drought
period nor an above normal wet period prior to topping of water levels in the late spring. Reservoir
operators are generally not any more privy to better climatic information than that provided to the public
in order to guide long term operations. Decisions during this period can influence whether the summer
level is reached.
During the summer period and into the fall, watershed vegetation reaches full growth. Temperatures and
reservoir surface evaporation can be extreme. Soil moisture is usually low. Runoff from summer
precipitation may only be a small fraction of that during the spring or late fall. Because of the significant
lack of stream flow that may be present in the watershed, the storage accumulated from the spring and
subsequent rain events in Wildwood Reservoir is generally required to be used to supplement low stream
flow periods downstream. The need to augment downstream flows can require the use of greater volumes
of water from the reservoir than come into it from upstream during the summer and fall. Therefore, the
reservoir water levels are in general decline over the remainder of the summer or recreation season.
Summer storm runoff can cause some fluctuations in reservoir water levels as previously noted, but these
are usually substantially less than experienced during the spring and fall.
During the fall, the decline in water levels continues until the winter level is reached in early December.
During this time, reservoir capacity is gradually restored if possible in order to provide the flood control
capacities necessary to accommodate the situations in the fall where runoff potential due to watershed and
climatic conditions becomes greater. Return to winter levels reestablishes the operating cycle to its
beginning in anticipation of the next season’s critical operating needs.
Figure 2.14: Wildwood Reservoir Operation Guidelines
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
21
3.0 Biotic Resources
3.1 Aquatic Natural Heritage
The intent of the aquatic portion of the Trout Creek Community Subwatershed Strategy is to provide an
assessment of the current aquatic habitat conditions and to provide benthic water quality and fisheries
information within the subwatershed of the Trout Creek. While this portion of the study focuses on the
aquatic natural heritage features found within the subwatershed, these aquatic features influence the
downstream portion of the North Thames River and, subsequently, the receiving waters of the Thames
River and Lake St. Clair.
Aquatic natural heritage features are generally called aquatic ecosystems or aquatic environments and
include watercourses (streams, rivers, and drains), waterbodies (lakes, reservoirs, and ponds), and
wetlands. Aquatic means to consist of water; thus, aquatic environments are comprised of water for some
or all of the year. These environments provide habitat for all life stages of aquatic organisms and specific
life stages for semi-aquatic species, corridors for movement, food for sustenance, cover for protection,
and habitat for spawning and nursery areas.
An aquatic environment is a function of its living and non-living components, as well as the natural and
unnatural stresses placed upon them. The landscape (soils, valleys, etc.) forms the non-living portion of
the aquatic environment, and contributes to the habitat conditions required by the living portion of the
aquatic environment. The living component of the aquatic environment is comprised of living organisms,
some of which contribute to the aquatic habitat, while others live in the aquatic portion. Each component
plays a vital role in the aquatic ecosystem. For example; the habitat conditions and the quality of habitat
available determines the aquatic community that will occupy a given aquatic environment.
Many aquatic species are specialists only found in specific habitats, while other aquatic species are
generalists and can be found in a variety of habitats. This is one reason why several aquatic species of
plants, fish, mussels, insects and invertebrates are excellent indicators of ecosystem health. An aquatic
community can provide an indication of the current conditions, conditions suitable for a certain location
or reach of watercourse, and the potential for future improved/restored conditions. The indicator species
aid in targeting areas in need of conservation, protection and preservation while identifying those areas in
need of restoration or rehabilitation.
The species living within the aquatic environment are the first affected by an adverse or irreversible
impact such as impaired water quality. In many cases, aquatic species monitoring measures the extent of
contamination and the state of the water conditions, for extended periods of time. It is important to have
baseline surveys and consistent monitoring programs in place to ensure the accurate reporting of current
conditions. Continuous monitoring provides insight into changing conditions or trends, and additional
monitoring is required to target information gaps.
For the purpose of the Trout Creek Community Subwatershed Strategy, aquatic natural heritage features
were limited to watercourses, which includes streams, rivers, creeks, swales, and open surface drains.
Watercourses have been defined as an identifiable depression in the ground in which a flow of water
regularly or continuously occurs (Government of Ontario, 1990, C-27). A watercourse conveys water and
this flowing water transports food, sediment, nutrients, and debris. Several watercourses may dry up or
contain pools of standing water during the drier periods of the year and especially during periods of
drought.
Watercourses provide habitat for species such as fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals, plants, and
insects. The habitat that a watercourse provides includes the water, the river bottom, the surrounding
lands, the in-stream vegetation, and the overhanging vegetation. The aquatic and semi aquatic species
using this habitat need the habitat for feeding, cover to escape predation, areas to reproduce, and
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
22
migration routes. Watercourses also provide a source of food and water, and travel corridors for many
terrestrial species.
Watercourses are complex systems influenced by water quality and quantity, the surrounding lands such
as the floodplain, the substrate (rocks, cobble, clay, sand, and silt), the channel itself, water flow, water
temperature, and many other factors. Combined, all of these factors determine the type of aquatic
community that is present.
Background Data Collection and Maintenance
Aquatic information pertinent to watercourses in the Trout Creek subwatershed was gathered from the
following sources: Environment Canada (EC), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources (MNR), Royal Ontario Musuem (ROM), and Upper Thames River Conservation
Authority (UTRCA). The information was compiled and is maintained in Microsoft Access databases,
and is transferable to a Geographical Information Systems (GIS) application.
Field Data Collection
The aquatic monitoring data collected by UTRCA staff is comprised of regular fish and benthos (benthic
invertebrate) population sampling and aquatic habitat assessments. Standardised provincial protocols,
including the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP), the Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network
(OBBN), and the Municipal Drain Classification Project (MDC), were followed. The OBBN protocol
determines the collection of the benthos as an indicator of water and habitat quality while the OSAP
guides the fish community sampling. The MDC and OBBN direct the qualitative assessment of the
aquatic habitat conditions.
Results and Findings
The aquatic information collected provides baseline data and a current picture of the aquatic environment
found within the Trout Creek subwatershed.
3.1.1 Benthic Monitoring
Benthos refers to benthic macroinvertebrates (BMI) which are insects and other macroscopic organisms
that lack a backbone, and live at or near the bottom of watercourses (rivers) and waterbodies (lakes). They
include the larval and/or adult stages of freshwater worms, beetles, caddisflies, crustaceans, damselflies,
dragonflies, leeches, mayflies, and stoneflies. BMI are abundant in most stream sediments and have well
known tolerances to pollution and habitat disturbances. Additionally, they provide a long term assessment
of water and habitat quality because they are relatively sedentary, spend all or most of their lives in water,
and many have life spans of a year or more. Benthic organisms are collected because they are relatively
easy to sample and identify for analysis and monitoring purposes.
Table A1.1: Trout Creek Benthic Water Quality Sampling Summary (Appendix 1) summarizes benthic
samples collected by the UTRCA since 1997 within the Trout Creek watershed. The sample sites are
illustrated in Map 5: Monitoring. The appendices contain the detailed analysis of the benthic sampling
results.
The UTRCA has conducted benthic sampling as a cooperative project with the University of Western
Ontario (UWO) throughout the Upper Thames Watershed. This sampling methodology follows a version
of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rapid bioassessment protocol as modified by Dr.
Robert Bailey. Dr. Bailey and John Schwindt (affiliated with UWO and UTRCA, respectively) were
involved with the development of the provincial OBBN protocol which incorporated Dr. Bailey’s
methods. UTRCA benthic samples are taken at the same locations as the Provincial Water Quality
Monitoring Network (PWQMN), from reference reaches, and at representative sites along watercourses to
provide adequate information for assessment purposes. Benthic sampling also targets areas where
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
23
monitoring activities track the changes occurring on the landscape such as urban development and instream habitat improvements.
Trout Creek watershed benthic sampling results indicate a range from very poor to good water and habitat
quality conditions. These results are fairly typical of the impaired conditions found through out the Upper
Thames watershed and are indicative of intensive urban and rural development. Fluctuations at individual
sampling sites result from natural and man-made impacts. Natural factors include flow extremes (drought
and unusually high flows) while manure and fertilizer run-off, spills, septic waste contamination and
habitat disturbances are influenced by human activities. A few of the Trout Creek tributary streams have
fairly good water quality, are relatively unimpaired, and are sampled regularly as refererence sites. The
relatively poor water quality evident at Trout Creek sites is likely due to rural impacts such as run-off and
habitat disturbances. Downstream sites are generally of poorer quality and illustrate the negative habitat
and water quality impacts of a large impoundment (Wildwood Reservoir).
Further investigation would be required to pinpoint specific sources of habitat and water quality
impairment and to suggest possible solutions. General issues and remedial measures are prescribed in the
Trout Creek Watershed Report Card (www.thamesriver.on.ca/Watershed_Report_Cards/images_2007/
Report_Cards_Trout.pdf). Continued monitoring would help track any changes occurring with water and
habitat quality as well as indicate trends within the watershed.
3.2 Forest and other Vegetation Cover
The Trout Creek watershed lies within the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Forest Region, which is
characterized by a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees. The main tree species in this forest region
include maple, oak, Yellow Birch, Red Pine, Eastern White Pine, and Eastern Hemlock. The Deciduous
or Carolinian Forest Zone begins near London and extends south, so there is some overlap of the forest
zones in the St. Marys area. Typical trees of the Deciduous Forest Zone include beech, maple, Black
Walnut, hickory and oak.
Prior to European settlement, much of Oxford and Perth Counties was forested. Today, only a fraction of
the original forest cover remains because of large scale land clearing for agriculture, urban settlement and
other land uses.
The Trout Creek watershed has 17.2% forest cover (Map 6: Natural Heritage), which is higher than the
average for the Upper Thames watershed (11.4%), but still considered too low for sustainability.
Meadows and other habitat types add another 2.5% for a total of 19.7% natural vegetation cover. It is
believed there should be 25 – 30% forest cover and other natural cover in southern Ontario’s landscape to
sustain native plants and animals (Environment Canada 2004).
The amount of forest interior is 2.7%, which is above the Upper Thames average, but still considered low.
Forest interior refers to the protected core area found inside a woodlot that some bird species require to
nest and breed successfully. The outer 100 m perimeter of a woodlot is considered ‘edge’ habitat and
prone to high predation, sun and wind damage and alien species invasion. There are some good sized
woodlots in the Trout Creek watershed, providing forest interior habitat for area sensitive birds such as
Scarlet Tanager and Ovenbird. Many of the larger woodlots are located around Wildwood CA and
Harrington Creek. Long, narrow woodlots rarely contain forest interior as they are less than 200 m wide.
Round or square-shaped woodlots maximize the amount of interior as there is less edge.
In the 2007 Upper Thames River Watershed Report Cards, forest conditions in the Trout Creek watershed
scored a C grade overall, with a C for forest cover and a D for forest interior. The average grade for forest
conditions in the Upper Thames is a D, which is not an unexpected result considering the Thames is
situated in a highly developed part of Ontario with productive farmland and a large human population.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
24
Vegetation Cover Types
Most of the vegetation cover in the Trout Creek watershed is composed of deciduous forest with some
coniferous and mixed (deciduous and coniferous) forest and shrubland. Together, these forest types
account for 76% of the natural vegetation in the watershed (Table 3.1). Coniferous plantations comprise
another 11%, which is a relatively large amount that reflects the extensive tree-planting that took place
some 50 years ago within Wildwood CA when the UTRCA acquired and reforested this area.
Table 3.1: Vegetation Cover Types
Vegetation Cover Type
Ha
% of Cover
Deciduous
1462
46
Mixed
631
20
Coniferous
307
10
Plantation
353
11
Hedgerow
19
<1
Tree Nursery, Orchard
32
1
Urban Woods <0.5 ha
4
<1
375
12
3182
(19.7% of watershed)
100
Meadow
TOTAL COVER
Meadows (unmaintained grasslands with scattered shrubs and trees) occupy 12% of the vegetation cover
and are often associated with watercourses and fallow farm fields. There is a growing recognition for the
importance of meadow habitat in the landscape.
Wetland Cover
Over 80% of wetlands in southwestern Ontario have been lost due to land clearing and drainage. Today,
2.9% of the Trout Creek watershed is in wetland cover, about the same as the average for the entire Upper
Thames basin. While there are no records of how much wetland cover existed historically, this area
probably contained 10 - 40 % wetland cover by watershed. Wetlands, primarily wooded swamps, are a
common vegetation community in woodlands. They represent 17% of the natural vegetation cover in
Trout Creek watershed. Swamps can be deciduous, mixed or coniferous.
Woodlot Size
As mentioned earlier, large woodland and forest patches are needed to sustain certain sensitive bird
species as well as other species. In the Trout Creek watershed, 71% of woodlands are small, 17% are midsized and only 12% are large (>30 ha) (Table 3.2). This size distribution is typical of other watersheds
within the Upper Thames basin.
Connecting and filling in gaps in woodland patches with trees and natural vegetation can go a long way in
effectively doubling the size of woodland patches.
Table 3.2: Forest Patch Size
Number of
Woodlot Patches
% of Woodlot
Patches
Small, < 10 ha
198
71
Medium, 10 – 30 ha
48
17
Large, > 30 ha
32
12
278
100
Size Category
TOTAL
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
25
Significant Natural Sites
Many sites in the Trout Creek watershed have been designated as significant by the Ministry of Natural
Resources and/or the Counties. Table 3.3 summarizes the sites. The vast majority are situated along Trout
Creek or a major tributary. Refer to Figure 1.1 for specific locations.
Table 3.3: Significant Natural Sites
Name
Designations
Size (ha)
Comments
(1) Lakeside/Wildwood Complex *
PSW, LS ANSI
225
Only 225 ha of the 503 ha wetland is
within Trout. Lakeside Swamp is a LS
ANSI (3 ha)
PSW
22
Only 22ha of the 165 wetland is within
the Trout Creek Watershed.
(3) Zorra Swamp
LSW, SNA
SNA = 61
Wetland = 15
Wetland area of Zorra Swamp is 82 ha
in total (rest is outside the Trout Creek
Watershed)
(4) Harmony Woods
SNA Perth
38
(5) Shagbark Hickory Woods
SNA Perth
29
(6) Trout Creek Valley
SNA Oxford
76
(7) Trout Creek Floodplain
SNA Perth
48
SNA Oxford
70
SNA Perth
23
(10) Happy Hills *
PSW, SNA Oxford
131
Area of SNA given here; see
Lakeside/Wildwood
(11) Lost Concession *
PSW, SNA Oxford
67
Area of SNA given here
PSW, SNA
126
Earth Science ANSI
1
(2) Stratford Wetland Complex
(8) Brooksdale Forest
(9) Fairview Woods
(12) Wildwood Lake*
Harmony Road Cut
Brooksdale Glacial Complex
Earth Science ANSI
273
St. Marys Cement Company South
Quarry
Earth Science ANSI
?
Wildwood Silts
Earth Science ANSI
35
Entire site is 459 ha.
Lakeside Moraine (Harrington
Highlands)
* Part of the Lakeside/Wildwood Complex
PSW =
Provincially Significant Wetland
LSW =
Locally Significant Wetland
SNA Oxford =
Significant Natural Area in Oxford County. (Hilts, S. 1976. Natural Areas in Oxford
County: A Preliminary Survey. Dept. Geography UWO)
SNA Perth =
Significant Natural Area in Perth County. (Hoffman, D. 1982. Perth County: Preliminary
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Survey. Experience 81 and 82, Ministry of the
Environment. Douglas Hoffman, University of Waterloo)
Earth Science ANSI =
Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest
Life Science ANSI =
Life Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest
Sites can have more than one designation. SNAs include entire wooded patch (wetland and upland) but wetlands
are smaller vegetation communities and do not include the larger wooded area in which it is found.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
26
Wildwood Reservoir is known as a significant birding area, owing to the great roost of gulls that stage
over in the shallow waters at the upper end of the reservoir each fall. It is recognized by Birdlife
International, a global network of Important Bird Areas.
Riparian Cover
The area alongside a watercourse is called the riparian zone. There are about 208 km of open watercourse
in the Trout Creek watershed, including farm drains and natural creek systems. About 39% of the riparian
zone (30 m on both sides of the watercourse) is in permanent vegetation (forest and meadow). The
average for the Upper Thames is 34%. Environment Canada recommends 75% of watercourses be
naturally vegetated (up to 30 m) to maintain stream health.
The main branches of Trout Creek have more riparian vegetation cover than the smaller, headwater
drains. Landowners tend to keep back from larger watercourses, which experience more flooding.
Forestry Projects
Approximately 8,870 trees have been planted in the Trout Creek watershed at 17 locations through the
UTRCA’s Private Land Reforestation Program. See Map 7: Naturalization and Enhancement Projects.
Volunteers with Local Outdoors Opportunies Perth and the Perth Conservation Club, with support from
the Perth Stewardship Network, planted 5,250 trees in the Trout Creek corridor and made improvements
to over 2 km of stream banks, and stream and riparian habitat. Through the UTRCA’s Communities for
Nature program, schools and community groups planted 2180 native shrubs and trees, and 1400
wildflowers and grasses at five sites. The sites included Harrington CA, Meadowridge, Wildwood CA
and locations within St. Marys.
The UTRCA thinned over 162 ha of conifer plantation on public and private land to allow hardwood
regeneration and improve habitat for wildlife.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
27
4.0 Cultural Resources
4.1 Settlements & Built Culture
Wildwood Conservation Area
Once the Wildwood dam and reservoir were completed late in 1965, no time was lost in moving toward
recreational development. A preliminary land use plan was prepared by Rex Bishop, and later the services
of a professional planning consultant, J.A.J. Knox, of Canadian Mitchell Associates, Bramalea, were
retained. A master plan was produced in 1967.
In the interval steps were taken to provide limited facilities for boaters, bathers and picnickers. A section
of the park was opened to the public for the first time in May 1966. A road was built to the lake, an area
was staked off for bathers and a number of picnic tables were installed. As an experiment no restrictions
were placed on the type of watercraft using the lake, and sailboats, powerboats, canoes, rowboats and
water skiers used the facilities.
A new pavilion was constructed near the beach in the fall of 1967 with a picnic shelter, food concession,
sanitary facilities and a change room for bathers. A 62-site trailer camp and a service building were ready
for use in 1968. On the north side of the lake, a cottage area was divided into 24 lots, staked out and a
number of lots leased.
Today, Wildwood Conservation Area offers a 480-site campground with washrooms and laundry
facilities; a lake for swimming, boating, sailing and fishing; 20 kilometres of hiking trails; summer
recreation programs; and a large day use area. It also offers environmental education programs to more
than 5000 students annually.
St. Marys
The first settlers arrived in St. Marys in the early 1840s, attracted by the area’s natural resources. At the
new town site, the Thames River cascaded over a series of limestone ledges, providing the power to run
the first pioneer mills and giving the community an early nickname: Little Falls.
In the riverbed and along the banks, limestone was close to the surface and could be quarried for building
materials. Many 19th century limestone structures survive: churches, commercial blocks, and private
homes. They have given St. Marys its current nickname: Stonetown.
The coming of the Grand Trunk Railway in the late 1850s spurred growth and soon St. Marys became a
centre for milling, grain-trading and the manufacture of agriculture-related products. The railway
connected the town to the rest of the world and framed the local landscape with its two large trestle
bridges on limestone pillars across the waterways. Today, limestone is no longer quarried for building
blocks but it is still essential to production at the St. Marys Cement Company, a major local industry.
In the late 1800s as the town prospered, social, educational and cultural facilities expanded. St. Marys was
incorporated into the province of Ontario, officially, in 1863. However, it did not incorporate itself into
Perth County.
St. Marys has a population of 6,617 (2006 Census of Canada) which is a 5.1% increase since 2001.
Zorra Township
In 1821 the Township of Zorra became part of Oxford County. The name “Zorra” was chosen in 1819 by
Peregrine Maitland, the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada from 1818 to 1828. Translated from
Spanish to English, zorra means vixen, which is a female fox, but also a spiteful or quarrelsome woman
(Historically bound, 2008).
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
28
In 1845, Zorra was divided in East Zorra and West Zorra. In the same year, district councils were given
the power to appoint their own warden, clerk and treasurer.
In 1975, the provincial government’s restructuring of rural Ontario led to the union of Embro with the
townships of West Zorra, East Nissouri and North Oxford to create the Township of Zorra.
The township’s population increased by 0.9% between the 2001 and 2006 Canadian Census results (from
8052 to 8125). The 2006 census also counted 2,994 dwellings in the township (Statistic Canada, 2006).
Townships of Perth South/Perth East
The history of the townships is very much tied to the Canada Company, formed in 1824 by a group of
investors in London, England. The purpose of the company was to sell the Crown Reserves and Clergy
Reserves that were held by the government of Upper Canada. These reserves were lots all over the
province. Opposition from the Anglican Church forced the government to keep the Clergy Reserves.
Instead, the Canada Company purchased over a million acres of unsurveyed land known as the Huron
Tract in addition to the Crown Reserves. It was out of this large block of land that Blanshard, Downie and
many other townships in Perth, Huron and Middlesex Counties were carved (My Roots are in Blanshard,
1989). Blanshard and Downie Townships were named after directors of the Canada Company.
In 1997, 14 municipal corporations within the County of Perth restructured to form four new
municipalities: the Township of Perth East, Township of Perth South, Municipality of West Perth and the
Municipality of North Perth.
On January 1, 1998, the Townships of Blanshard and Downie amalgamated to become the Township of
Perth South. The township is predominately agricultural and has a population of 4,132.
On the same date, the Townships of Ellice, Mornington, North Easthope, South Easthope and the Village
of Milverton officially restructured to become the Township of Perth East. The new municipality has over
7,000 hectares, 4,000 households and a total population of approximately 12,000.
Harrington
The settlement of Harrington was initially referred to as Demorestville after David Lazier Demorest, a
United Empire Loyalist who bought the west half of Lot 30, Concession 2, in 1843 from the Canada
Company. Eventually the settlement became known as Springfield due to the many springs in the area.
Since Springfield was a popular name for communities in this part of Canada, the name had to be changed
once again in order to have a post office.
Harrington is named after John Harrington who was Zorra’s representative on the first council for the
District of Brock in 1842. He eventually became reeve of East Zorra and in 1860 the warden of Oxford
County.
Because there was already a settlement in Quebec called Harrington, the West Zorra version was called
Harrington West to avoid confusion with the postal system.
By 1875, Harrington had a population of 200 and a thriving business and industrial sector. Harrington
West was never served by a railway and that accelerated its transformation from a commercial centre to a
mostly residential hamlet (Historically bound, 2008).
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
29
Harrington Dam
In 1948, Milton Betteridge suggested the UTRCA acquire the Harrington dam site as a conservation area.
Lengthy negotiations were involved and several obstacles overcome before the first piece of property was
bought in 1952.
Representatives of the Conservation Authority inspected the property and Gordon Ross reported that a
large section of the 35-ft spillway had been undermined and washed away. It was estimated that to repair
the dam and enlarge the pond from 4 to 8 acres, would cost approximately $10,000. This was beyond the
Authority’s means. Furthermore, the Conservation Branch of the Department of Planning and
Development ruled that it would not consider a grant for this dam, or similar projects elsewhere, without
complete engineering and cost estimates. Plans for the dam and spillway were prepared by R. K. Kilborn
& Associates and the Conservation Branch supplied a plan for the pond.
Negotiations for property purchase were opened with Robert Duncan, who owned the dam and pond, and
with adjoining property owners William Simpson, Mrs. Levi Nimock and George Robinson. In all, about
12 acres were obtained. Work started on July 1952 and the project was virtually completed a year later.
Service buildings were added afterwards.
After almost two years of negotiations, the UTRCA purchased the mill in 1966 from Mr. Duncan. It was
one of the few remaining water-powered grist mills in western Ontario. The original mill was built in
1846 by Mr. Demerest and was purchased by Mr. Duncan in 1920. That mill was destroyed by fire in
1923 and replaced the same year.
The Harrington Dam was overtopped twice in the summer of 2000 with subsequent repair work
performed on the downstream embankment slopes adjacent to the spillway.
Source: “Twenty Five Years of Conservation on the Upper Thames Watershed,” 1947 to 1973. Published
by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.
Harrington Mill
The grist mill at Harrington Conservation Area was built by the town’s founder, D.L Demorest. The
original mill structure was built with hand-hewn native pine timbers and topped with a split shingle roof.
It was powered by an overshot waterwheel that was later replaced by a more efficient water-driven
turbine in the 1880s. At this time the mill was still utilizing the Frenchburr stone system for the
production of flour. When the practice of grinding coarse grains for area farmers was introduced, it
quickly deteriorated the stones and that method of milling ceased.
In the late 1890s, modern milling equipment came to Harrington in the form of an oat roller and chopper.
The mill’s oat roller dates back to 1899 and was manufactured locally by Whitelaw Machinery of
Woodstock.
The mill was in continuous operation from 1846 to 1966, except for a brief period of time in 1923 when it
succumbed to fire, and twice in 1903 and 1949 when the mill dam broke. In later years, a diesel engine
was used to operate the mill when the water supply was too low to operate the turbine. The UTRCA
acquired the mill in 1966. Since then, the grist mill has remained closed and unused.
In April 1998, the UTRCA held a public meeting to discuss the future of the mill. The community was
supportive of efforts to restore the mill at its current location. In February 1999, the UTRCA entered into
a lease agreement with the Harrington Community Club for the long-term restoration of the grist mill and
the maintenance of Harrington Conservation Area. In 2005, the club applied for a grant from the Ontario
Trillium Foundation (OTF) for the restoration of the mill foundation and was granted $70,800. But the
quotes received for the work were $140,000-$220,000. Even with fundraising there was still a large gap
between the OTF grant and quotes. In addition, the OTF required the project to be completed in 2009.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
30
The Harrington Community Club worked diligently and received a second set of quotes to fit the $70,800
budget. The work involved building a roadway, removing the lien on the building, rebuilding the back
wall of the foundation, constructing buttress walls against the interior west wall, forming a dead wall
under the interior wall to stop erosion, forming concrete columns (posts) under the main floor supporting
joists, pouring a concrete floor in the area of the running gear in the basement. The project was completed
in August 2009 and the club received the OTF money. Future projects involve securing the building to
stop rodent damage, re-aligning and loosening the running gear, and re-establishing the raceway which
brings water from the pond so the wheels will turn again from water power (Green, 2009).
Ducks Unlimited Viewing Area
The Ducks Unlimited Viewing Area was constructed at Wildwood Conservation Area in 1978 as a
wetland project through an agreement between the UTRCA and Ducks Unlimited Canada. The project
was undertaken to provide migratory wildfowl and other wildlife with suitable habitat for feeding,
breeding and nesting. In 1985, a viewing tower was installed with financial assistance from the Ministry
of Natural Resources. The site is located in Zorra Township, Line 31, Part of Lots 31, 32, and 33; north
of Harrington.
Harmony
The community of Harmony came into existence when a Methodist missionary named Cleghorn lost his
way while traveling from Shakespeare to West Zorra. He is said to have come upon a settler’s house
where he remained for some time. Services were held at the house attracting backwoodsmen with an
interest in religious exercise, who formed the foundation of a small congregation known as “Harmony.”
The society continued to hold worship each week in private homes or the local school until a frame
building was constructed in 1864, ministered by John S. Fisher. The church was founded on Lot 1,
Concession VII (Johnston 1902:184). It was replaced with a brick structure in 1874 (DTHBC 2002:2).
The community was provided with a post office in 1867 with Edmond Corbett holding position of
postmaster from that year until 1875 (DTHBC 2002:2). By 1879, Harmony had within its limits an
Orange Lodge, saw mill, blacksmith, wagon shop, and general store serving a population of about 75
individuals (H. Belden & Co. 1879: xiv).
4.2 Transportation
Highway 7 & 8 once formed part of one of the earliest roads constructed by the Canada Company, first
named the Goderich Road and later the Huron Road. The road was opened in 1828 and connected two
major planned centres established by the Canada Company: Goderich, on the shore of Lake Huron, and
Guelph. The road, which extended from Wilmot Township to Goderich, was originally a native trail and
early sleigh road (Lee 2004:158). It was surveyed by Deputy Provincial Surveyor John McDonald and
travels the general course of modern Highway 8. The Company actively worked to promote travel
between the two centres and to encourage settlement along the roadway. In so doing, they offered
financial grants or assistance to individuals who would erect inns along the route, and often funded the
construction of schools, and prepared town plans for communities in strategic locales. Several historic
properties along Highway 7 & 8 and within the Trout Creek watershed were established as Canada
Company projects. One of these is the Fryfogel Inn, east of Shakespeare.
Perth Road 113/Embro Road 6 provides direct access to the 401 Provincial Highway.
Highway 7 and 8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class EA Study
The Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has initiated a Highway 7 and 8 Transportation Corridor Planning
and Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study, from Greater Stratford to the New Hamburg Area. The
study will develop a plan that addresses:
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
31

capacity, operation and safety needs for the 2-lane and 4-lane sections of Highway 7 and 8
between Stratford and New Hamburg and through the built-up areas of Stratford, Shakespeare
and New Hamburg; and
 linkage needs between the analysis area and other regions in the province.
A preliminary design will be prepared for the provincial roadway components of the plan, and be
documented in a Transportation Environmental Study Report for public review at study completion
(www.7and8corridorstudy.ca/index.htm).
4.3 Agriculture
Land use in the Trout Creek watershed is predominately agriculture (78%). Approximately 17% of the
watershed is forested, 3% is urban and 2% is water (Map 2).
The following summary is based on a Statistics Canada 2006 survey. A total of 161 farms participated in
the survey, representing a total land base of 13,753 ha or approximately 85% of the watershed. These
farms reported total gross farm receipts of approximately $51,868,215.
The farm types that participated in the Statistics Canada survey were:
Livestock

Swine

Poultry

Cattle both beef and dairy

Other livestock (e.g. horses)
Cash Crop

Corn

Grain

Soybeans

Berries and grapes

Vegetables

Trees, fruits and nuts
Other

Natural pastures

Tame or seeded pastures
Conservation Practices
Farms that implement sound conservation practices wherever possible will reduce runoff (water,
sediment, etc.) to surface water and minimize soil losses by wind. Conservation practices improve soil
health by increasing the organic levels, soil structure, and soil water holding capacity, and can also
increase crop yields. Map 4 shows soils in the Trout Creek watershed. Map 8 shows soil loss potential.
In the Trout Creek watershed, at least 137 farms implemented the following soil conservation practices
(Note: Statistics Canada reports that the 161 farms reported using the following soil conservation methods
or a combination of these methods, 356 times):

Crop rotation

Rotation grazing

Winter cover crops

Plowing down green crops

Buffer zones around water bodies

Windbreaks or shelter belts (natural or planted)
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
32
Tillage Practices
The traditional role for tillage systems was to provide weed control and prepare a seedbed that will give
good crop stands and high yields. More recently, tillage and cropping systems have been changed to
accomplish the same goals while reducing soil erosion through less intensive or no cultivation. High fuel
costs and shortage of labour may encourage farmers to use reduced tillage systems.
The switch to a different tillage system must be based on the system’s compatibility with the farm’s soil
types, slopes, drainage, moisture regime and temperature. Farm operators must consider the tillage
system’s effect on erosion control, timeliness, the potential for controlling weeds, insects and diseases,
and profitability. No one tillage system is best for Ontario conditions because of the variability in soils,
crops and climate. In fact, the tillage system may rotate with the crop to allow the most appropriate tillage
for the crop being grown. Ontario farmers tend to use conventional tillage, mulch tillage and no-tillage
systems.
Conventional Tillage Systems
Conventional tillage is any tillage system that attempts to bury most of the previous crop residue, leaving
less than 30% of the soil surface covered with residue after planting. Usually the moldboard plow is used
in conjunction with a variety of other tillage implements. The principal advantages of the moldboard
system are that machinery is familiar, widely available and adaptable to a wide range of soil conditions.
Moldboard plowing increases soil porosity and allows for good air exchange, root proliferation and water
infiltration. The increased soil porosity can be lost with excessive secondary tillage or in soils with poor
structural stability. Many livestock producers view the moldboard plow as the most effective way to
incorporate manure and break up sod fields. The disadvantage of the moldboard system is the high cost of
equipment, fuel and labour associated with seedbed preparation. Another disadvantage is that with little or
no residue cover, there is a high risk of soil erosion by wind and/or water.
Mulch Tillage Systems
Mulch tillage systems are designed to leave more than 30% of crop residue on the soil surface and offer
more protection from soil erosion by wind and water than does the moldboard plow. The chisel plow has
been the most widely adopted mulch tillage tool in Ontario. Other terms used to describe this system are
reduced tillage, minimum till or conservation tillage.
No-Till Systems
No-till systems provide the greatest opportunity to leave protective crop residues on the soil surface that
will reduce soil erosion by wind and water. This system also has the greatest potential for reducing tillage
costs, offset somewhat by the need to control weeds in almost all cases with a preplant “burndown”
herbicide application. The term no-till refers to any system that confines all tillage and seeding operations
to one pass of the planting equipment, regardless of the amount of in-row soil disturbance.
The success of no-till systems is often dependent on a range of factors other than the equipment design.
Two of these factors - soil drainage and crop rotation - have a significant influence on the performance of
all no-till systems.
In the Trout Creek watershed, 131 farms prepared 10,031 ha of land for yearly seeding (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Trout Creek Watershed Tillage Practices and Area Used
Conventional Tillage
Tillage incorporating most of the crop residue into soil
4596 ha
Mulch Tillage
Tillage retaining most of the crop residue on the surface
2946 ha
No-Till
No-till seeding or zero-till seeding
2946 ha
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
33
Farms Producing and/or Using Livestock Manure
Properly managing the nutrients from manure is essential to optimizing economic benefit to the farmer
and minimizing impacts on the environment.
The value of manure in crop production is often underestimated. Manure contains all of the nutrients
required by crops, but not necessarily in the proportions needed for specific soil and crop conditions. In
addition to nitrogen, phosphorus and potash, manure contains many secondary nutrients and
micronutrients. Manure supplies vital organic matter that helps maintain soil structure, reduce soil
erosion, and increase soil moisture holding capacity. Manure application is one of the few ways to
increase the organic matter within farmed soils.
There are three manure application methods used on farmlands:

surface application,

surface application and incorporation,

direct injection.
Surface application
Surface application involves manure applied onto the surface of a field. The field may or may not have a
living crop and the manure can be either in a solid or liquid form.
Incorporation (surface applied and incorporated and direct injected)
Incorporation involves the mixing of nutrients into the soil surface by some form of tillage. Tillage should
have a minimum depth of soil disturbance of 10 cm and, for optimum nutrient retention, should occur
immediately after or during application. Direct injection of a liquid material into the soil is considered to
be a form of incorporation.
The main purposes for incorporation or injection of manure are to reduce odours, minimize surface runoff
and improve nutrient and pathogen retention. Shallow incorporation and the mixing of these materials
with the crop residue will also promote the decomposition of the residue.
In the Trout Creek watershed, approximately 75% of the farms surveyed generated manure or used
manure (Table 4.2). The types of manure applied included liquid, solid and composted manure. The
manure was reported to be applied to field crops, hay and/or pasture.
Table 4.2: Trout Creek Watershed Manure Application and Associated Land Base
Surface applied
1451 ha
Surface applied and incorporated and
direct injection into the field
3826 ha
Best Management Practices
Farming is a business with many risks: the weather, finances, and market uncertainties. Today, we also
realize that certain farming practices may create environmental risks that affect water quality.
Producers experience some of the resulting problems themselves in the form of lower crop yields, soil
losses and water pollution. Both rural and urban neighbours may be affected. For those affected, practical
and workable solutions exist in detail in Ontario’s Best Management Practice Program (BMP). The BMP
addresses solutions for various soil, water and habitat concerns. There are environmental cost-share
programs available to assist farmers through the Environmental Farm Plan.
Environmental Farm Plan
Environmental Farm Plans (EFP) are assessments voluntarily prepared by farm families to increase their
environmental awareness in up to 23 different areas on their farm. Through the EFP local workshop
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
34
process, farmers will highlight their farm’s environmental strengths, identify areas of environmental
concern, and set realistic action plans with timetables to improve environmental conditions.
Environmental cost-share programs are available to assist in the implementation of projects.
Clean Water Program
The Clean Water Program (CWP) is a collaborative effort between local municipalities to help improve
and protect water quality in Oxford, Middlesex and Perth Counties. The program is delivered by local
Conservation Authority staff with funding provided by the municipalities. Technical and financial
assistance is provided for projects that improve and protect water quality.
The County of Oxford has expanded the CWP to include funding for woodland and wetland
improvements for properties in Oxford County.
Sixty-four CWP projects have been completed in the Trout Creek Watershed. Table 4.3 outlines the
different types of projects.
Table 4.3: Clean Water Program Projects in the Trout Creek Watershed
Type of Project
No. of Projects
Decommissioning Unused Wells
7
Erosion Control Measures
24
Fragile Land Retirement
8
Livestock Access Restriction to Watercourse
3
Manure Spreading Equipment Modification
3
Manure Storage
2
Milkhouse/Milk Parlour Washwater Treatment and Disposal
2
Nutrient Management Plans
2
Septic Systems
6
Wellhead Protection
7
Total
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
64
35
Glossary
Dam: a barrier across a river, lake, pond or stream intended to hold back water in order to raise its level
or create a reservoir, or divert the flow of water including: dams that are more than 3 m above the original
stream bed, more than 2 m in height with reservoir area more than 2 ha, or dam failure causing loss of
life, property damage or $100,000 or more, or serious environmental impact. MNR Ontario Dam Safety
Guidelines
Abbreviated version of the definition found in UTRCA’s Dams and Barriers Project Phase 1 –Final
Report: The 2001 inventory differentiated between dams and barriers by defining dams as structures that
would have a water storage capacity, while barriers would not. More often than not, the 2001 inventory
found that the design of other structures would create a barrier. Examples of these structures included
perched culverts, weirs, train or road crossings, velocity and debris barriers.
Barrier: The term barrier implies barring passage or movement and in this case, the barrier is to fish
and/or aquatic wildlife movement or migration. Barrier construction can be virtually anything including
large woody debris, perched or orphaned culverts, concrete steps, steep slopes or gradients, excessively
fast or high velocity flow, or even chemical or thermal in nature...anything that would bar
passage...including dams. (UTRCA, 2001)
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
36
References
Chipman, W. 1901. Final Report upon Water Works System as Constructed, Town of St. Marys. Toronto.
Provided by the St. Marys Museum.
Coker, G.A., C.B. Portt, and C.K. Minns. 2001. Morphological and Ecological Characteristics of
Canadian Freshwater Fishes, Can. MS. Rpt. Fish. Aquat.Sci. 2554: iv+89p.
Coker, G.A. and C.B. Portt. 2005. Sensitive Species List for Agricultural Municipal Drain Clean
Outs (draft) not published.
County of Oxford. 2006. Oxford Natural Heritage Study. Prepared by the Upper Thames River
Conservation Authority. (may be downloaded at www.county.oxford.on.ca )
Cudmore-Vokey, B., C.A. MacKinnon and S.E. Madzia. 2004. Aquatic species at risk in the Thames
River watershed, Ontario. Can. MS Rpt. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2707: v + 123 p. (may be downloaded at
www.thamesriver.on.ca/Species_at_Risk/manuscript_report/
Thames_Species_at_Risk_Msrpt_Report.pdf )
Department of Justice Canada. 2006. Fisheries Act: Chapter F-14 (may be downloaded at
laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-14/index.html )
Department of Justice Canada. 2006. Species at Risk Act. (may be downloaded at laws.justice.gc.ca/en/S15.3/index.html )
Downie Township Heritage Book Committee (DTHBC). Memories of Downie: Volume I. Downie
Township, 2002.
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). A Class Authorization System for Agricultural Municipal Drains in
the Southern Ontario Region. (may be downloaded at www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/pub/factfait/L2_e.htm )
Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 1999. Fact Sheet L-2: A Class Authorization System for
Agricultural Municipal Drains in the Southern Ontario Region (may be downloaded at www.dfompo.gc.ca/regions/central/pub/fact-fait/L2_e.htm )
Government of Ontario. 2006. Conservation Authorities Act: RSO 1990, Chapter C-27 (may be
downloaded at www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/ statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c27_e.htm)
Graf, W.L. 2003. Dam Removal Research Status and Prospects: Proceedings of The Heinz Center’s Dam
Removal Research Workshop October 23-24, 2002. The H. John Heinz III Centre for Science Economics
and the Environment. This report is also available at www.heinzctr.org/NEW_WEB/
PDF/Dam_Research_Full%20Report.pdf
Green, Laura. October 2009. Harrington Grist Mill- Phase 1. The Embro Village Voice. Issue #91:5.
H. Belden & Co. 1879 Illustrated Historical Atlas of Perth County. Reprint Edition.
The Heinz Center. 2002. Dam Removal Science and Decision Making. The H. John Heinz III Centre for
Science Economics and the Environment. This report is also available at www.heinzctr.org/NEW_WEB/
PDF/Dam_removal_full_report.pdf
Highway 7 & 8 Transportation Corridor Planning and Class EA Study.
www.7and8corridorstudy.ca/index.htm
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
37
Hilts, S. 1976. Natural Areas in Oxford County: A Preliminary Survey. Department of Geography,
University of Waterloo.
Hoffman, D. 1982. Perth County: Preliminary Environmentally Sensitive Areas Survey. Experience 81
and 82, Ministry of the Environment. Douglas Hoffman, University of Waterloo.
Jones, C., K.M. Somers, B. Craig, and T.B. Reynoldson. 2004. Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network
Protocol Manual, Version 1.0, Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 107 pages. (may be downloaded at
obbn.eman-rese.ca/obbn/)
Johnston, William. 1902 [1976]. History of Perth County 1825-1902. Reprint Edition. Stratford: Beacon
Herald Fine Printing Division
Lee, Robert C. 2004. The Canada Company and the Huron Tract, 1826-1853. Toronto: Natural
Heritage Books.
Maaskant, K., C. Quinlan and I. Taylor. 2001. The Upper Thames River Watershed Report Cards. Upper
Thames River Conservation Authority
Mandrak, N.E. and E.J. Crossman. 1992. A Checklist of Ontario Freshwater Fishes. Royal Ontario
Museum, Toronto, Ontario.
Metcalfe-Smith, J.L., G.L. Mackie, J. Di Maio, and S.K. Staton. 2000. Changes over Time in the
Diversity and Distribution of Freshwater Mussels (Unionidae) in the Grand River, Southwestern Ontario.
J. Great Lakes Res 26(4):445-459. Internat. Assoc. Great Lakes Res.
Metcalfe-Smith, J., A. MacKenzie, I. Carmicheal, and D. McGoldrick. 2005. Photo Field Guide to the
Freshwater Mussels of Ontario. St. Thomas Field Naturalist Club Incorporated. St. Thomas, Ontario. 60p
(in press)
Morris, T.J. 1996. The unionid fauna of the Thames River drainage, southwestern Ontario. Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough. 60 pages.
Morris, T.J. 2004. National Recovery Strategy for the Round Hickorynut (Obovaria subrotunda,
Rafinesque 1820) and the Kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus fasciolaris, Rafinesque 1820): 2004-2009.
Prepared for the Freshwater Mussel Recovery Team. Draft – November 25, 2004. x + 36p.
Morris, T.J. 2004. National Recovery Strategy for the Wavy-Rayed Lampmussel (Lampsilis fasciola,
Rafineseque 1820): 2004-2009. Prepared for the Freshwater Mussel Recovery Team. Draft – November
25, 2004. viii + 33p.
My Roots are in Blanshard, 1839-1989. Stratford, 1989.
NHIC
(Natural
Heritage
Information
www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/nhic/species.cfm )
Centre).
2005.
(may
be
downloaded
at
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 1990. Aylmer District Fisheries Management Plan
1987-2000. OMNR. ISBN: 0-7729-7334-2 49p
OMNR. 1987. Background Information and Optional Management Strategies and Tactics Aylmer District
Fisheries Management Plan 1987-2000 A Summary. OMNR. 40p
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
38
OMNR. 1992. Strategic Plan for Ontario Fisheries – SPOF II – An Aquatic Ecosystem Approach to
Managing Fisheries. OMNR ISBN: 0-7729-923-9 22 p
Robinson, Dean, editor. 2008. Historically bound: the history of Embro and West Zorra, 1820-2007.
Stammler, K.L. 2005. Agricultural Drains as Fish Habitat in Southwestern Ontario. University of Guelph,
Guelph, Ontario. 45 pages
Stanfield, L. (Editor) 2005. Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol. Version 7, Fish and Wildlife Branch.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 256 pages.
Statistics Canada. Census of Canada 2006.
Stoneman, C.L. and M.L Jones. 1996. A Simple Methodology to Evaluate the Thermal Stability of Trout
Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16:728-737.
Taylor, I. et al. 2004. The Thames River Watershed Synthesis Report. Prepared for The Thames River
Ecosystem Recovery Team. (may be downloaded at www.thamesriver.on.ca/Species_at_Risk/
synthesis_report/Thames_River_Synthesis_report.pdf )
Thames River Recovery Team. 2004. Recovery strategy for the Thames River Aquatic Ecosystem: 20052010. December 2004 Draft. To be submitted to RENEW Secretariat. 159 pp
Upper Thames River Conservation Authority. Twenty Five Years of Conservation on the Upper Thames
Watershed, 1947 to 1973.
Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc. A Schlumberger Company. July, 2007. Six Conservation Authorities
FEFLOW Groundwater Modeling Project Final Report.
Trout Creek Technical Background Summary
39