THE GANANOQUE RIVER WATERSHED COMMUNITY STEWARDSHIP PROJECT: PHASE 3

A PARTNERSHIP PROJECT LED BY THE ALGONQUIN TO ADIRONDACKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION AND THE

CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE WATERSHEDS

2010-2011

Report prepared by: Susan Crowe, M.Sc—February 2011

i

Executive Summary

The Gananoque River watershed is located in eastern Ontario in the Algonquin to Adirondacks

region lying between Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario and Adirondacks State Park in New

York. This region overlaps with the Frontenac Axis, a narrow strip of biogeographic overlap

between the northern Canadian Shield forests and southern Carolinian forests. The Frontenac Axis,

also known as the Frontenac Arch, is an area rich in biodiversity and represents a crucial pathway

for wildlife between the two parks. Thus, maintaining and improving the ecological integrity of the

area is of utmost importance for all organisms, including humans. People rely on healthy

ecosystems for many reasons, including access to clean drinking water and recreational enjoyment

of nature, such as fishing, swimming, and hiking. Stewardship of lakes by local landowners is a vital

part of achieving the goal of ecosystem health in the Algonquin to Adirondacks region.

This is the third year of the multi-year Gananoque River Watershed Community Stewardship

Project (GRWCSP) led by the Algonquin to Adirondacks Conservation Association (A2A), in

partnership in 2010 with the Centre for Sustainable Watersheds (CSW). The Phase 3 Report

expands upon the knowledge gained in Phases 1 and 2. In Phases 1 and 2, the three areas of study

were: fish and turtle inventory, with an emphasis on species at risk, water quality data (algal

presence, total dissolved solids, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, chlorophyll), as well as shoreline

surveys to provide information on the condition of shoreline properties in terms of their impact on

the health of the lake. Phase 3 of the project focuses on fish inventory and shoreline surveys on

Upper Beverley Lake, Lyndhurst Lake and Creek, Singleton Lake, and Lost Bay. The scientific data

collected for this project contribute to a comprehensive baseline understanding of the state of the

Gananoque River watershed, and allow A2A and its partners to identify opportunities for

stewardship. In future years, it is planned that the project be extended to the remaining lakes in the

Gananoque River watershed (with the exception of Charleston Lake, which has already been

studied and monitored) to permit the development of a Watershed Strategy.

Fish Inventory in Upper Beverley, Lyndhurst, and Singleton Lakes, and Lost Bay

During Phase 1, seine hauls were conducted at Lower Beverley Lake to inventory the fish species

present. Turtle species caught as by-catch were also noted. In Phase 2, seine hauls were carried out

at Gananoque Lake in partnership with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), which

also provided A2A with fish inventory data from a Nearshore Community Index Netting (NSCIN)

program. In Phase 3, seine hauls were collected by A2A employees in Upper Beverley Lake,

Lyndhurst Lake, Lyndhurst Creek, Singleton Lake, and Lost Bay, after several days of training by

OMNR experts. NCIN was not conducted in Phase 3, which means that seine netting results (mainly

young-of-year) are the only fish data available.

A total of 5433 fish, comprising 15 species, were caught in the 53 seine hauls that were carried out

as part of Phase 3 of the project. A total of 25 seine hauls were completed in Upper Beverley Lake, 7

in Lyndhurst Lake and Creek, 10 in Singleton Lake, and 11 in Lost Bay.

ii

One fish species at risk was caught: Grass Pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus) was found in 3 of

the 4 lakes in which seining took place. One individual was captured in Lyndhurst Lake, 5 in 5 seine

hauls in Singleton Lake, and 4 in 3 seine hauls in Lost Bay.

Shoreline Surveys of Upper Beverley Lake, Lyndhurst Lake and Creek, Singleton Lake, and Lost

Bay

Healthy natural shorelines composed of native vegetation are particularly important for both water

quality and habitat availability. The shoreline of Lower Beverley Lake was surveyed in 2008 for

Phase 1, with 344 properties surveyed. In 2009, 138 properties at Gananoque Lake and 38

properties at South Lake were assessed. In 2010, a total of 199 properties were assessed: 120 on

Upper Beverley Lake, 35 on Lyndhurst Lake and Lyndhurst Creek, 12 on Singleton Lake, and 32 on

Lost Bay. Shoreline and upland characteristics were surveyed, and opportunities for restoration

were identified. These data have been used to provide property-specific stewardship information

packages for local landowners. Landowners are encouraged to maintain a natural buffer strip of

native plants at the shoreline to provide habitat for plants and animals, reduce erosion problems,

and absorb run-off nutrients, such as phosphorus. Other guidelines for waterfront landowners

include building post docks or floating docks and decks instead of concrete or cribs, maintaining

eaves troughs and rain barrels to prevent erosion due to run-off, and building stairs raised on

runners instead of into the ground where they would increase run-off.

iii

Acknowledgements

The Algonquin to Adirondacks Conservation Association and the Centre for Sustainable Watersheds

wish to acknowledge and express thanks to the following partnering organizations that provided

funding, materials, on-the-ground assistance, expertise and good advice for Phase 3 of the

Gananoque River Watershed Community Stewardship Project:

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Frontenac Arch Biosphere

Gananoque River Waterways Association

Leeds and the Thousand Islands Township

Leeds County Stewardship Council

Lower Beverley Lake Association

Ontario Ministry of the Environment

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Ontario Nature

St. Lawrence Islands National Park

Shawmere

South Lake Association

Thousand Islands Community Development Corporation

Upper Beverley Interest Group

Karen Brown and Bert Scheepers

Wilson's Tent and Trailer

Volunteers from the Community

We also wish to express our gratitude to the following funders, without whom the project could not

have been undertaken: the YWCA Eco-Internship Program, Human Resources Canada, Community

Fisheries and Wildlife Involvement Program (CFWIP), the Ontario Summer Jobs Top-up Service, the

RBC Bluewater Fund, the TD Green Fund, and the Thousand Islands Community Development

Corporation.

iv

The project would not have been possible without the help of many volunteers and several staff.

Thank you to Barbara King of Centre for Sustainable Watersheds, who donated her time to train

field workers in conducting shoreline surveys. We are grateful to Grace Pitman and Matt Goodchild,

A2A and CSW staff who completed the majority of the seine netting and also assisted with shoreline

surveys. We also wish to recognize the contribution of Ali Ikram, Val Evans, Martin Streit, Kerry

Coleman, Adam Berry, and Adrianna Haines for help with fieldwork. Thank you to Bonnie Mabee for

her assistance with many things, including coordinating volunteers for the delivery of Shoreline

Report Binders to landowners. Thank you to Robert Eakins for letting us use his photos from the

Ontario Freshwater Fish Life History Database in this report. We greatly appreciate the

contributions of Chuck Shaw, who graciously lent us a boat and a motor to do our shoreline survey

work, and Karen Brown and Bert Scheepers for helping us with so many things, including letting us

use their cottage for our shoreline lunch publicizing the project, and as a place to launch our boats

and have lunch. Thank you also to Barb and Bob McClure for welcoming us to use their cottage at

Lost Bay for our Shoreline Lunch presentation of the project, and for letting us use their dock

during shoreline surveys. And thanks as well to John Urquhart from Ontario Nature for making a

presentation on reptiles found on or near Lost Bay to the people at the Shoreline Lunch. We very

much appreciate the efforts of the volunteers who helped in the collating of the Shoreline Report

Binders, Mary Ellen Moulton and Alison Brown, as well as Greg and Liz Smith, who delivered

stewardship reports to landowners.

v

Table of Contents

1. Fish and Turtle Inventory of Gananoque Lake Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….……………..…………..………………….….1 Methods………………………………………………………………………………………….…..………………………………….….4 Field Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….4

Analyses………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………….7

Results and Discussion…………………………………..……………………………..…………………………………...….….9 Fish Communities………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………9

Aquatic Vegetation……………………………………………………………..………………………………….……….25

Vegetation and Fish Communities………………………………………………………………………………...….29

Species at risk………………………………………………………………………………………...………………………29

References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………34 2. Shoreline Surveys of Upper Beverley Lake, Lyndhurst Lake

and Creek, Singleton Lake, and Lost Bay Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….……………….…..…………………..….37

Methods…………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………39 Results and Discussion……………………………………………………………………………….……………………….…40 Shoreline Classification…………………………………………………………………….…………………………….40

Natural Shorelines…………………………………………………………….……………………………………………41

Shoreline Habitat Features………………………………………………………………….………………………..…44

Degraded Shorelines…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…44

Ornamental Shorelines………………………………………………………………………….……………..…………45

Regenerative Shorelines………………………………………………………………………..……………..……….…45

Built Shoreline Cover………………………………………………………………………………………………………46

Natural Shoreline Cover …………………………………………………………………………………………………49

Aquatic Vegetation Cover……………………………………………………………….……….………………………49

Guidelines for Improving Shorelines……………………………………………………………………………..….50

References………………………………………………………………...……….…………………………………………52 Appendix 2.1a: Front side of 2009 data sheet……………………………………………….………………..……54 Appendix 2.1b: Back side of 2009 field data sheet………………………………………….…………………….56

vi

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1.1. Seining locations on Upper Beverley Lake. …………………………………………………………..……………………5

Figure 1.2. Seining locations on Lyndhurst Lake, Lyndhurst Creek, and Singleton Lake. …….………………..……….6

Figure 1.3. Seining locations on Lost Bay. …………………………………………………………………………………………………..7

Table 1.1. Fish species caught in 25 seine hauls on Upper Beverley Lake. ………………………………..………………...10

Figure 1.4. Number of fish (mature and young-of-year) caught in 25 seine hauls on

Upper Beverley Lake. ………………………………………………………...……………..……………………………………...…11

Figure 1.5: Number of young-of-year (YOY) fish caught in 25 seine hauls on Upper Beverley Lake. .…………...12

Figure 1.6. Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) …………………………….…………………..…………………………………12

Figure 1.7. Bluntnose Minnow (Pimephales notatus) …………………………………..…………………………………………….13

Figure 1.8. Blackchin Shiner (Notropis heterodon) ………………………………………………….…………………………….…..13

Figure 1.9. Banded Killifish (Fundulus diaphanous) …………………………………………...…………..……….………………...13

Figure 1.10. Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens) ………………………………………………………………………….…………….…..14

Figure 1.11. Johnny Darter (Etheostoma nigrum) ………………………………………………………….………..………………...14

Figure 1.12. Pumpkinseed Sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) ………………………………………….…………………..………….…..14

Figure 1.13. Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) ………………………………………………..…………..………………15

Figure 1.14. Rock Bass (Ambloplites rupestris) …………………………………………………………………………………………15

Figure 1.15. Northern Pike (Esox lucius) ………………………………………………………………..…………………………………15

Figure 1.16. Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolmieu) …………………………………………………………..…………………...16

Figure 1.17. Brook Stickleback (Culaea inconstans) ………………………………………………………….………………………16

Figure 1.18. Black Bullhead (Ameiurus melas) ……………………………………………………..…………………………………...16

Figure 1.19. Number of fish (mature and young-of-year) caught in 7 seine hauls in

Lyndhurst Lake and Lyndhurst Creek. ..……………………………………………..……………..…….…………………….17

Table 1.2: Fish species caught in 7 seine hauls on Lyndhurst Lake and Lyndhurst Creek. ………….………...……..18

Figure 1.20. Number of young-of-year (YOY) fish caught in 7 seine hauls in Lyndhurst

Lake and Lyndhurst Creek. ………………………………..………..………………………………….……………………………19

Figure 1.21. Blacknose Shiner (Notropis heterolepis). …………………………………………………….…………………………19

Table 1.3. Fish species caught in 10 seine hauls on Singleton Lake. ………………………………….……………..…………20

Figure 1.22. Number of fish (mature and young-of-year) caught in 10 seine hauls in Singleton Lake. ..…..……21

Figure 1.23. Number of young-of-year (YOY) fish caught in 10 seine hauls in Singleton Lake. .…….………..……21

Figure 1.24. Grass Pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus). …………………………………….………………………………22

Table 1.4. Fish species caught in 11 seine hauls in Lost Bay. …………………………………...…………….…………………..23

Figure 1.25. Number of fish (mature and young-of-year) caught in 11 seine hauls in Lost Bay. ……….…….……24

Figure 1.26. Young-of-year (YOY) fish caught in 11 seine hauls in Lost Bay. …………….……………………..…………24

Figure 1.27. Percentage of seining sites on which vegetation of each type was present, for

Upper Beverley Lake, Lyndhurst Lake (and Lyndhurst Creek), Singleton Lake, and Lost Bay. …………25

vii

Figure 1.28. Average number of YOY (young-of-year) fish captured in seines in which Grass

Pickerel were present or absent. ……………………………………………………..………………………………………..…33

Figure 2.1. Percentage of shoreline of each classification category on each water body studied in Phase 3. ...40

Figure 2.2. Map of the percentage of natural shoreline on Upper Beverley Lake. …………………….…………..……..41

Figure 2.3. Map of the percentage of natural shoreline on Lyndhurst Lake, Lyndhurst Creek,

and Singleton Lake. ……………………………...…………………………………………………………….……………………..…42

Figure 2.4. Map of the percentage of natural shoreline on Lost Bay. ……………………….…………………………………43

Figure 2.5. The percent of properties on each water body that contain at least one

fallen tree, cavity tree, or snag. ………………………………………………………………….…………………………………44

Figure 2.6. The number of shoreline structures of varying types on each lake. …………….……………………………47

Figure 2.7. Number of docks of each type on each water body. ……………………….…………………………………………48

Figure 2.8. Number of properties on each lake which have different types of retaining

walls: advisable types (loose rock, riprap, and gabion basket), and inadvisable

types (wood, armourstone, concrete, steel, and/or railroad tie). ……………………………………..…….………48

Figure 2.9. Percentage of properties on which aquatic vegetation was found for each

of the three categories (emergent, submergent, and floating cover), on each lake. …..……….……………50

1

1. Fish and Turtle Inventory of Gananoque Lake

Introduction Inventory data on fish communities and species at risk can provide crucial information on the presence and abundance of species in previously unconfirmed or unknown regions. This information can then be used for implementing recovery and stewardship activities for these species. The Gananoque River watershed is deficient in recent inventory data, particularly for species at risk. The current study conducted seine netting on four water bodies in the Gananoque River Watershed: Upper Beverley Lake, Lyndhurst Lake (and Lyndhurst Creek), Singleton Lake, and Lost Bay. This information can be used as a baseline for evaluation in future years, and to provide stewardship suggestions for the landowners on these lakes. Previous phases of this project have conducted seine netting as well as nearshore community index netting (NCIN) on Lower Beverley Lake (Phase I, 2008) and on South Lake and Gananoque Lake (Phase II, 2009). The primary focus of these efforts has been to identify species at risk and their habitat in Lower Beverley Lake, and to develop stewardship strategies based on their distribution, abundance, critical habitat and pressures on habitat. The species at risk that could be found in the four lakes studied in this phase of the project include: American Eel (Anguilla rostrata), Bigmouth Buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus), Bridle Shiner (Notropis bifrenatus), Grass Pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus), Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anagenus), and River Redhorse (Moxostoma carinatum). This list is based on the historic or anticipated ranges of these species. Phase I of the project found 4 species at risk in Lower Beverley Lake: 22 Grass Pickerel were found at 13 seining locations, 1 Pugnose Shiner was found, and 2 turtle species (1 individual of each species) were found as by-catch (Stinkpot Turtle and Northern Map Turtle). Grass Pickerel abundance was positively predicted by aquatic vegetation species richness and abundance of young-of-year fish. These results suggest that the best Grass Pickerel habitat involves a complex community of aquatic vegetation that supports enough young-of-year fish for Grass Pickerel to have a steady supply of prey. Phase II of the project found 5 species at risk which were caught on Gananoque Lake: 1 American Eel, 8 Grass Pickerel, as well as several Northern Map Turtles, Snapping Turtles, and Stinkpot Turtles. Habitat requirements for species change depending on season and life history stage: for predatory fish such as Grass Pickerel, the habitat needs of younger fish favour predator avoidance, and the needs of older fish favour prey availability. Smaller fish consume insects, worms, and crustaceans, and larger fish are predominantly piscivorous (fish-eating) (Hunter and Rankin 1939). As their name suggests, Grass Pickerel are found mainly in densely vegetated areas. As with most fish, the

2

spawning season brings with it a very specific set of requirements pertaining to water temperature, depth, vegetation, and substrate. For Grass Pickerel, spawning habitat requirements include water depth of 0 to 1 meter, and high abundance of emergent aquatic vegetation and/or flooded terrestrial habitat, because their eggs adhere to the vegetation (reviewed in Lane et al. 1996). Substrate requirements are silt or clay, and Grass Pickerel tend to spawn in lakes rather than streams (reviewed in Lane et al. 1996). Pugnose Shiner require water depths of 0 to 2 meters and high abundance of both submergent and emergent vegetation, and also lay their eggs directly on vegetation. They require sand, silt, and may also use gravel as substrate for spawning (reviewed in Lane et al. 1996). They are always associated closely with dense macrophytes (aquatic vegetation), including both emergent and submergent species. In particular, Pugnose Shiner have been found to be associated with filamentous algae, wild celery, pondweeds, cattails, bulrushes, and sedges (Becker 1983; Holm and Mandrak 2002). They have also been observed to be highly associated with Eurasian Watermilfoil, an invasive macrophyte; however, the presence of Eurasian Watermilfoil may have led to the extirpation of Pugnose Shiner and several other minnow species from a Wisconsin Lake (Lyons 1989; reviewed in Bouvier et al. 2010). Pugnose Shiner are considered extirpated from the Gananoque River, although they were originally collected from the mouth of the Gananoque River where it opens into the St. Lawrence River in 1935, and at Mallorytown Landing in 2002 (COSEWIC 2002). Habitat requirements for all turtles include suitable basking sites such as emergent rocks, fallen trees and logs, and floating aquatic vegetation. The Northern Map Turtle has been affected by the proliferation of Zebra Mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) and even more problematic Quagga Mussels (Dreissena rostriformis bugensisg), which has led to a decline in other mollusc species which are easier to eat and more nutrient-rich (Royal Ontario Museum 2011). Snapping turtles prefer shallow waters with mud and leaf litter substrate under which to hide (MNR 2011). The major factors leading to Stinkpot turtle decline in Ontario is habitat loss, either through wetland drainage or shoreline development. Stinkpot turtles require shoreline vegetation, rotten logs, and abandoned muskrat houses in order to eat, bask, and nest. These turtles are not tolerant of traveling over dry land for long, and will dehydrate quickly without access to water (Parks Canada 2011). Growing American Eels are primarily benthic, using substrate (rock, sand, mud) and bottom debris such as snags and submerged vegetation for protection and cover (Scott and Crossman 1973; Tesch 1977). Juvenile eels have been counted at a fish ladder at the Moses-Saunders dam at Cornwall Ontario since 1974. The mean age of ascending eels rose from 5.6 years in the mid-1970s to 11.9 in the 1990s. Most of these ascending eels are destined for Lake Ontario. The count index peaked in 1982-1983, and then fell sharply. The index in recent years is approximately 3 orders of magnitude below its peak level. As indicated by an electrofishing survey and a trawl index in the Bay of Quinte, the decline in Lake Ontario closely matches the decline of

3

the Moses-Saunders index, when suitable time lags are applied (COSEWIC 2006). Dams may prevent access to upstream growth habitat for eels, and turbines in hydro electric dams kill some downstream migrants. There are two large hydro electric dams on the St. Lawrence River, but eels are able to bypass these using fish ladders and navigation locks. Most major tributaries of the St. Lawrence have impassable hydro electric dams, with one exception being the Richelieu River; the two dams on this system have eel passes and no turbines (COSEWIC 2006). Phase 3 of the Gananoque River Watershed Community Stewardship Project sought to continue the work of Phases I and II by extending the project into 5 additional bodies of water within the watershed. Seine netting and aquatic vegetation surveys were again used to obtain presence-absence data on fish species, locate species at risk, estimate community diversity, and identify relationships between the presence of species of interest, species diversity, and habitat. In particular, statistical tests were used to determine whether the percentage of vegetative cover, plant taxa presence (i.e., the number of species in a sample), and substrate cover were associated with the abundance, presence, and species richness of young-of-year fish, and the presence of species at risk (Grass Pickerel).

4

Methods Field Methods In July-October 2010, seine netting was carried out on 5 water bodies in the Gananoque River Watershed. The 53 seine hauls were conducted on Upper Beverley Lake, Lyndhurst Lake, Lyndhurst Creek, Singleton Lake, and Lost Bay (part of the Gananoque River) (Figures 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3). Seine netting was conducted by hand, with researchers in water no deeper than chest height, rather than from a boat in deep water; consequently it is important to note a potential sampling bias toward small and young fish. Young-of-year of many species, as well as small fish species such as minnows, are more likely to be found near shore where aquatic vegetation provides cover from predation. Mesh size of the seine net dictated that the smallest fish captured had a fork length of 10mm. Each fish captured was identified to species, and for each seine haul, the first 20 individuals of each species were measured. Fish captured beyond the first 20 individuals (adult and young-of-year measured separately) were simply tallied. Whether or not an individual was young-of-year (YOY) was also recorded, and this determination was based on size and time of year. Young Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) are indistinguishable from one another and so were combined into a “Lepomis species YOY” category. Photos were taken of all fish for which identification was difficult, so that a more detailed species identification assessment could be done without lethally sampling the fish. All individuals belonging to species of concern were also photographed to confirm species identification. Both fork length and total length were recorded for each species, except those where fork length was not an applicable measure (e.g., Banded Killifish). All fish caught in these programs were released back into the lake immediately following measurements. At each seining site, the following variables were recorded: time, date, GPS location, weather (cloud cover and precipitation), air temperature, water temperature, substrate (percent cover of sand, gravel, muck, bedrock, cobble, silt, and/or detritus), and aquatic vegetation (percent cover and type). Attempts were made to identify plants found in seine hauls to species when possible, and a picture was taken of each seine site.

5

Figure 1.1. Seining locations on Upper Beverley Lake.

6

Figure 1.2. Seining locations on Lyndhurst Lake, Lyndhurst Creek, and Singleton Lake.

7

Figure 1.3. Seining locations on Lost Bay.

8

Analyses All statistical tests were conducted using R (R Core Development Team, Vienna, Austria). Diversity of fish species was measured for each seine using richness, abundance, and the Shannon Diversity Index. The Shannon Index is a measure of alpha diversity (local site diversity) and is calculated as H' = -Σpi lnpi where pi, is the proportional abundance of the ith species = (ni / N). Shannon Index of diversity takes into account species richness (the number of species found at a particular site) as well as the evenness of the abundances of the different species present. An area is considered to have higher biodiversity (and would show a Shannon Index close to or greater than 3.5) when more species are present, and/or when these species are found in relatively even abundances. Lower biodiversity (and a Shannon Index close to or greater than 1.5) is characterized by fewer species present and/or a community dominated by high numbers of one or a few species. Shannon Indices were calculated for each seine haul and used in the aforementioned analyses. Abundance and richness data, as well as Shannon Indices, were also determined for young of the year in each seine. Due to the large time span over which data were collected, we did not compare Shannon Indices or other measures of abundance and richness between the water bodies, to avoid making invalid comparisons regarding the relative biodiversity and health of each lake. Linear and logistic regressions were used to determine relationships between vegetation, substrate, and fish abundance and diversity. We conducted analyses on the presence vs. absence of plant taxa (usually identified to genus) found at the seine sites. Presence vs. absence of substrate types was also included in analyses.

9

Results and Discussion Fish Communities Upper Beverley Lake In Upper Beverley Lake, 2516 individuals comprising 14 species were caught in 25 seine hauls (Table 1.1, Figure 1.4, 1.5). Seining was carried out in Upper Beverley Lake between July 19, 2010 and August 4, 2010. The most abundant species were Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus; 20.3% of fish caught, 36.8% of fish caught if including Lepomis spp. YOY; Figure 1.6), Bluntnose Minnow (Pimephales notatus; 22%; Figure 1.7), Blackchin Shiner (Notropis heterodon; 12.1%; Figure 1.8), Banded Killifish (Fundulus diaphanous; 9.5%; Figure 1.9), and Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens; 4.9%; Figure 1.10) (Table 1.1, Figure 1.4). Despite the high number of seines performed on Upper Beverley Lake compared to the other three water bodies studied in 2010, Grass Pickerel were not found in Upper Beverley Lake but were found in Lyndhurst Lake, Lyndhurst Creek, Singleton Lake, and Lost Bay. Fish species found in smaller numbers were Johnny Darter (Etheostoma nigrum; 49 individuals; Figure 1.11), Pumpkinseed Sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus; 47 individuals; Figure 1.12), Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides; 45 individuals; Figure 1.13), Rock Bass (Ambloplites rupestris; 16 individuals; Figure 1.14), Northern Pike (Esox lucius; 4 individuals; Figure 1.15), Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolmieu; 3 individuals; Figure 1.16), Brook Stickleback (Culaea inconstans; 4 individuals; Figure 1.17), and Black Bullhead (Ameiurus melas, 1 individual; Figure 1.18).

10

Table 1.1. Fish species caught in 25 seine hauls on Upper Beverley Lake.

Common Name

Latin Name

All Fish Young-of-Year only

# of fish caught

% of total catch

# of seines

# YOY caught

% of total YOY

catch

% of species

YOY

Banded Killifish

Fundulus diaphanous 279

11.1 22 32 5 11

Bluntnose Minnow

Pimephales notatus 643 25.6 22 88 14 14

Johnny Darter

Etheostoma nigrum 49 1.9 13 2 0.3 4

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 47* 1.9 14

Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Yellow Perch Perca

flavescens 143 5.7 19 26 4 18

Bluegill Lepomis

macrochirus 510* 20.3 23 Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Largemouth Bass

Micropterus salmoides 45 1.8 14 18 3 40

Blackchin Shiner

Notropis heterodon 355 14.1 11 54 8 15

Rock Bass Ambloplites

rupestris 16 0.6 11 10 2 63

Northern Pike Esox lucius 4 0.2 4 0 0 0

Brook Stickleback

Culaea inconstans 4 0.2 1 0 0 0

Smallmouth Bass

Micropterus dolmieu 3 0.1 3 1 0.2 33

Black Bullhead

Ameiurus melas 1 0.04 1 1 0.2 1

Grass Pickerel

Esox americanus

vermiculatus 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lepomis spp. YOY**

Lepomis spp. 417 16.6 21 417 64 43

*Does not include Lepomis species young-of-year (YOY) **The category of Lepomis species young-of-year (YOY) consists of Bluegill and Pumpkinseed YOY, asYOY of these two species are indistinguishable from one another.

11

Figure 1.4. Number of fish (mature and young-of-year) caught in 25 seine hauls on Upper Beverley Lake. Totals for Bluegill and Pumpkinseed do not include young-of-year individuals, which are indistinguishable from each other; therefore Lepomis spp. YOY is included as a separate column.

A total of 649 young-of-year (YOY) individuals comprising 11 species were caught in the 25 seine hauls on Upper Beverley Lake (though they are indistinguishable from one another at the YOY stage and grouped together as Lepomis spp., we presume that at some point both Bluegill and Pumpkinseed YOY were caught). YOY comprised 25.8% of the total catch. The most abundant YOY were Lepomis spp. (64.3% of YOY), Bluntnose Minnow (13.6% of YOY), and Blackchin Shiner (8.3% of YOY) (Table 1.1, Figure 1.5). Most of the 16 Rock Bass caught in Upper Beverley Lake were YOY (Ambloplites rupestris; 62.5%).

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

12

Figure 1.5: Number of young-of-year (YOY) fish caught in 25 seine hauls on Upper Beverley Lake.

Figure 1.6. Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

13

Figure 1.7. Bluntnose Minnow (Pimephales notatus)

Figure 1.8. Blackchin Shiner (Notropis heterodon)

Figure 1.9. Banded Killifish (Fundulus diaphanous)

14

Figure 1.10. Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens)

Figure 1.11. Johnny Darter (Etheostoma nigrum)

Figure 1.12. Pumpkinseed Sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus)

15

Figure 1.13. Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides)

Figure 1.14. Rock Bass (Ambloplites rupestris)

Figure 1.15. Northern Pike (Esox lucius)

16

Figure 1.16. Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolmieu)

Figure 1.17. Brook Stickleback (Culaea inconstans)

Figure 1.18. Black Bullhead (Ameiurus melas)

17

Lyndhurst Lake and Lyndhurst Creek In Lyndhurst Lake and Lyndhurst Creek, 1350 individuals comprising 13 species were caught in 7 seine hauls (Table 1.2; Figure 1.19). Seining was carried out in Lyndhurst Lake and Lyndhurst Creek between August 13, 2010 and August 25, 2010. The most abundant species were Blackchin Shiner (Notropis heterodon; 30% of fish caught), Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus; 30% of fish caught, 31.3% if including Lepomis spp. YOY), Blacknose Shiner (Notropis heterolepis; 18%; Figure 1.21), Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides; 8%), Bluntnose Minnow (Pimephales notatus; 5%), Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens; 3.3%), and Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus; 3%) (Table 1.2, Figure 1.19).

Figure 1.19. Number of fish (mature and young-of-year) caught in 7 seine hauls in Lyndhurst Lake and Lyndhurst Creek. Totals for Bluegill and Pumpkinseed do not include young-of-year individuals, which are indistinguishable from each other; therefore Lepomis spp. YOY is included as a separate column.

A total of 178 YOY individuals comprising 6 species were caught in the 7 seine hauls on Lyndhurst Lake and Lyndhurst Creek (Table 1.2; Figure 1.20). Note that the category “Lepomis spp.” consists of both bluegill and pumpkinseed sunfish. YOY comprised 12.8% of the total catch. The majority of YOY that were caught were Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides; 61% of YOY), Blackchin Shiner (Notropis heterodon; 26% of YOY), and Lepomis spp. (10% of YOY). All of the Largemouth Bass caught were young-of-year.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

18

Table 1.2: Fish species caught in 7 seine hauls on Lyndhurst Lake and Lyndhurst Creek.

Common Name

Latin Name

All Fish Young-of-Year only

# of fish caught

% of total catch

# of seines

# YOY caught

% of total YOY

catch

% of species

YOY

Banded Killifish

Fundulus diaphanous 10 0.7 2 1 0.6 10

Bluntnose Minnow

Pimephales notatus 68 5 2 0 0 0

Johnny Darter

Etheostoma nigrum 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 40* 3 7

Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Yellow Perch Perca

flavescens 44 3.3 5 0 0 0

Bluegill Lepomis

macrochirus 403* 29.9 7 Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Largemouth Bass

Micropterus salmoides 108 8 7 108 61 100

Blackchin Shiner

Notropis heterodon 423 30 5 47 26 11

Rock Bass Ambloplites

rupestris 4 0.3 3 0 0 0

Northern Pike Esox lucius 1 0.07 1 0 0 0

Smallmouth Bass

Micropterus dolmieu 1 0.07 1 0 0 0

Black Bullhead

Ameiurus melas 1 0.07 1 0 0 0

Grass Pickerel

Esox americanus

vermiculatus 1 0.07 1 0 0 0

Blacknose Shiner

Notropis heterolepis 246 18 5 4 2 2

Lepomis spp. YOY** Lepomis spp. 18 1.3 7 18 10 4

*Does not include Lepomis species young-of-year (YOY) **The category of Lepomis species young-of-year (YOY) consists of Bluegill and Pumpkinseed YOY, since

YOY of these two species are indistinguishable from one another.

19

Figure 1.20. Number of young-of-year (YOY) fish caught in 7 seine hauls in Lyndhurst Lake and Lyndhurst Creek.

Figure 1.21. Blacknose Shiner (Notropis heterolepis).

Singleton Lake In Singleton Lake, 1222 individuals of 13 species were caught in 10 seine hauls (Table 1.3; Figure 1.22). Seining was carried out in Singleton Lake between August 25, 2010 and August 31, 2010. The most abundant species were Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus; 30.4% of fish caught, 31.5% of fish caught if including Lepomis spp. YOY), Blackchin Shiner (Notropis heterodon; 25.6%), Blacknose Shiner (Notropis heterolepis; 14.3%), Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides; 12%), and Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus; 9.5%). Notably, 5 Grass Pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus; 0.4% of fish caught; Figure 1.24) were found in Singleton Lake.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

20

Table 1.3. Fish species caught in 10 seine hauls on Singleton Lake.

Common Name

Latin Name

All Fish Young-of-Year only

# of fish

caught

% of total catch

# of seines

# YOY caught

% of total YOY

catch

% of species

YOY

Banded Killifish

Fundulus diaphanous 21 1.7 6 2 1 10

Bluntnose Minnow

Pimephales notatus 29 2.4 3 0 0 0

Johnny Darter Etheostoma

nigrum 1 0.08 1 0 0 0

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 116* 9.5 8

Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Yellow Perch Perca

flavescens 3 0.2 2 0 0 0

Bluegill Lepomis

macrochirus 371* 30.4 10 Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Largemouth Bass

Micropterus salmoides 147 12 9 143 69 97

Blackchin Shiner

Notropis heterodon 317 25.6 7 27 13 9

Rock Bass Ambloplites

rupestris 9 0.7 4 0 0 0

Northern Pike Esox lucius 0 0 0 0 0 0

Smallmouth Bass

Micropterus dolmieu 11 0.9 4 10 5 91

Black Bullhead

Ameiurus melas 3 0.2 2 0 0 0

Grass Pickerel

Esox americanus

vermiculatus 5 0.4 5 0 0 0

Blacknose Shiner

Notropis heterolepis 175 14.3 6 10 5 6

Lepomis spp. YOY** Lepomis spp. 14 1.1 6 14 7 3

*Does not include Lepomis species young-of-year (YOY) **The category of Lepomis species young-of-year (YOY) consists of Bluegill and Pumpkinseed YOY, as YOY of these two species are indistinguishable from one another.

21

Figure 1.22. Number of fish (mature and young-of-year) caught in 10 seine hauls in Singleton Lake. Totals for Bluegill and Pumpkinseed do not include young-of-year individuals, which are indistinguishable from each other; therefore Lepomis spp. YOY is included as a separate column.

A total of 206 YOY individuals comprising 7 species were caught in the 10 seine hauls (Table 1.3; Figure 1.23). YOY comprised 16.6% of the total catch. The majority of YOY that were caught were Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides; 69% of YOY) and Blackchin Shiner (Notropis heterodon; 13% of YOY). Almost all of the Largemouth Bass and Smallmouth Bass caught were YOY (97% and 91% of the catch of each species, respectively).

Figure 1.23. Number of young-of-year (YOY) fish caught in 10 seine hauls in Singleton Lake.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

22

Figure 1.24. Grass Pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus).

Lost Bay In Lost Bay, 323 individuals of 9 species were caught in 11 seine hauls (Table 1.4; Figure 1.25). Seining was carried out in Lost Bay between September 17, 2010 and September 29, 2010. The most abundant species were Banded Killifish (Fundulus diaphanous; 36.5% of fish caught), Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus; 32.2%), Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus; 15.5%, 17% if including Lepomis spp. YOY), and Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides; 9.9%). Notably, 4 Grass Pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus; 1.2% of fish caught) were captured in Lost Bay.

23

Table 1.4. Fish species caught in 11 seine hauls in Lost Bay.

Common Name

Latin Name

All Fish Young-of-Year only

# of fish

caught

% of total catch

# of seines

# YOY caught

% of total YOY

catch

% of species

YOY

Banded Killifish

Fundulus diaphanous 118 36.5 5 4 10 3

Bluntnose Minnow

Pimephales notatus 0 0 0 0 0 0

Johnny Darter

Etheostoma nigrum 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus 104* 32.2 9

Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Yellow Perch Perca

flavescens 5 1.5 1 0 0 0

Bluegill Lepomis

macrochirus 50* 15.5 8 Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Lepomis spp. YOY

Largemouth Bass

Micropterus salmoides 32 9.9 9 31 78 97

Blackchin Shiner

Notropis heterodon 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rock Bass Ambloplites

rupestris 3 0.9 2 0 0 0

Northern Pike Esox lucius 1 0.3 1 0 0 0

Smallmouth Bass

Micropterus dolmieu 1 0.3 1 0 0 0

Black Bullhead

Ameiurus melas 0 0 0 0 0 0

Grass Pickerel

Esox americanus

vermiculatus 4 1.2 3 0 0 0

Lepomis spp. YOY** Lepomis spp. 5 1.5 4 5 13 3

*Does not include Lepomis species young-of-year (YOY) **The category of Lepomis species young-of-year (YOY) consists of Bluegill and Pumpkinseed YOY, as YOY of these two species are indistinguishable from one another.

24

Figure 1.25. Number of fish (mature and young-of-year) caught in 11 seine hauls in Lost Bay. Totals for Bluegill and Pumpkinseed do not include young-of-year individuals, which are indistinguishable from each other; therefore Lepomis spp. YOY is included as a separate column.

Only 4 YOY species were caught in the seine hauls on Lost Bay (Figure 1.26). Note that the category “Lepomis spp.” consists of both bluegill and pumpkinseed sunfish. YOY comprised 12.2% of the total catch. The majority of YOY that were caught were Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides; 78% of YOY), with Lepomis spp. and Banded Killifish making up the remainder of the YOY caught (13% and 10% of YOY, respectively). Most of the Largemouth Bass caught were YOY (97%).

Figure 1.26. Young-of-year (YOY) fish caught in 11 seine hauls in Lost Bay.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

25

Aquatic Vegetation This study was somewhat limited in obtaining an accurate and thorough picture of the aquatic vegetation community on the four studied water bodies, due to inconsistent expertise of rotating volunteers and research staff. Every effort was made to identify vegetation at each seining site to genus. Here, we evaluate known presence of certain species and total aquatic vegetation coverage rather than aquatic vegetation species richness. Seining sites lacking vegetation data are not included in the totals used for the figure below. Figure 1.27 shows the percentage of seining sites on which each type of vegetation was found, separated by water body. Lyndhurst Creek and Lyndhurst Lake are combined into one water body (labeled Lyndhurst Lake) due to low sample size of seining sites at these water bodies compared to the other 3, and the fact that most of the seining spots in the Lyndhurst area were in the lake rather than the creek. The limitations only mean that absence of data on the presence of a type of vegetation cannot be taken to mean that we can state with certainty that the vegetation type was not present.

Figure 1.27. Percentage of seining sites on which vegetation of each type was present, for Upper Beverley Lake, Lyndhurst Lake (and Lyndhurst Creek), Singleton Lake, and Lost Bay.

The most commonly observed aquatic vegetation included Eelgrass (Vallisneria spp.; found at 74% of sites), Water Lilies (Nymphaea spp.; at 54% of sites), Duckweed (Spirodela spp.; at 48% of sites), Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spp.; at 43% of sites), Pondweed (Potamogeton spp.; at 41% of sites), and Common Coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum; at 41% of sites). For display and analysis purposes, all Duckweed-type plants are combined into one category, but several species were observed: Greater Duckweed (Spirodela polyrhiza), Lesser Duckweed (Lemna minor), Star Duckweed (Lemna trisulca), and Watermeal (Wolffia spp.).

26

The aquatic vegetation communities on the separate water bodies studied in 2010 were very similar, but some notable differences in presence and prevalence were observed. Duckweed and Watermeal were present at all sites on Lyndhurst Lake and Singleton Lake, and at 60% of sites on Lost Bay, but were notably absent from Upper Beverley Lake. Watermilfoil was present at 90% of sites on Lost Bay, but was much less present at the other water bodies, despite the fact that Lost Bay was sampled late in the season and it is likely that much of the aquatic vegetation had died by that point. Stonewort was observed more frequently on Upper Beverley Lake and Lost Bay than the other water bodies. Stonewort and Potomageton spp. dominated the aquatic community in Upper Beverley Lake, being so thick in even the deepest parts of the lake that travel via motorboat was often difficult. Communications with cottagers suggested that submerged vegetation was particularly high in Upper Beverley Lake in the summer of 2010 compared to previous years. Pickerelweed (Pontederia spp.) was only observed on Lyndhurst Lake and Singleton Lake. European Frog-bit, an invasive species, was only observed on Upper Beverley Lake and Lost Bay, with a particularly dense population in the northernmost, shallow, swampy basin of Upper Beverley Lake. Eurasian Watermilfoil Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) is a submerged aquatic perennial which roots to the bottom of water bodies. It was present in all 4 of the lakes studied. It tends to have leaves with 12 or more paired divisions, while the native species, Northern Milfoil (Myriophyllum sibericum), tends to have 14 or fewer paired divisions. There is considerable variation for both species, so distinguishing between them can be difficult. Hybridization between native and invasive milfoils makes identification even more difficult, in which cases positive identification of hybrids vs. the invasive milfoil species or the native species is only possible through genetic testing (Moody and Les 2007). Eurasian Watermilfoil can spread quickly once introduced, can crowd out native plants, and create dense mats at the surface of the water that prevent adequate light from reaching plants beneath it (Madsen et al. 1991). Communities are affected as a result, because waterfowl and mammals depend on native aquatic vegetation displaced by the invasive milfoil (Parkinson et al. 2011). As with many invasive species, Eurasian Watermilfoil spreads quickly following disturbances. For example, Chesapeake Bay populations have been observed to increase dramatically following hurricanes and tropical storms (Parkinson et al. 2011). Dense growths of the plant are unwelcomed by cottagers since they interfere with recreational activities such as swimming and boating. With currently available techniques, it is very difficult to completely eradicate Eurasian Watermilfoil once it has been established. Long-distance spread of the invasive plant is almost always via boat or boat trailer (Parkinson et al. 2011), and educating the public about how to reduce transmission is very important for preventing its spread.

27

Several methods of Eurasian Watermilfoil control have been attempted with varying results. Hand-harvesting techniques by trained divers have shown success as a management technique. In Upper Saranac, New York, six crews of divers hand-harvested the entire littoral zone twice per summer for three years. Eurasian Watermilfoil cover was reduced to ‘rare’ (<5% cover) for more than 90% of the littoral area, and plant removal decreased from approximately 16 640 kg in 2004 to 460 kg in 2006, which was the final year of intensive management (Kelting and Laxson 2010). The results of the aforementioned study suggest that hand-harvesting is a successful management technique for achieving whole-lake control, but with labour costs of $352 748 per year during the intensive management period and $146 475 per year during the maintenance period, it is very expensive (Kelting and Laxson 2010). Use of herbicides and mechanical harvesters as removal techniques are extremely disruptive to the native habitat as well as the invasive plant, and in fact have been banned on many lakes. Mechanical harvesting, paired with improper collection and removal of fragments, can actually result in increased biomass of Eurasian Watermilfoil because the fragments can easily root and reestablish themselves (Kawartha Lakes Stewards Association 2011). Research has been conducted on biological control of Eurasian Watermilfoil using two species: the Pyralid Moth, Acentria nivea (Creed and Sheldon 1994) and the Milfoil Weevil, Euhrychiopsis lecontei (Creed and Sheldon 1993, 1994, Newman and Maher 1995). The Milfoil Weevil looks promising as a potential biocontrol agent, particularly because it prefers the non-native, invasive milfoil to its native host, Northern Milfoil (Simberloff and Rejmanek 2011). Weevil feeding is capable of cutting off the flow of carbohydrates to root crowns, which reduces the plant's ability to store carbohydrates for over wintering (Newman et al. 1996). These insects have also been found to reduce the buoyancy of the canopy (Creed et al. 1992). Biological control programs aimed at reducing Eurasian Watermilfoil have seen some success, for example Scugog Lake commercially stocked 20 000 weevils and saw dramatic declines of Eurasian Watermilfoil in stocked sites compared to control sites (Kawartha Lakes Stewards Association 2011). Undertaking a biological control regime may prove worthwhile, but it can be expensive. There has not yet been a great deal of research proving its effectiveness, and the specific ecological factors that may lead to success or failure of an attempt at biological control are not yet clear. Milfoil Weevils occur naturally in water bodies containing Northern Milfoil. They provide some biological control against invasive milfoil, but natural weevil populations tend to occur at densities of about half what is required for effective control (Kawartha Lakes Stewards Association 2011). Shoreline development can hinder naturally occurring biological control of invasive milfoil by weevils when naturally occurring debris is removed from the water, removing overwintering microhabitats. Mechanical harvesting of Eurasian Milfoil can also reduce Milfoil Weevil effectiveness because it removes weevils clustered on the upper stems, while the bottom of the plant remains rooted in the soil and cut fragments asexually reproduce into new plants (Kawartha Lakes Stewards Association 2011).

28

Purple Loosestrife Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) was observed in small to moderate quantities on all water bodies except Lost Bay, which may be due to the difficulty associated with identifying this plant when it is no longer flowering. Purple Loosestrife easily establishes itself in wetlands once introduced, and forms a dense monoculture, replacing native plants and thus important habitat needed by native wildlife. This invasive plant is also capable of growing in drier soils, causing concern for other habitat in addition to wetlands. The best time to control Purple Loosestrife is in June, July and early August when it is in flower and easy to recognize before it goes to seed. In an area with a small infestation, plants can be dug out of the ground by hand. Cutting the flowers stalks before they go to seed also ensures that seeds will not produce future plants, but proper disposal is imperative in order to ensure that seeds do not contaminate other areas. This can be done by putting plants in plastic bags that will remain intact at landfill sites (Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters 2011). European Frog-bit European Frog-bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae) was observed in large quantities in one area of Upper Beverley Lake – a shallow, swampy basin to the north of the lake separated from the main basin by a narrow channel. This species was also observed in other areas of Upper Beverley Lake, but in much smaller quantities. Small amounts of European Frog-bit were also found in one seine haul in Lost Bay. European Frog-bit has quickly become one of the dominant plants in many eastern Ontario wetlands, reducing native plant biodiversity. It often forms dense mats of floating vegetation that prevent sunlight from reaching the submerged aquatic vegetation beneath it (OMNR 2010, Field Guide to Aquatic Invasive Species). The thick mats can also impede movement of large fish and diving ducks. When Frog-bit decomposes in the fall, the huge volumes of decomposing vegetation can deplete dissolved oxygen levels in the water, leading to the death of many overwintering fish and other aquatic organisms. Boating and swimming are negatively affected by Frog-bit invasions. Once European Frog-bit is introduced into an aquatic ecosystem, it is impossible to get rid of, and removal is only a temporary solution. The only real solution to the problem of Frog-bit and other invasive aquatic plants is preventing their spread. Carefully cleaning boats and propellers before moving them to a different water body is an important precaution to avoid spreading invasive plants. Ensuring not to plant invasive species, and planting only native species, is another imperative preventative measure. Public education campaigns such as this project, as well as the Invading Species Awareness Program (www.stopinvadingspecies.com) are important, as behavioural changes will not occur if residents are not given the opportunity to understand the importance of individual actions.

29

Vegetation and Fish Communities Estimated percentage of vegetative cover at a seining site was not found to significantly correlate with YOY species richness (R2 = 0.007, F = 1.32, p = 0.26, n = 46), YOY Shannon Index of biodiversity (R2 = 0.017, F = 0.26, p = 0.61, n = 46), or the number of YOY fish caught at that site (R2 = 0.035, F = 2.65, p = 0.11, n = 46). This finding was surprising, as this relationship was present in previous phases of this study on Lower Beverley, Gananoque, and South Lakes, as well as other related research (Bryan and Scarnecchia 1992). Personal observations as well as conversations with local cottagers revealed that aquatic vegetation was particularly dense in the summer of 2010 compared to previous summers, on all 4 lakes. This could explain the lack of relationship found between vegetative cover and YOY species richness as it was unlikely that aquatic vegetative cover was a limiting factor for YOY fish. No relationships between substrate and YOY abundance or species richness, or total fish abundance or species richness, were found in this phase of the study (p > 0.2). In Phase 2 of the project, silt and detritus were positively correlated with YOY abundance, as well as with four YOY species (Banded Killifish, Fundulus diaphanous; Johnny Darter, Etheostoma nigrum; Largemouth Bass, Micropterus salmoides; and Yellow Perch, Perca flavescens). Species at risk Species at risk are those which are in danger of becoming extirpated from a particular region (i.e., no longer present in that region) or extinct. The following are the specific levels of designation that a species at risk can receive and their definitions:

Extirpated: No longer existing in the wild in Ontario (or Canada), but still

exists elsewhere Endangered: Facing extinction or extirpation Threatened: At risk of becoming endangered Special Concern: Sensitive to human activities or natural events which may

cause it to become endangered or threatened” (OMNR 2010)

The lists of species at risk may differ federally and provincially. The designations of species presented in this report are the same both federally and provincially unless otherwise indicated. There are many activities that landowners with shorelines can do to improve the quality of habitat for species at risk, such as maintaining wetland and natural aquatic vegetation, instituting a shoreline buffer of native terrestrial plants, and

30

leaving basking sites for turtles (e.g., logs and rocks). An excellent resource describing these activities and many other ways of helping turtle species at risk, specifically, is the Community Strategy for Turtle Recovery: Grenadier Island, Tar Island and Associated Mainland by Bellemore and Kelly (2009). Other resources on species at risk include:

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Species at Risk Program (http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/index.html)

Government of Canada’s Species at Risk Registry (http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm)

Ontario Turtle Tally (http://www.torontozoo.com/adoptapond/TurtleTally.asp)

Eastern Ontario Model Forest Herpetofaunal Atlas (http://eomf.on.ca/atlas/list_e.html)

American Eel There were no American Eels found in this phase of the study, as opposed to Phase II of the study which found one American Eel in Gananoque Lake. The fact that no eels were found in Phase 3 does not rule out the possibility that they do inhabit the four lakes in the present study, which may be detected with further sampling effort (e.g. additional locations, depths, or times of day and night). Historically, American Eel are known to have inhabited many lakes within the Gananoque River Watershed. Grass Pickerel Grass Pickerel is a species at risk that was not previously confirmed as inhabiting the studied water bodies, and was the only fish species at risk found on the 5 water bodies surveyed. Grass Pickerel were found at none of the 25 seining sites on Upper Beverley Lake, 1 of the 7 sites on Lyndhurst Lake and Creek, 6 of the 10 sites on Singleton Lake, and 3 of the 11 sites on Lost Bay. The Grass Pickerel is an important part of healthy aquatic communities in this region, and has been a species of special concern in Canada since May 2005 (COSEWIC 2005). It frequently occupies the niche of top predator in habitats with conditions that are unsuitable for larger top-predators – heavily vegetated, shallow, slow-moving rivers and streams, with abundant emergent and submergent wetland plants and woody debris (Cain et al. 2008; Coker 2010). Loss and degradation of this habitat is an important factor affecting the survival of this species. Causes of habitat loss include removal of aquatic vegetation and increases in turbidity and nutrients in the water (Beauchamp et al. 2009). Grass pickerel are found in both clear and slightly turbid (‘tea-coloured’) water (Becker 1983). However, water turbidity becomes become a threat if it increases to the point of destroying aquatic vegetation due to insufficient light penetration (COSEWIC 2005). Other threats

31

include channel alterations and dredging leading to loss of aquatic vegetation and other cover types, and the loss of low-velocity and shallow habitats (Coker 2010). Phase 1 of the Gananoque River Watershed Community Stewardship Project, which performed similar data collection and analyses on the nearby Lower Beverley Lake, found that Grass Pickerel presence was positively correlated with Bog Willow, Broad-leaved Pondwed, Common Cattail, Duckweed, White Water Lily and Burweed. Of these species, only Duckweed (Greater Duckweed, Lesser Duckweed, Star Duckweed, and Watermeal grouped together) and Water Lilies (White and Yellow grouped together) were identified often enough to be used in analyses in the current study. Phase 3 (the current study) found some relationships between Grass Pickerel presence and particular aquatic plant taxa. Duckweed and Water Lilies were again found to positively predict the species’ presence. The sample size of Grass Pickerel captured in this study (9) was too small for many traditional statistical tests to be meaningful. The Fisher’s exact test is capable of providing high statistical power when sample sizes are low (Quinn and Keough 2002), so the data were adapted such that this test could be used. Seines in which Grass Pickerel were present vs. absent were compared to seines in which the different plant groups were present vs. absent, using Fisher’s exact tests. These tests revealed statistically significant positive relationships between presence of Grass Pickerel and Arrowhead (p = 0.04), Duckweed (p = 0.007), Water Lilies (p = 0.03), and Coontail (p = 0.01). A marginally significant relationship was found between presence of Grass Pickerel and Canadian Waterweed (p = 0.08). No significant relationships were found between presence of Grass Pickerel and Vallisneria spp., Sedges, Stonewort, Potamogeton spp., Bladderwort, Waternymph, European Frog-bit, Pickerelweed, or Algae (p > 0.1). Previous studies have found that the vegetative communities occupied by Grass Pickerel typically include representatives of the Pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.), Coontail (Ceratophyllum spp.), Water Lilies (Nymphaea spp. and Nuphar spp.), and Chara (COSEWIC 2005). In a study conducted in Wisconsin, plants associated with Grass Pickerel were moss (Orepanocadus spp.), Water Lilies, Pondweeds, filamentous algae, and Broadleaf Cattail (Typhalatifolia) (Kleinert and Mraz 1966). Estimated percent cover of aquatic vegetation at a seining site was not found to be a significantly positive predictor of Grass Pickerel presence at that seining site (R2 =0.02, F1,41 = 0.9, p = 0.35). However, the majority of time spent seining was early in the summer at Upper Beverley Lake, where no Grass Pickerel were found, meaning that Grass Pickerel did not start to be observed until late summer and early fall. As declining water temperatures over the course of the season are associated with declining aquatic plant cover it is possible that the lack of relationship between aquatic vegetation coverage and Grass Pickerel presence is an artefact of that relationship. Ideally, a multivariate model considering how aquatic vegetation cover predicts Grass Pickerel presence while controlling for water temperature or date

32

would be performed, but the low sample size of Grass Pickerel means that any models made would violate necessary model assumptions, such as normal distribution of data. Phase 1 of the project found a positive relationship between Grass Pickerel presence and Emerald Shiner and Brook Silverside, suggesting that these species are likely prey items. These species were not found on the 5 water bodies examined in the current study, so it is not possible to affirm whether there is an association between Grass Pickerel and these species on these lakes. Phase 1 also found Grass Pickerel to have an affinity with areas that are rich in young of the year, also suggested to be areas that provide prey. As stated above, Phase 3 did not find a similar relationship when all 4 lakes were considered. To get a more focused ‘snapshot’ of the site characteristics which predict Grass Pickerel presence, similar statistical analyses were performed considering only the lake in which the most Grass Pickerel were found. Examining this lake alone is one way to avoid the problems created by having too many variables in a model (lake, time of year, etc.). The current study examines this relationship only on Singleton Lake, where 6 Grass Pickerel were seined at 6 different locations, and thus it was possible to statistically compare the traits of locations at which the fish species was present vs. absent. No relationship was found between presence of Grass Pickerel and percentage of aquatic vegetation cover (t-test, n = 10, p > 0.3). There was also no significant relationship found between presence of Grass Pickerel and young-of-year (YOY) species richness (t-test, n = 10, p > 0.7). Sites with Grass Pickerel, however, were likely to have a higher number of young-of-year fish also seined (t-test, n = 10, p = 0.04; Figure 1.28). At sites where Grass Pickerel were found, the average number of young-of-year fish seined was 27.4, with an average of 12.8 young-of-year seined at locations where Grass Pickerel were not found. As previous phases have interpreted this similar finding, it follows that Grass Pickerel may gravitate toward habitats with an abundance of young fish upon which they can prey. Fish comprise approximately 75% of the diet of Grass Pickerel which are greater than 6 inches in length. For smaller individuals, the diet mainly consists of insects, worms, and crustaceans (Hunter and Rankin 1939).

33

Figure 1.28. Average number of YOY (young-of-year) fish captured in seines in which Grass Pickerel were present or absent.

The baseline data described here can be used as a comparison in future years to show, for example, whether invasive species or species at risk in particular lakes appear/disappear, or if their populations appear to be increasing or decreasing. This information can then help describe any changes in the state of the aquatic communities of Upper Beverley Lake, Lyndhurst Lake and Lyndhurst Creek, Singleton Lake, and Lost Bay.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Present Absent

Ave

rage

nu

mb

er

of

YO

Y in

se

ine

hau

l

Grass Pickerel in Seine Haul

34

References Beauchamp, J., Edwards, A.L., Hardy, D., Jarvis, P.L., Staton, S.K. 2009. Management

plan for the Grass Pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus) in Canada [Draft]. Species at Risk Act Management Plan Series. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa.

Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press. 1052 p. Bouvier, L.D., Boyko, A.L., Mandrak, N.E. 2010. Information in support of a recovery

potential assessment of Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus) in Canada. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat. Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Bryan, M.D., Scarnecchia, D.L. 1992. Species richness, composition, and abundance of fish larvae inhabiting natural and developed shorelines of a glacial Iowa lake.

Environmental Biology of Fishes 35: 329–341. Cain, M.L., Lauer, T.E., Lau, J.K. 2008. Habitat Use of Grass Pickerel Esox Americanus

Vermiculatus in Indiana Streams. The American Midland Naturalist 160(1):96-109.

Coker, G.A., Ming, D.L., and Mandrak, N.E. 2010. Review considerations and

mitigation guide for habitat of the Grass Pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus). Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2941: vi + 18 p.

COSEWIC. 2002. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Pugnose Shiner

Notropis anogenus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa.

COSEWIC. 2005. COSWEIC assessment and status report on the Grass Pickerel Esox americanus vermiculatus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. COSEWIC. 2006. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the American Eel

Anguilla rostrata in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa.

Creed, R.P., Jr. and S.P. Sheldon. 1993. The effect of the weevil Euhrychiopsi

lecontei on Eurasian watermilfoil: Results from Brownington Pond and North Brook Pond. In: Proceedings, 27th Annual Meeting, Aquatic Plant Control Research Program, 16-19 November 1992, Bellevue, Washington. Miscellaneous Paper A-93-2, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. pp. 99-117.

35

Creed, R.P., Jr. and S.P. Sheldon. 1994. The effect of two herbivorous insect larvae on Eurasian watermilfoil. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 32:21-26.

Holm, E. and N.E. Mandrak. 2002. Update COSEWIC status report on the Pugnose

Shiner (Notropis anogenus) in Canada, in COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the Pugnose Shiner (Notropis anogenus) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 1-15 pp.

Hunter, G.W., Rankin, J.S. Jr. 1939. The food of Pickerel. Copeia 4:194-199. Invading Species Awareness Program. 2011. Accessed online at:

http://www.invadingspecies.com Kawartha Lakes Stewards Association. 2011. KLSA’s Guide to the

Watermilfoil Weevil. Accessed online at: http://klsa.wordpress.com/what-have-we-learned/milfoil-weevil-guide/

Kelting, D.L., Laxson, C.L. 2010. Cost and Effectiveness of Hand Harvesting to

Control the Eurasian Watermilfoil Population in Upper Saranac Lake, New York. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management.

Kleinert, S., and Mraz, K. 1966. Delafield studies. Annual progress report for the

period January 1–December 31, 1965. Wisconsin Conservation Department, Annual progress report, Madison.

Lyons, J. 1989. Changes in the abundance of small littoral-zone fishes in Lake

Mendota, Wisconsin. Canadian Journal of Zoology 67: 2910-2916. Madsen, J.D. Advantages and Disadvantages of Aquatic Plant Management

Techniques. 2000. Accessed online at: http://www.aquatics.org/pubs/madsen2.htm

Madsen, J.D., Sutherland, J.W., Bloomfield, J.A., Eichler, L.W., Boylen, C.W. 1991. The

decline of native vegetation under dense Eurasian watermilfoil canopies. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 29: 94-99.

Parkinson, H., Mangold, J., Jacobs, J., Madsen, J., Halpop, J. 2010. Montana State University Extension : Biology, Ecology, and Management of Eurasian Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum). Moody, M.L, Les, D.H. 2002. Evidence of hybridity in invasive watermilfoil

(Myriophillum) populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:14867-14871.

36

Moody, M.L., Les, D.H. 2007. Geographic distribution and genotypic composition of

invasive hybrid watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum × Myriophyllum sibiricum) populations in North America. Biology of Invasions 9(5): 559-570.

Newman, R.M., K.L. Holmberg, D.D. Biesboer and B.G. Penner. 1996. Effects of the

potential biological control agent, Euhrychiopsis lecontei, on Eurasian watermilfoil in experimental tanks. Aquatic Botany 53:131-150.

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010. Field Guide to Aquatic

Invasive Species, 3rd Edition. Accessed online at: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/43e38be9#/43e38be9/2

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2010. What is a species at risk?

Accessed online at: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/index.html

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2011. Snapping Turtle (Chelydra

serpentina)Accessed online at: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@species/documents/document/276686.pdf

Parks Canada. 2011. What is the status of the Stinkpot turtle? Accessed online at:

http://www.pc.gc.ca/nature/eep-sar/itm3/eep-sar3z/3.aspx Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Purple Loosestrife: What You Should

Know, What You Can Do. 2011. Accessed online at: http://www.purpleloosestrife.org/pdf/plbroch.pdf Quinn, G., and M. Keough. 2002. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for

Biologists. Cambridge University Press. Royal Ontario Museum (ROM). 2011. Northern Map Turtle. Accessed online at:

http://www.rom.on.ca/ontario/risk.php?doc_type=fact&id=289&lang=en Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin Fisheries

Research Board of Canada 184:966 p. Simberloff, D, Rejmanek, M. 2011. Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions. University of California Press. 765 p.

37

2. Shoreline Surveys of Upper Beverley Lake, Lyndhurst Lake and Creek, Singleton Lake, and Lost Bay

Introduction The shoreline of a lake is called ‘the ribbon of life’ with good reason: the area close to the shore of a lake, including upland as well as near-shore parts of the lake, is incredibly important for sustaining life. Natural shoreline areas contain a high diversity of species in a relatively small amount of space and provide essential habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial species (Wetzel 2001). In regions which contain lakes, as much as 70% of animal life depends on healthy shorelines for access to water, habitat, and natural corridors. Even more striking, up to 90% of all aquatic life depends on a healthy shoreline at some point in its life cycle. In addition to the habitat they provide for animals, healthy shorelines with an abundance of native vegetation provide a wide range of ecosystem services from which humans directly benefit. These services include water purification, erosion protection, and nutrient processing (Schmeider 2004; Strayer and Findlay 2010). Nutrient processing consists of actions such as the decomposition of biological matter, which frees nutrients for use by other organisms, and the capture of nutrients moving from the land to the water and vice versa (Strayer and Findlay 2010). The ability of shorelines to capture and process nutrients is especially critical where upland property is used for agriculture; fertilizers entering the water body can lead to excessive plant growth, dissolved oxygen declines due to plant matter decomposition, and mass death of fish (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada). Coarse woody debris (fallen trees and branches) is a crucial and often overlooked feature of natural shorelines. It provides structure for fish refuge, substrate for invertebrate production, and habitat for nesting fish (Lawson et al. 2011). Waterfront landowners often remove coarse woody debris as a routine landscaping procedure, thereby rendering their properties inhospitable to many fish and invertebrate species. When lakefront properties are subdivided into many separate cottage properties, and landowners remove the coarse woody debris from their shorelines, it can be catastrophic for the aquatic community. Lakefront residential development is commonly associated with low riparian tree density as well as reduced structural complexity of the littoral zone (Lawson et al. 2011). Coarse woody debris has a strong positive association with riparian tree density, and a strong negative association with the density of shoreline cottages (Christensen et al. 1996). Some have argued that docks can serve a similar purpose, but the ability of docks to provide similarly useful habitat and substrate for aquatic organisms is in fact extremely limited. In a study of the effects of lakeshore residential development on Largemouth Bass in Wisconsin, Lawson and colleagues (2011) found that the fish never nested closer to a dock than to coarse woody debris, suggesting that docks do not act as surrogates for coarse woody debris.

38

Shoreline development that is not mindful of its effects on aquatic communities can also have a negative effect on aquatic vegetation, and therefore the community as a whole. A study by Radomski and Goeman (2011) compared floating and emergent aquatic vegetation on developed and undeveloped lakes in Minnesota. They found that development reduced vegetative coverage by 66% on average. They also found that the mean size of Northern Pike, Bluegill, and Pumpkinseed was significantly correlated with occurrence and relative biomass of emergent and floating plants. Thus, lakes with more plants lead to healthier fish populations. Radomski and Goeman suggest that shoreline regulatory policies and landowner education programs need to change to address the cumulative impacts of development on North American Lakes. Algonquin to Adirondacks Conservation Association (A2A) and the Center for Sustainable Watersheds (CSW), along with their partners, undertook shoreline surveys of Upper Beverley Lake, Lyndhurst Lake, Lyndhurst Creek, Singleton Lake, and Lost Bay, which describe the current state of the shorelines. In addition to the analyses, descriptions, and discussion presented in this report, the survey data have been used to create personalized stewardship reports with guidelines for each property owner on each of these water bodies. Each binder contains information tailored to the shoreline of the particular property, as well as restoration suggestions. Phase 3 is a continuation of the work that A2A and its partners have already completed, resulting in stewardship reports for all properties on Lower Beverley Lake in 2009, and Gananoque Lake and South Lake in 2010.

39

Methods Shoreline surveys were carried out on properties on Upper Beverley Lake (120 properties), Lyndhurst Lake (17), Lyndhurst Creek (19), Singleton Lake (17), and Lost Bay (31) from late July 2010 through October 2010, for a total of 204 properties surveyed. A GPS data logger and a laptop with Arc Pad GIS software were used to determine the position of the surveyor on the lake parcel map displayed on the laptop. The shoreline survey followed the Mutual Association for the Protection of Lake Environments (MAPLE) Shoreland Classification Survey Protocol, prepared by the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA 2008). This survey provides various types of data for each property including information on the following (See Appendix 2.1 for sample data sheet):

Shoreline classification: percent degraded, ornamental, regenerative, or natural cover

Built shoreline cover: structures, decks, docks, retaining walls Natural shoreline cover: shoreline vegetation, aquatic vegetation, and abiotic

cover (i.e., non-living cover, such as bedrock, sand, clay, etc.) Restoration opportunities

Additional information beyond the MAPLE protocol was also collected, including shoreline access (an assessment of paths, stairs, and other methods of access) and an upland survey (See Appendix 2.1). The shoreline length of each property was measured using the freehand measuring tool in ArcPad. The percentage of different shoreline classifications was estimated for each property. These were used to estimate the amount of shoreline of each classification for each property and for each water body as a whole.

40

Results and Discussion Shoreline Classification Four types of land were classified in the surveys: natural, regenerative, ornamental, and degraded. Natural shoreline is mainly unaltered with healthy, native vegetation and little development other than a small dock. An ornamental shoreline is where the natural vegetation has been removed and substituted with lawn or non-native vegetation. Regenerative shorelines are in the process of reverting from an ornamental to a more natural state, or actions have been taken to minimize impacts on the shoreline. Degraded shorelines have little vegetation, structures that are deteriorating, and/or active soil erosion. With little vegetation to hold eroding soils in place, properties such as these are at risk of contributing to run-off of soil and silt that can smother nearshore aquatic communities. If owners of these properties use herbicides or chemical fertilizers, these potentially harmful compounds have much easier access to the lake without an adequate buffer zone. Therefore, degraded properties tend to negatively affect the entire lake environment (RVCA 2008). Most of the water bodies surveyed in 2010 had large percentages of natural shoreline. A detailed breakdown of the proportions of each shoreline classification (Natural, Regenerative, Ornamental, Degraded) on each of the five water bodies suveyed in Phase 3 of the project is shown below in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1. Percentage of shoreline of each classification category on each water body studied in Phase 3.

41

Natural Shorelines Natural shorelines provide ecosystem services that are essential to the well-being of lakes and other water bodies. They provide essential habitat and resources for many aquatic and terrestrial species (Wetzel 2001), are less vulnerable to erosion than developed shores, and prevent run-off containing soil and/or household and lawn chemicals from entering the lake (A2A and CSW 2009). Upper Beverley Lake had approximately 77% natural shoreline, Lost Bay had 75% natural shoreline, and Lyndhurst Lake had 52% natural shoreline. Singleton Lake had the highest percentage of natural shoreline of the five bodies of water studied this year, with 87% of the waterfront left natural, and Lyndhurst Creek had the lowest percentage of natural shoreline, with only 19% of the waterfront left unaltered. For comparison to the water bodies surveyed in Phase 2 of this project in 2009, Gananoque Lake was found to have 77% natural shoreline, and South Lake was found to have 93% natural shoreline. As a local comparison, the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority found that the percentage of natural shoreline on the Rideau River was 19% in 2002 between Ottawa and Kars, 21% in 2003 between Kars and Merrickville, and 61% between Merrickville and Smiths Falls (Schelenz and Guertin 2002; Stephens 2004; Stephens 2005). Maps of each lake within this study (Figures 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4) show where the shoreline consists of 0-25% natural habitat, 26-50%, 51-75%, 76-99%, and 100%.

Figure 2.2. Map of the percentage of natural shoreline on Upper Beverley Lake.

42

Figure 2.3. Map of the percentage of natural shoreline on Lyndhurst Lake, Lyndhurst Creek, and Singleton Lake.

43

Figure 2.4. Map of the percentage of natural shoreline on Lost Bay.

44

Shoreline Habitat Features Shoreline features that provide habitat for wildlife were recorded as present or absent on each waterfront property. Cavity trees are living trees which contain cavities that birds and mammals can nest in. Many species, such as Tree Swallows and Eastern Bluebirds, are obligate secondary cavity nesters, meaning that they cannot live in a habitat without cavities for their nest sites. Dead snags are dead standing trees that provide similar habitat, as well as a source of insects for woodpeckers. Fallen trees in the water provide crucial habitat for nesting fish, spots for turtles to bask, as well as substrate for invertebrates and aquatic plants that are integral parts of aquatic ecosystems. Figure 2.5 shows the percentage of properties on each lake that contained each of these described habitat features.

Figure 2.5. The percent of properties on each water body that contain at least one fallen tree, cavity tree, or snag.

Degraded Shorelines. Degraded shorelines can be detrimental to aquatic habitats even if they represent just a small proportion of the perimeter of the lake. Degraded shorelines not only lack the ecosystem service capabilities and habitat provision of natural and regenerative shorelines, but they also contribute negatively to the aquatic community directly adjacent to them and beyond. The extent of the effect depends on the type and severity of degradation. A lack of vegetation at the shoreline can facilitate soil run-off during rain. This has the dual negative effects of erosion of the shoreline and smothering of the natural lake bottom with soils and silt (A2A and CSW 2009). This can be damaging to

45

aquatic species that require plants or certain substrates (i.e., sand or gravel) for feeding or nesting. Additionally, with no vegetative buffer reducing run-off of soils into the lake, there is also nothing to prevent fertilizers, detergents, herbicides, insecticides, and other household or garden chemicals from being washed into the lake from further upland. This can be especially problematic if the upland property is used for agriculture. Insecticides and herbicides can have unintended negative effects on aquatic insects and plants. Fertilizers entering the lake can artificially speed up eutrophication, a process by which nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus enter a water body, leading to murky water, excessive growth of certain plants, and eventual declines in oxygen content of water upon the death and decomposition of large volumes of plant matter (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada). Detergents containing phosphates can also cause this problem, although increased awareness has led to the removal of phosphorous from all laundry detergents in Canada (Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada), and promotion of the use of phosphate-free dish detergents by cottagers. Creating artificial beaches is detrimental for a host of reasons. Dumping sand completely changes the aquatic ecosystem, destroying what was previously there and burying all aquatic plants, invertebrates and substrates that composed the community prior to the introduction of sand. Sand occurs naturally as a substrate on many lakes, and some lakes naturally have highly variable substrates – sand in some parts, muck, gravel, or silt in other areas. Creating an artificial sand beach is a continuous and expensive process – sand-tolerant vegetation finds places to adhere, and more sand must constantly be added as it continually washes away. Despite these issues, some cottagers cannot be deterred from the desire to create a sandy beach, which in most jurisdictions requires a permit from the local conservation authority. It is worth considering other ways of accessing and enjoying the waterfront, such as decks raised on posts, floating rafts and docks, and stairs that lead down to the shore or into the water. Ornamental Shorelines Ornamental shorelines, consisting of manicured turf-grass lawns and/or hardened materials, will eventually cause much the same environmental damage as degraded shorelines. The above-described detrimental effects of run-off are not mitigated by turf-grass, as it has shallow root systems that do not adequately grip the soil to prevent erosion. On ornamental shorelines, trees whose roots used to hold the soil in place have often been removed to maximize views of the water. Pruning branches off trees instead is a preferable option for providing views of the water without damaging the physical integrity of the shoreline. Regenerative Shorelines Regenerative shorelines are those which used to be ornamental but are gradually

46

reverting back to a more natural state, either naturally due to landowners ignoring the shoreline and allowing succession to take place, or actively, via landscaping, planting, and erosion control. Regenerative shorelines occupy a continuum between natural and ornamental. Allowing a shoreline to begin to regenerate can be as simple as not mowing the lawn right down to the water’s edge. A strip of vegetation of at least 30 meters is considered to be the best practice, for filtering nutrients from run-off (A2A and CSW). A review of primary literature conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency found that narrow buffers (1-15m) in some cases removed significant proportions of nitrogen from run-off, but wide buffers (>50m) more consistently filtered nutrients entering riparian zones (US EPA 2005). One of the ways by which shoreline buffers filter nitrogen from run-off and thereby prevent eutrophication is via subsurface soil microbes which metabolize nitrogen before it has a chance to reach the water (US EPA 2005). This is why many shoreline best practices recommendations involve preventing soil compaction, such as building stairs that are raised on runners instead of using footpaths down to the water, and limiting lake access points to just one or two spots while allowing the rest to remain natural. To maintain maximum effectiveness, buffer integrity must be protected against soil compaction and loss of vegetation (US EPA 2005). Planting shrubs and native herbaceous vegetation provides roots that prevent soil and the nutrients it contains, both naturally and from household chemicals, from washing into the water. Retaining walls contribute toward a direct path for run-off entering the water, and thus can lead to erosion on shore, behind the wall, bringing soil into the lake (A2A and CSW 2009). Retaining walls also displace erosion from wave action to the lake substrate near the bottom of the wall. Softening hardened shorelines, for instance by adding riprap in front of a degrading retaining wall, can mitigate the erosion (A2A and CSW). The benefits of regenerating an ornamental shoreline go beyond the ecosystem service of nitrogen and phosphorous filtration. One of the reasons a natural shoreline is such a hotspot for aquatic life is that naturally overhanging trees and shrubs create cooler, and therefore more oxygenated waters that are more suitable for many species at many life stages, with one example being nesting fish. Planting native shrubs at shorelines so they provide shade at the water’s edge is an effective way to begin to regenerate a shoreline (Living by Water). Riprap or loose rock in lieu of concrete or metal retaining walls provides gaps between rocks where young fish can hide from predators, and where sediment will eventually be deposited, providing substrate on which aquatic plants can grow (Living by Water). Built Shoreline Cover Alteration of lake shorelines can occur through the creation of docks, retaining walls, and other structures such as decks, boat ramps, boathouses, boat lifts, and buildings. Generally, a structure will reduce the available habitat for wildlife;

47

however, some structures are less detrimental to wildlife than others. For example, cantilever, floating, and post docks are the best choices for minimizing impact on the shoreline, because they allow for movement under the dock and cause less disturbance to the lake bottom (A2A and CSW 2009; Schelenz and Guertin 2002; Stephens 2004; Stephens 2005). Docks and decks made of concrete and/or stone, or sitting atop a crib of rocks, prevent water movement and redirect erosion to the base of the dock, rather than preventing it altogether, as some people mistakenly believe. Some differences were observed between water bodies in terms of amount and type of built structures (Figure 2.6). Lost Bay and Upper Beverley had a many more decks than the other water bodies, and the lowest frequency of shoreline buildings. Though not directly evident from the figure, because Lyndhurst Lake and Lyndhurst Creek are combined, Lyndhurst Creek had a very high frequency of hardened stairs at the shoreline relative to its total number of properties. Upper Beverley had a great many more docks, as can be expected due to the larger size of the lake. Across all lakes, boat houses and other shoreline buildings were much less common compared to generally lower impact structures such as decks, docks, and stairs.

Figure 2.6. The number of shoreline structures of varying types on each lake.

Floating docks and post docks were the most commonly observed dock types on each lake, with post docks being very common on Upper Beverley Lake. Inadvisable dock types that harden the shoreline and displace aquatic life, such as cement docks and crib docks, were relatively rare (Figure 2.7).

48

Figure 2.7. Number of docks of each type on each water body.

Advisable retaining wall types include loose rock, riprap, and gabion baskets. These types mitigate shoreline erosion without displacing it the way hardened retaining walls do, as well as providing crevices for aquatic wildlife and spaces for plants to root. Inadvisable retaining wall building materials include concrete, wood, steel, and especially railroad ties, as toxic creosote continues to leech into the water for years after their installation. The number of retaining walls of each type observed on each water body is visible in Figure 2.8 below.

Figure 2.8. Number of properties on each lake which have different types of retaining walls: advisable types (loose rock, riprap, and gabion basket), and inadvisable types (wood, armourstone, concrete, steel, and/or railroad tie). “Other” includes rubber tires, gravel, cinder blocks, and flat rocks piled into a wall.

49

Natural Shoreline Cover Shoreline vegetation is extremely beneficial for water quality and habitat. For example, vegetation at the shore can help stabilize the shoreline, prevent soil erosion, provide habitat for animals, and prevent pollutants from entering the water (Correll 2005; Schmeider 2004). The composition of natural shoreline cover can affect the health of the lake and its inhabitants. Trees and shrubs along the shoreline supply shade for fish and keep the shallow water from overheating. Snags (i.e., standing dead or partly dead trees) provide habitat for wildlife, such as nesting cavities for birds. Coarse woody debris provides many benefits to animals, including shelter from predators and basking sites for turtles (Strayer and Findlay 2010). Natural native vegetation is preferred over ornamental vegetation, such as groomed grasses, because it provides better and more diverse habitat and food for native animals and is adapted to the local environment. Aquatic Vegetation Cover Aquatic vegetation is an extremely important component of habitat, particularly for young-of-year fish of a variety of species. Three aquatic vegetation types were assessed for presence versus absence: emergent (rooted below the water and extending above the surface of the water, e.g., Cattail); submergent (growing below the surface of the water, e.g., Canadian Waterweed); and floating plants (e.g., Yellow Pond Lily). As shown in Figure 2.9 below, there was no shortage of aquatic vegetation on any of the bodies of water studied during Phase 3. Lost Bay was surveyed late in the season compared to the other bodies of water, and is therefore not directly comparable, since the water temperature was colder and much of the aquatic vegetation had begun to die. Though best practices recommendations generally suggest that shoreline landowners not remove aquatic vegetation in order to leave habitats intact, most of the bodies of water surveyed had problems due to overabundance of vegetation. Some of this vegetation was invasive, such as the overabundance of Eurasian Watermilfoil on Lost Bay reported by residents (which was not observed by the researchers as Lost Bay was surveyed too late in the season). Other overabundant vegetation was composed of species not considered invasive, such as the extremely large amounts of Potamogeton species and stonewort on Upper Beverley Lake. On all water bodies, emergent vegetation was the least prevalent, which is probably due to several factors, including emergent varieties of aquatic vegetation being less prevalent in general, but also being easiest to remove and the least desirable to cottagers on more ornamental properties. Submergent vegetation was found at high levels in all water bodies, likely because it is the most difficult to remove and only hinders cottage lifestyle where beaches and swimming areas are desired. Floating vegetation was found with fairly high frequency in all surveyed bodies of water.

50

Figure 2.9. Percentage of properties on which aquatic vegetation was found for each of the three categories (emergent, submergent, and floating cover), on each lake.

Invasive aquatic plant species are a major concern in many lakes because exotic species have the capacity to negatively influence ecosystems by replacing native species, altering nutrient cycling, and reducing habitat quality (Wilson and Ricciardi 2009; Trebitz and Taylor 2007). At Gananoque Lake, 48% of properties had invasive aquatic plants present, covering 10% of the shoreline. Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) was the most common invasive species present, followed by Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophillum spicatum) and European frog-bit (Hydrocharis morsus-ranae). Guidelines for Improving Shorelines There are many ways for landowners with shorelines to improve the water quality of their lakes, as well as the aquatic and terrestrial habitat on their properties. Maintaining a buffer strip of native vegetation at the shoreline is most highly recommended. Implementing such a buffer zone can reduce erosion, provide increased habitat for animals, and help reduce the amount of harmful chemicals that enter the lake from inland sources. Choosing to construct or replace existing structures with less invasive decks, docks, and stairs, which sit atop the natural vegetation and allow water and light through, rather than replacing the vegetation, is beneficial. Leaving natural vegetation intact at the shoreline provides habitat for wildlife while protecting vulnerable waterfront soils from eroding away. Septic system re-inspections are recommended to ensure that leaks are not occurring. The following list contains links to more resources on the topic of shoreline improvement:

Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (http://www.cataraquiregion.on.ca/index.html)

Living by Water Project; Centre for Sustainable Watersheds (http://www.livingbywater.ca/main.html)

51

Rideau Valley Conservation Association: Shoreline information and reports (http://www.rvca.ca/watershed/aquatic_habitat/shoreline_overview.html#surveys)

Information resources appendix from Lower Beverley Lake shoreline binders (A2A and CSW 2009) (http://www.a2alink.org/)

What You Should Know About Fish Habitat and Docks, Boathouses and Boat Launches. Fisheries and Oceans Canada (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/pub/fact-fait-mb/mb2-eng.htm)

52

References Algonquin to Adirondacks Conservation Association and Centre for Sustainable

Watersheds (A2A and CSW). 2009. Gananoque River Watershed Community Stewardship Project: Appendix to the Lower Beverley Lake Shoreline Report. Algonquin to Adirondacks Conservation Association and Centre for Sustainable Watersheds.

Christensen, D.L., Herwig, B.R., Schindler, D.E., and Carpenter, S.R. 1996. Impacts of

Lakeshore Residential Development on Coarse Woody Debris in North Temperate Lakes. Ecological Applications 6:1143-1149.

Correll, D.L. 2005. Principles of planning and establishment of buffer zones.

Ecological Engineering 24:433–439 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Protecting the Health of Canada’s Lakes. Accessed online at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/pub/ela-rle/index-eng.htm Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The Shore Primer: Ontario Edition. Accessed online at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/pub/shore-rivages-on/04

eng.htm Nature Canada. The Living by Water Project. Accessed Online at: http://www.livingbywater.ca/main.html Rideau Valley Conservation Authority (RVCA). 2008. M.A.P.L.E. Shoreland

Classification Survey: Field Sheet and Protocol. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority

Schelenz, P., Guertin, A. 2002. Rideau River Shoreline Classification Survey: Kars

Bridge to Mooney’s Bay Summer 2002. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. Accessed Online at: http://www.rvca.ca/watershed/aquatic_habitat/shoreline_overview.html# surveys

Schmeider, K. 2004. European lake shores in danger – concepts for a sustainable

development. Limnologica 34:3–14. Stephens, B. 2004. Shoreline Classification Project: 2003 Report. Rideau Valley

Conservation Authority. Accessed Online at: http://www.rvca.ca/ watershed/aquatic_habitat/shoreline_overview.html#surveys

53

Stephens, B. 2005. Shoreline Classification Project: 2004 Report. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority. Accessed Online at: http://www.rvca.ca /watershed/aquatic_habitat/shoreline_overview. html#surveys

Strayer, D.L., Findlay, S.E.G. 2010. Ecology of freshwater shore zones. Aquatic

Science 72:127–163 Trebitz, A.S., Taylor, D.L. 2007. Exotic and invasive aquatic plants in great lakes

coastal wetlands: Distribution and relation to watershed land use and plant richness and cover. Journal of Great Lakes Restoration 33:705–721.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Riparian Buffer Width, Vegetative Cover, and Nitrogen Removal Effectiveness: A Review of Current Science and Regulations. Accessed online at: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600R05118/600R05118.pdf

Wilson, S.J. and Ricciardi, A. 2009. Epiphytic macroinvertebrate communities on

Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and native milfoils Myriophyllum sibericum and Myriophyllum alterniflorum in eastern North America. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 66:18–30.

Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems, 3rd ed. Academic Press

54

Appendix 2.1a: Front side of 2009 data sheet

Shoreline Survey Property Description Form (Field Sheet)

Property/ Pin Number Site Map Number GPS UTM (NAD83)

Sector Number E E

N N

Start of property End of property

Digital Photo % Shoreline Cover (Natural)

Reference Number Biotic Abiotic

% Classifcation Canopy % Bedrock (exposed rock)

Degraded % Trees (Coniferous) Boulder (>25cm)

Ornamental % Trees (Deciduous) Stone (8-25cm)

Regenerative % Open % Gravel (0.2-8cm)

Natural % Shrubs Sand (0.05-0.10cm, gritty)

Comments: Grasses Groomed Silt (<0.05cm, powdery)

Natural

Grasses/herbaceous Clay (0.01cm, greasy feel)

Organic (woody debris)

Comments:

Shoreline Profile

Building Setback (m)

Frontage (m)

Slope Angle (degree) 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Erosion

Comments: Upland erosion Undercut bank erosion

Mass movement erosion % lot frontage affected

Source

Comments:

Shoreline Cover (Built)

Structures %

Decks Boat Lift

Boat Ramp Boat Slip % Aquatic Vegetation Covering

Boathouse Building(s) Emergents % Floating %

Comments: Cattail Lily-Type Plants

Sedges/Grasses/Rush

Other: Invasive Plant Species %

Submergents % Purple Loosestrife

Retaining Wall Algae Eurasian Milfoil

Height

% Cover

State of Repair Grass-like European European Frog-bit

(m) Good Fair Poor Leaf-like

Type Comments:

Wood Riprap

Loose Rock Gabion Basket

Armourstone Steel

Concrete Other % Aquatic Substrate/Cover

Dock Biotic Abiotic (measurements as above)

Number of docks Permanent Detritus (leaves, etc.)

Bedrock Gravel

Type Not permanent Downed Woody Debris

Boulder Sand

Comments: Other Stone Silt

Muck (combo sand, silt, clay)

Comments:

Agricultural Active/Non Camp

55

Active

Seasonal Residence Marina Restoration Opportunities

Permanent Residence

Road/Railway/Bridge Plant native shrubs/ trees along shoreline

Recreation/Open Space Other Total re-vegetation recommended

Comments: Leave natural Limit shoreline access

Retire retaining wall Control invasive plant species

Erosion control measures Soften retaining wall

Upland rainwater diversion Other

Land Cover Other:

Wetland Meadows

Woodland Farm Pasture

Farm crops (corn,hay) Other

Comments: Other Observations

Fish:

Wildlife:

Cattle:

Surveyed By: Other Significant Features:

Survey Date: Comments:

Date Data Entered:

Entered By:

56

Appendix 2.1b: Back side of 2009 field data sheet

Shoreline Survey Property Form (Field Sheet)

Building

Structure Y/N Description Y/N Comments

Eaves Rain Barrel

Infiltration Pit

Vegetative Area Recommendations

Ground

Shoreline Access

Structure Y/N Description Y/N Comments

Pathway S-curve

Straight

Stairway Aboveground

Inground

Materials Rail ties

Wood

Gravel forms Recommendations

Concrete

Other

Erosion Major

Minor

Location

Upland

Structure Y/N Description Y/N Comments

Slope Steep

Moderate

Flat

Erosion

Vegetation Overstorey:

% Coverage Coniferous

% Coverage Deciduous

Understorey:

Leaf Litter %Coverage

Lawns %Coverage

Retaining Wall Good Condition

Poor Condition Recommendations

Materials Wood

Concrete

Loose Rock

Railroad Ties

Other:

Erosion

Wildlife Habitat Snags

Fallen Tree

Cavity Tree

Bedrock % Coverage