Aquatic System - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 8-2: : Predicted Groundwater Flow Patterns Showing Regional Sources (longer tracklines) and Local Sources (short track lines)8-5
8.3.1 Reporting Aquatic Data: Appropriate Scale and MetricsEntire Watershed ScaleThere are different ways to present and discuss the various data used to evaluate an aquaticsystem’s health. A standard way is to report at the full watershed scale. This is appropriate formetrics that underlie the aquatic system, as they are arguably the drivers of instream conditionsthat change across a landscape from source to mouth. Examples of such metrics are regionalgeology and associated hydrologic regime, stream slope, landcover distribution (i.e. urban,agriculture, natural) and cumulative effects. Similarly, considering the fish community structureand thermal regime of the whole system, as it flows from headwaters to the lake, provides thecontext for management goals and strategies that have watershed wide implications (e.g.maintenance of a coldwater fishery would be very different than for a warmwater one).Other metrics that are not affected by spatial scale are simple linear measurements that aresummations of habitat availability or fragmentation across the watershed (e.g. riparian zonevegetation coverage or location of instream barriers). Social considerations, such as anglingopportunity and fish consumption issues are spatially discreet with no attempt to extrapolatethis data to other parts of the watershed, making watershed scale reporting inappropriate.Fisheries Management Zone ScaleFish Management Zones (FMZs) have been determined for the Rouge River watershed(technical explanation of the delineation of these zones appears in the Rouge River WatershedScenario Modelling and Analysis Report (TRCA, 2007) and Fisheries Management Plan (TRCAin progress). FMZs are reasonably consistent with subcatchment drainage areas and areconsidered fairly homogeneous in hydrology, geology and thermal regimes. Fish communitiesoccurring within these zones are also similar. These combined factors give strength to theargument that it is reasonable to extrapolate Fish Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores, BenthicAggregate Assessment (BAA) scores, temperature instability ratings and baseflow indexcalculations for a site up to the fish management zone level. Summarizing these metrics into anoverall watershed interpretation (or higher) is less robust and introduces a bias towardsdegraded areas (Stanfield and Gibson, in review).The hydro-geologic footprint of any given FMZ is not common to the entire watershed andtherefore assumptions used to interpret one area may not hold to another. A total of 10 FMZswere determined for the Rouge River watershed and are illustrated in Figure 8-3. Each FMZ isdiscussed in detail with respect to management issues, stream health and fish communitycharacteristics (see Section 8.4.2).For a comprehensive discussion on why certain metrics are considered appropriate only at thespecified spatial scales, which is a departure from past reporting of watershed health by TRCA(i.e. Report Cards), is provided in Appendix A of this chapter.8-6
Page 1 and 2: Rouge RiverState of the Watershed R
Page 3 and 4: Rouge River is unique in that migra
Page 5 and 6: LIST OF TABLESTable 8-1: Indices an
Page 7 and 8: The current rate and distribution o
Page 9: Figure 8-1: : High Groundwater Disc
Page 13 and 14: 8.3.2 Methodologyology: Field Data
Page 15 and 16: Benthic Invertebrate DataThe Region
Page 17 and 18: Total Stream LengthThe entire water
Page 19 and 20: discussion of Fish CCA scores and t
Page 21 and 22: Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS)A spe
Page 23 and 24: Figure 8-8: : Thermal Stability8-18
Page 25 and 26: The report entitled “TRCA Aquatic
Page 27 and 28: 8 4 KennedyTributary9 4 McCowanTrib
Page 29 and 30: 26 8 MorningsideCreekWeirs that con
Page 31 and 32: Fish ConsumptionFish consumption ad
Page 33 and 34: Figure 8-1010: Existing Conditions
Page 35 and 36: The predicted CCA score identifies
Page 37 and 38: Figure 8-1111: : Existing Condition
Page 39 and 40: Fish Community Structure: FMZ 10Tab
Page 43 and 44: FMZ 3: Bruce CreekFigure 8-13 summa
Page 45 and 46: Note: The thermal regime represents
Page 49 and 50: Fish Community Structure: FMZ 4Tabl
Page 53 and 54: Species NameScientific NameLast Rec
Page 55 and 56: Stream Health: FMZ 6Table 8-17 summ
Page 57 and 58: Little Rouge and is quite a differe
Page 59 and 60: Stream Health: FMZ 7IBIs calculated
Page 61 and 62:
Species NameScientific NameLast Rec
Page 63 and 64:
Table 8-2121: Stream Health of Lowe
Page 65 and 66:
community, nesting shore birds and
Page 67 and 68:
Species NameScientific NameLast Rec
Page 69 and 70:
In terms of determining an overall
Page 71 and 72:
Aquatic Habitat FeaturesMeasures an
Page 73 and 74:
FishPassageIn-streamBarriers253* On
Page 75 and 76:
8.6 Summary and Management Consider
Page 77 and 78:
8.7 ReferencesBarbour, M., T. Gerri
Page 79 and 80:
Publication of the American Fisheri
Page 81 and 82:
in the Rouge River watershed, as we
Page 83 and 84:
Total Stream LengthStream length is
Page 85 and 86:
discharge, sewage effluent, etc.).
show all

Aquatic System - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?