Hurds Creek

Hurds Creek is one of 29 tributaries in the Bonnchere River watershed that BRWP's RiverWatch program has been monitoring from time to time since the early millennium. Hurds creek is unique from the others in that it consists of a 4km Dam Controlled Reach leaving Lake Clear and a 13km Natural Reach flowing from the dam down to the Bonnechere River. This report summarizes the 2013 RiverWatch assessment of the physical and biological features of the Natural Reach section of the creek from a citizen scientists' point of view.

View Hurds Creek in greater detail

Hurds Creek Catchment

• Hurds Creek Is approx. 17km long flowing from Lake Clear to the Bonnechere River
• Water level in the first 4 km is controlled by the Renfrew Power Generation control dam
• The catchment area is approximately 139.6 km²
• 67% of the catchment is forest
• 13.2% is agricultural - mainly hay
• 2.5% is wetland and
• only 0.7% is considered developed (3)

Hurds Creek catchment - click to enlarge

Water Quality

Augsburg Rd. bridge monitoring site (placemark A in above google map)

Over the past decade water quality monitoring has been conducted at each end of the creek using benthic macro invertebrates (BMI) with a resulting joutcome of GOOD water quality:

• 2004 to 2006, students at Opeongo H.S. under the direction of the BRWP Water Resource Coordinator monitored the Augsburg Rd (site A) with GOOD water quality results.
• 2009 and 2010, the Augsburg Rd (site A) was again monitored with once again GOOD results. At this time a new monitoring site was opened at the entrance to the creek (site B) and was rated as only FAIR.
• 2011, Site A was rated GOOD and Site B FAIR. It was felt that Site B in both 2010 and 2011 rated lower because of slow moving water that was poorly oxygenated.

Four common water quality parameters were used to help assess water quality as part of the 2013 RiverWatch survey.

The analysis of streamwater hydrochemical datasets such as in the below table is another way of providing insight into watershed processes related to water. The result of analyzing Hurds Creek data from Augsburg Rd site A (BW19) indicates that because the nitrate and chloride that groundwater has a significant impact on the creek.

Click table to enlarge

Water Hydrology

Water control dam, 4km from mouth

The Renfrew Power Generation water control dam, built in the 1930s, obviously has had a dramatic impact on the hydrology of the first 4km section of the creek. Ironically the dam has had little impact on making Lake Clear into a reservoir for the Bonnechere River. Even after a significant dredging project to lower the creekbed at the it's entrance in the early '60s the dam sill and the creekbed mouth still have almost the same elevation. The main function of the dam today is basically to preserve the existence of Little Lake Clear for local property owners.

Hurds Creek Channel

A 396m (1,300') long sand embankment at the creek's entrance marks

the result of a dredging project in the early '60s.

Leaving Little Lake Clear the creek is wide but very shallow

Passing Manning Rd the channel narrows and

begins to show the influence of wildlife such as beaver.

Downstream from the water control dam the creek widens into a series of wetlands

A thick matting of Reeds can almost hide the channel

Lots of pools, riffles and runs with unaltered stream banks

becomes the norm from Silver Lake Road to the Bonnechere River

From Silver Lake Rd to the Bonnechere the channel maintains its natural sinuosity

2013 Fieldwork Report on the Natural Reach of Hurds Creek

The BRWP's RiverWatch team of citizen scientists used a modified macro-stream assessment protocol adapted from the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority's City Stream Watch (2011) program to assess the natural features of the 100m on each side of the creek from the control dam down to the Bonnechere River.

The objective of survey was to gather credible baseline information on stream and bank characteristics by non-professionals that can be referred to in the future to confirm if there is a problem and if so to have some insight into possible mitigation.

Eleven 100m asssessments segments were made along the approximately 13km Natural Reach. Each segment noted the:

• stream channel;
• streambed and bank characteristics, and
• land use of the 100m on each side of the bank

Adjacent land use

• Land use was assessed in 300m segments - 100m centered across the creek and an additional 100m on either side
• The majority of the land was classified as natural.
• The vegetated areas adjacent to the stream are important for filtering out excess nutrients running off the land, as well as absorbing excess rainwater and providing habitat for wildlife.
• Wetland areas are also critical to filtering out toxins and providing wildlife habitat
• Active agriculture represented cattle with access to the stream.
• There were a few residential homes observed in the lower part of Hurd’s Creek.

Instream morphology

• The types of features found in a stream are dependent on the stream substrate and depth.
• The runs of moderately shallow unagitated water had the thalweg (deepest part of the channel) in the center of the stream;
• Pools of deeper water were typically between riffles and were present largely in the wetland areas. Pools are important shelters for stream wildlife, providing refuge if stream levels decrease and for over-wintering;
• Riffles are areas of agitated water with moderate to rapid current velocity and are important for oxygenating the water (9). Areas where the stream narrowed upon entering forested sections were normally characterized with riffle instream morphology.

Instream substrate

• Diverse instream substrate types will allow for a greater diversity of instream wildlife, as different species will secure different habitat niches.
• The creek has a variety of substrate types, a large majority of which were finer-grained particles
• Cobble is an important habitat for over-wintering and/or spawning for small and juvenile fish
• Boulders can provide back eddies for larger fish to hide and rest out of the current (9)

Instream habitat

• The left and right sides of the creek containing boulders or cobble did not differentiate much.
• These types of instream habitats are important for fish refuge and for providing spawning habitat (9)
• Roughly 3/4 of either bank did not contain these critical fish habitats

Woody Debris

• Trees along the banks of streams are important components of stream habitat because of their shade, which helps to moderate the water temperature, roots that help stabilize banks and branches that have fallen into the stream provide refuge and feeding areas for fish and benthic wildlife (9).
• There is slightly more woody debris instream on the right bank then the left.
• Tree coverage is more or less equal on both sides
• Most of the stream was void of trees and their debris.

Vascular Plants

• Vascular plants are important to stream habitat because they help stabilize banks with their root systems, provide shelter, protection and habitat for benthic macro invertebrates (9).
• There were equal amounts of plants on both sides of the creek with the majority being instream
• 30% of the shoreline had no significant amount of vascular plants.

Undercut Banks

• Undercut banks are part of a normal stream ecosystem and provide refuge areas for fish
• The left bank was slightly more undercut then the right. This is still a relatively low amount overall.

Bank Erosion

• Bank erosion is part of the normal process within a stream ecosystem, however if it becomes extensive it can lead to sedimentation within the stream, which can affect fish and wildlife habitat.
• Erosional tendencies within a stream will be largely dependent on the stability of the banks. A stable bank will resist erosional processes and will likely have a higher level of bank vegetation to help stabilize the soils.
• An unstable bank does not have the support system to retain the soil, and will lead to greater sedimentation and even bank failure if erosional processes are great enough (9).
• Most of the surveyed banks of Hurd’s Creek were stable, and only 8% of the left side bank (which also saw a slightly higher degree of bank undercutting) was considered as unstable.

Stream shade

• Shade is an important component to a stream ecosystem as it moderates the temperature of the stream.
• Shade is typically provided by an assortment of grasses, shrubs and trees and so this also contributes to other factors of stream health, such as providing a food supply (9).
• Hurd’s Creek is a fairly open stream system.

Instream Vegetation

• Hurd’s Creek has a range of different vegetation amounts with the majority falling into the common or normal categories.
• The vegetation in the low and rare low categories might be a product of the stream substrate as 5% of the stream surveyed contained bedrock.
• The small amount in the extensive category means vegetation completely filled the substrate and water column. These areas could indicate poor water quality such as high nutrients that proliferate plant growth so It would be beneficial to give these areas closer scrutiny.

Water Vegetation Types

• It is important to determine the types of instream vegetation, as different substrate types or varying water quality can lead to different types of vegetation proliferating. For instance, poor water quality can lead to a proliferation of algae, which can be detrimental to instream health if it becomes extensive. Also, a wide variety of vegetation types will allow a greater diversity of wildlife to coexist.
• Two main dominant types of vegetation found in Hurd’s Creek was submerged plants (44%) and floating plants (32%), these types of plants are important for stream ecology as they provide habitat structure for wildlife within the stream, especially juveniles, as small fish were often observed in conjunction with these types of vegetation.
• Free-floating plants accounted for 6% of the vegetation, narrow-leaved emergent (3%) and broad-leaved emergent (4%) also accounted for a small proportion.
• Algae was the third most dominant type of vegetation found in the surveyed portions of Hurd’s Creek (13%). Again, algae can be an indictor of poor water quality and so may be associated with an input of nutrients.

Bank Vegetation Types

• The three dominant types of bank vegetation were coniferous trees, deciduous trees and wetland plants.
• Trees are important to stream health as their root systems help to stabilize the banks and prevent erosion and sedimentation; also leaf litter contributes nutrients into the stream (9).
• Wetlands are vital to healthy ecosystems as they remove pollutants, protect against flooding and erosion and provide habitat for wildlife
• Shrubs and grasses provide habitat for wildlife along the stream.
• Dead trees can provide cavity holes and habitat for wildlife

Shoreline Classification

• The majority of areas surveyed were classified as natural, meaning that there was no significant human disruption and that the shoreline is in a natural state with a thick riparian zone.
• Towards the mouth 7% of the left bank was classified as ornamental -where all the natural vegetation had been removed and replaced with either turf grass or other non-native vegetation and artificial structures were sometimes present (9).

Vegetated Riparian Buffer Zones

• Riparian buffer zones containing vegetated areas between the stream and any sort of human activity are important features of a healthy stream ecosystem.
• These natural buffers are able to filter excess nutrients that may be dispensed from urban, rural (sewage) or agricultural (fertilizer) areas, and will also help to dampen any flooding or erosional processes by absorbing rainwater (9)
• The recommended buffer width for a stream is 30m or more (Environment Canada, 2004).
• The majority of the surveyed portions of Hurd’s Creek maintained a 30m+ vegetated buffer area. The 9% portion in the 5-15m buffer range was in areas where the shoreline class was considered ornamental.

Conclusions

• The 13 km Natural Reach section of the creek is in good condition.
• The majority of this area was found to be in a natural state, composed largely of forest and wetland area, with little alteration to stream dynamics.
• Stream substrate was largely of finer-grained particles such as muck and sand, which does not provide ideal habitat for stream organisms, however there was some instream woody debris and vascular plants that provided refuge, feeding and habitat areas for fish and macro-invertebrates.
• Instream vegetation was made up largely of submerged plants, floating plants, and algae that ranged in areas from extensive vegetation choking the water column to rare. The extensive vegetation and algae could indicate a problem with water quality, as excessive inputs of nutrients could be promoting a proliferation of vegetated mass in some areas of the stream.
• Nutrient levels sampled in 2011 showed that nitrogen species and orthophosphate were in low concentrations, however that data was outdated for the current surveys and would not reflect current conditions. Nutrient concentrations were not measured during the 2013 surveys.
• The majority of the stream banks were not undercut, nor where they eroded. There was one section where unstable banks was the result of cattle access.
• This modified stream protocol from the City Stream Watch program is fairly easy to replicate and requires little training (unlike the macro-invertebrate species identification method). This protocol could provide adequate baseline information upon which to build a database of stream health over the years to come using a standardized method.
• The protocol has many merits as it looks at several sections of the stream rather than a single survey site which may not be representative of overall stream health and would not provide a spatial or temporal perspective.

References

1. BRWP - RiverWatch; Bonnechere River Watershed Water Quality: A guide to water quality monitoring along the Bonnechere River for use by rural and urban community groups. A report prepared by Holly Gardner for the Bonnechere River Watershed Project.
2. BRWP - RiverWatch;The Status of the Bonnechere River and its Tributaries. A 2010 report by the Bonnechere River Watershed Project.
3. BRWP - RiverWatch; Geospatial Characterization of the Bonnechere Watershed. Prepared by Alex MacIntosh for the Bonnechere River Watershed Project.
4. BRWP - RiverWatch; An Update on the Status of the Bonnechere River Tributaries. A 2011 report by the Bonnechere River Watershed Project.
5. BRWP - RiverWatch; Water Quality Monitoring of Bonnechere River Tributaries
6. Dr. Murray Richardson of Carleton University, prepared a report on Water Quality Monitoring of the tributaries in the Bonnechere River Watershed.
7. Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), Environment Canada. 2004. How Much Habitat Is Enough?
8. Cappiella, K. and Fraley-McNeal, L. 2007. The Importance of Protecting Vulnerable Streams and Wetlands at the Local Level. Wetlands and Watersheds Article #6, Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD.
9. CCREM (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 2005. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Excerpt from publication No. 1299. ISBN 1-896997-34-1
10. CityStream Watch. 2011. Becketts Creek 2011 Summary Report. Rideau Valley Conservation Authority, Ottawa, ON.
11. Environment Canada. (2013). Water Chemistry. Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network: Wadeable Streams Field Manual.