Sixteen Mile Creek, Grindstone Creek, and

Transcription

Conservation Halton 2013. Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program Grindstone
Creek, Sixteen Mile Creek and Supplemental Monitoring. Conservation Halton,
Burlington, ON. 176 pp.
Conservation Halton
2011 Sixteen Mile Creek, Grindstone Creek and Supplemental Monitoring
1
Acknowledgements
Conservation Halton would like to extend our thanks to all the individuals who provided
technical assistance, sampling equipment, data and advice in support of the monitoring efforts
undertaken for the 2011 field season. Special thanks to the following volunteers, co-op students,
summer students, interns and staff who provided valuable assistance in the field collecting
information for use in this project.
Staff
Aquatic
Andrea Dunn
Rachel Martens
Kent Rundle
Kim Ootjers
Mary Bronze
Joseph Shantz
Jeff Stock
Sarah Matchett
Jennifer Wilson
Samantha Mason
Volunteers
Lisse Vanderhoeven
Kathryn Harrison
Lauren Harrison
Grant Fortin
Terrestrial
Lesley McDonell
Brenda Van Ryswyk
Nigel Finney
Jenny Chan
Kim Barrett
Matt Iles
Allan Wrightman
Amanda Businaro
Ilya Sapozhnikova
Contributors/Writing Team
Andrea Dunn …………………………….
Nigel Finney …………………………….
Bill Gaines ……..……………….……….
David Gale …………………………..…..
Rachel Martens …....…………………..…
Lesley McDonell ……………………......
Kim Ootjers ……………………………..
Meghan Tydd-Hrynyk …………………..
Brenda Van Ryswyk ………..……..…….
Jamie Ferguson
Jason Noronha
Patrick O’Reilly
Water Quality
David Gale
Forestry
Bill Gaines
Jennifer Roberts
Meghan Taylor
Rochelle Rumney
Dianne Green
Jenn Sinasic
Monitoring Ecologist
Natural Heritage Technician
Coordinator, Forestry and Landscape
Watershed Planner
Aquatic Monitoring Ecologist
Natural Heritage Ecologist
Natural Heritage Technician
GIS Technician
Natural Heritage Ecologist
Editors
Brenda Axon ……………………………. Manager, Watershed Planning Services
Kim Barrett ……………………………… Senior Terrestrial Ecologist
Samantha Mason ……………………….. Senior Aquatic Ecologist
Photo credits: Photo contributions are from the above listed staff or indicated in the caption.
Conservation Halton
2
Conservation Halton
3
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 8
1.1
Conservation Halton Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program ......................... 8
1.2
Supplementary Monitoring ............................................................................................. 9
2.0
Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program (LEMP) ............................................... 10
2.1
Aquatic Monitoring ....................................................................................................... 10
2.1.1 Fish Community Monitoring .................................................................................... 13
2.1.2 Benthic Community Monitoring ............................................................................... 33
2.1.3 Channel Morphology ................................................................................................ 52
2.1.4 Surface Water Quality Monitoring ........................................................................... 54
2.1.5 Groundwater Monitoring .......................................................................................... 64
2.1.6 Water Temperature Monitoring ................................................................................ 67
2.2
Terrestrial Monitoring ................................................................................................... 73
2.2.1 Ecological Land Classification ................................................................................. 76
2.2.2 Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN) ..................................... 79
2.2.3 Marsh Monitoring (Amphibians and Marsh Birds) .................................................. 91
2.2.4 Forest Bird Monitoring ........................................................................................... 101
2.2.5 Forest Pest Monitoring ............................................................................................ 105
3.0
Supplemental Monitoring ............................................................................................... 107
3.1
Lake Ontario Shoreline Electrofishing ....................................................................... 107
3.2
Rare Species Monitoring............................................................................................. 109
3.3
Odonata and Butterfly Surveys ................................................................................... 128
4.0
Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................. 134
5.0
Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................... 138
6.0
References ....................................................................................................................... 140
List of Tables
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
IBI ratings and associated scores using the Modified Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). . 14
Distribution of IBI scores in the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed. .................................. 18
Distribution of IBI Classifications in the Grindstone Creek Watershed ....................... 27
Benthic Invertebrate Indices and Associated Classifications ........................................ 34
Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) and/or Desired Objectives ................... 56
Number of Days in Which Temperatures Reached Above 24.5 °C in 2009 and 2011 . 69
EMAN Monitoring Plots by Area.................................................................................. 81
Dominant Shrub and Sapling Species at Burns Conservation Area, Mountsberg
Conservation Area, Speyside RMA and Wildflower Woods RMA plots 2011 ............ 89
Table 9: Health Indices for Groundcover Biodiversity at Burns Conservation Area, Mountsberg
Conservation Area, Speyside RMA, Wildflower Woods RMA and Yaremko RMA
2011 ............................................................................................................................... 89
Table 10: Summary of Marsh Monitoring Program Bird Survey Dates and Times in 2011 ....... 92
Table 11: Summary of MMP Amphibian Surveys 2011 ............................................................. 93
Table 12: Summary of FBMP Data 2011 .................................................................................. 102
Table 13: Area Sensitive Species Recorded at Each Location .................................................. 104
Conservation Halton
4
Table 14: Species Captured During Boat Electrofishing of the Lake Ontario Shoreline 2011 . 109
Table 15: Jefferson Salamander 2011 Survey Results............................................................... 111
Table 16: Summary of Grindstone Creek Vernal Pools ............................................................ 112
Table 17: Summary of Lake Medad Vernal Pools..................................................................... 114
Table 18: Eastern Flowering Dogwood Observations by Ownership Type .............................. 117
Table 19: Eastern Flowering Dogwood 2010-11 Survey Results .............................................. 118
Table 20: Chimney Swift Observations for 2011 ...................................................................... 120
Table 21: Additional Species at Risk Observations................................................................... 127
Table 22: Additional Provincially Tracked Species Observations ............................................ 128
Table 23: Unicorn Clubtails Observed at the Halton Region Museum Pond (2007-2011) ........ 131
List of Figures
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 6:
Figure 7:
Watersheds within the Conservation Halton Jurisdiction ............................................ 12
Sixteen Mile Creek Fisheries Sampling Stations and Associated IBI Classifications. 16
Frequency Distribution of Individual Fish Species in Sixteen Mile Creek .................. 17
Distribution of IBI Classifications in the Sixteen Mile Creek Watershed in 2005 ...... 24
Frequency Distribution of Individual Fish Species in Grindstone Creek (2006, 2009,
2011) ............................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 8: Grindstone Creek Fisheries Sampling Stations and Associated IBI Classifications .... 30
Figure 9: Distribution of IBI Classifications in the Grindstone Creek Watershed in 2006 ......... 31
Figure 10: Distribution of IBI Classifications in the Grindstone Creek Watershed in 2009 ....... 32
Figure 11: Distribution of IBI Classifications in the Grindstone Creek Watershed in 2011 ....... 32
Figure 12: Benthic Sampling Stations and Associated Water Quality Associations in Sixteen
Mile Creek .................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 13: Benthic Sampling Stations and Associated Water Quality Associations in Sixteen
Mile Creek through multiple years ............................................................................. 41
Figure 14: Distribution of Benthic Community Classification in Sixteen Mile Creek in 2005 .. 42
Figure 15: Distribution of Benthic Community Classifications in Sixteen Mile Creek in 2009 . 42
Figure 16: Distribution of Benthic Community Classifications in Sixteen Mile Creek in 2011 . 43
Figure 17: Benthic Sampling Stations and Associated Water Quality Classifications in
Grindstone Creek ........................................................................................................ 45
Grindstone Creek through multiple years ................................................................... 49
Figure 19: Distribution of Water Quality Classifications in the Grindstone Creek in 2006........ 50
Figure 20: Distribution of Water Quality Classification in the Grindstone Creek in 2009 ......... 50
Figure 21: Distribution of Water Quality Classification in the Grindstone Creek in 2011 ......... 51
Figure 22: Sample “Box Plot” Chart ........................................................................................... 56
Figure 23: Surface Water Quality Monitoring Stations ............................................................... 57
Figure 24: Chloride concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN)
Monitoring Stations in 2011. ...................................................................................... 58
Figure 25: Nitrate + Nitrite concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN)
Conservation Halton
5
Figure 26: Total Phosphorous concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual
(PWQMN) Monitoring Stations in 2011. ................................................................... 60
Figure 27: Copper concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN)
Figure 28: Lead concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN) Monitoring
Stations in 2011........................................................................................................... 62
Figure 29: Zinc concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN) Monitoring
Stations in 2011........................................................................................................... 63
Figure 30: Groundwater Quality Monitoring Stations ................................................................. 66
Figure 31: Water Temperature Nomogram. Chu et. al. (2009) .................................................. 68
Figure 32: Sixteen Mile Creek Water Temperature Stations and Associated Classifications ..... 71
Figure 33: Grindstone Creek Water Temperature Stations and Associated Classifications ........ 72
Figure 34: Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN) Plot Locations within the
Three Sampling Areas................................................................................................. 75
Figure 35: Ecological Land Classification Sites Visited in 2011 ................................................ 78
Figure 36: Terrestrial Monitoring Locations ............................................................................... 80
Figure 37: Change in Tree Height Composition between 2006 and 2011 at Waterdown
Escarpment Woods Resource Management Area ....................................................... 84
Figure 38: Salamanders Recorded at Waterdown Woods between 2007 and 2011 .................... 85
Figure 39: Salamanders Recorded at Rattlesnake Point Conservation Area between 2008 and
2011............................................................................................................................. 87
Figure 40: Salamanders Recorded at Glenorchy Conservation Area between 2009 and 2011 ... 88
Figure 41: Health Indices for Groundcover Biodiversity at Burns Conservation Area,
Mountsberg Conservation Area, Speyside RMA, Wildflower Woods RMA and
Yaremko RMA 2011................................................................................................... 90
Figure 42: Marsh Monitoring Program Bird Survey Data 2011 .................................................. 93
Figure 43: Marsh Monitoring Program Amphibian Survey Data 2011 ....................................... 94
Figure 44: Bird Species Recorded at Hilton Falls Conservation Area within a 100 m Fixed
Distance....................................................................................................................... 95
Figure 45: Index of Marsh Bird Community Integrity from 2001 - 2011 for Hilton Falls
Conservation Area ...................................................................................................... 96
Figure 46: Estimated Amphibian Abundance based on Call Strength at Hilton Falls
Figure 47: Bird Species Recorded at Mountsberg Conservation Area within a 100 m Fixed
Distance....................................................................................................................... 97
Figure 48: Index of Marsh Bird Community Integrity from 2001 - 2011 for Mountsberg
Figure 49: Estimated Amphibian Abundance based on Call Strength at Mountsberg
Figure 50: Bird Species Recorded at Fuciarelli Resource Management Area within a 100m
Fixed Distance .......................................................................................................... 100
Figure 51: Index of Marsh Bird Community Integrity from 2001 - 2011 for Fuciarelli Resource
Management Area ..................................................................................................... 100
Figure 52: Estimated Amphibian Abundance based on Call Strength at Fuciarelli .................. 101
Figure 53: Summary of Forest Bird Monitoring Program by Site 2011 .................................... 103
Figure 54: Distribution of Eastern Flowering Dogwood ........................................................... 119
Conservation Halton
6
Figure 55: Comparative Canopy Dieback Classes of Eastern Flowering Dogwood Trees by
Canopy Cover ........................................................................................................... 119
Figure 56: Downy Yellow False Foxglove Clappison Woods Population Summary ............... 126
Figure 57: Unicorn Clubtail Exuviae Collected from the Halton Region Museum Pond (20072011) ......................................................................................................................... 132
List of Appendices
Appendix 1:
Appendix 2:
Appendix 3:
Appendix 4:
Aquatic Sampling - Site Selection Process and Attributes ................................... 146
Fish Species observed in the Sixteen Mile Creek Watershed ............................... 151
Fish Species Observed in the Grindstone Creek Watershed ................................. 152
Index of Biotic Integrity Scores and Associated Classifications for Sampling
Events From 2005-2011 ........................................................................................ 153
Appendix 5: Benthic Invertebrates Observed in the Sixteen Mile Creek Watershed ................ 155
Appendix 6: Benthic Water Quality Results for Sixteen Mile Creek ........................................ 157
Appendix 7: Benthic Invertebrates Observed in the Grindstone Creek Watershed................... 158
Appendix 8: Benthic Water Quality Results for Grindstone Creek ........................................... 159
Appendix 9: Water Temperature Graphs ................................................................................... 160
Appendix 10: Bird Species Recorded within 100 m Fixed Distance at Marsh Monitoring
Program Stations A, B and C, Hilton Falls Conservation Area .......................... 165
Appendix 11: Bird Species Recorded with the 100 m Fixed Distance at Marsh Monitoring
Program Stations A, B and C Mountsberg Conservation Area ........................... 166
Program Stations A, B, C and D Fuciarelli Resource Management Area .......... 167
Appendix 13: Frog Species Recorded with the 100 m Fixed Distance at Marsh Monitoring
Program Stations A, B, C Fucarelli Conservation Area ...................................... 169
Program Stations A, B, C Mountsberg Conservation Area................................. 170
Program Stations A, B Hilton Falls Resource Management Area ...................... 171
Appendix 16: Bird Species Observed through the Forest Bird Monitoring Program................ 172
Conservation Halton
7
1.0
Introduction
1.1
Conservation Halton Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program
Conservation Halton’s Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program (LEMP) was developed
in 2005 to assess the long term health of the Conservation Halton watershed. The results of the
program will help guide environmental protection efforts to ensure that the watershed’s health
will be maintained or enhanced while meeting the current and future needs of local communities,
as outlined in Conservation Halton’s 2009-2013 Strategic Plan, Towards a Healthy Watershed
(Conservation Halton 2009). The Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program also supports
many of the themes within the strategic plan including the following objectives:
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Create and implement programs to support a healthy watershed
Develop, enhance and sustain a natural heritage system for the watershed
Grow, maintain and manage healthy forests and green spaces in the watershed
Integrate environmental planning with community growth based on an environment first approach
1.7 Foster strong relationships with partner municipalities, other orders of government,
non-government organizations, and private organizations (Conservation Halton
2009)
In addition to supporting the strategic plan the objectives of the Long Term Environmental
Monitoring Program include the following (Conservation Halton 2006):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Monitor indicators of watershed health over a number of years to determine if changes in
the health of the watershed are occurring.
Incorporate established and scientifically based monitoring protocols that are compatible
with agencies throughout the province.
Partner with individuals and agencies who are monitoring conditions throughout the
Conservation Halton jurisdiction to build a strong monitoring network.
Engage the community in monitoring activities to educate and promote the wise use of
our natural resources.
Provide stakeholders with the necessary information to make wise management
decisions.
Provide management recommendations based on data collected via scientifically sound
methods and statistically valid data analysis.
The monitoring program covers the entire Conservation Halton jurisdiction including the major
watersheds of Grindstone Creek, Bronte Creek and Sixteen Mile Creek as well as fourteen
smaller watersheds. It focuses on both the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems using biological,
physical and chemical indicators of watershed health. These site specific biological
indicators/monitoring programs include the fish community, benthic community, channel
morphology, surface water quality, groundwater quality, vegetation and forest health, marsh
monitoring, forest bird monitoring and forest pest monitoring. Landscape level assessment using
orthophotography has been initiated in an attempt to capture large-scale changes to a given
Conservation Halton
8
watershed. Due to the time commitment involved in digitizing the landscape, this monitoring
will be done over a longer time frame and will not be included in annual reports.
Data collection protocols used in collecting data presented in the LEMP include:
Fish Community:
Benthic Community:
Channel Morphology:
Surface Water Quality:
Groundwater Quality:
Forest Community:
Forest Community:
Marsh Monitoring:
Bird Monitoring:
Forest Pest Monitoring:
1.2
Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol
Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Protocol
Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol
Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network
Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network
Ecological Land Classification
Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network
Bird Studies Canada Marsh Monitoring Program
Forest Bird Monitoring Program
Modified Kaladar Plot and pheromone trapping
Supplementary Monitoring
In addition to monitoring undertaken as part of the Long Term Environmental Monitoring
Program, Conservation Halton staff also completed additional monitoring in support of
rehabilitation projects, planning initiatives and other studies and/or research programs. In the
2011 field season, staff were involved with the following initiatives:
•
•
•
Lake Ontario Shoreline Fish Community Sampling
Rare Species Monitoring
Odonata and Butterfly Surveys
Results of these additional monitoring initiatives can be found in Section 3.0.
Conservation Halton
9
2.0 Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program (LEMP)
2.1
Aquatic Monitoring
Sampling and monitoring of the aquatic environment was completed at numerous sites
throughout the Conservation Halton watershed in order to document baseline conditions and
identify changes in the aquatic environment. In doing so, specific biological communities (fish
and benthic invertebrates) were sampled as well as their physical environment and habitat
conditions (water quality and channel morphology). When compiled, the biological
communities and examination of the physical environment can provide an assessment of stream
health in a given reach. Aquatic monitoring undertaken for the LEMP was completed in the
Sixteen Mile Creek and Grindstone Creek watersheds, following the same sampling protocols.
Aquatic Data Collection Study Design
The Long Term Monitoring Program was originally designed to focus on one specific watershed
or watershed grouping (i.e. urban creeks) once every five years. In addition, annual stations
spread throughout multiple watersheds had been established to determine yearly fluctuations at
these stations. With one complete cycle of the monitoring program finished at the end of the
2008 field season, an adjustment to the monitoring study design was made at the initiation of the
2009 field season to create more sampling opportunities. The increase in sampling would allow
ecologists to identify trends and identify changes to the watershed within a shorter period of
time. As a result of the adjustment to the study design, it was determined that two
watershed/groupings would be completed each year and that any stations sampled on
Conservation Halton owned properties would be incorporated into the appropriate watershed/
grouping. As a result, the monitoring schedule for the next five years of monitoring is as
follows:
Year 5 – Sixteen Mile and Grindstone Creek (2009)
Year 6 – Bronte Creek and Urban Creeks (2010)
Year 7- Sixteen Mile Creek and Grindstone Creek
(2011)
Year 8 – Bronte Creek and Urban Creeks (2012)
Year 9 – Sixteen Mile Creek and Grindstone Creek
(2013)
In 2011, the Long Term Environmental Monitoring
Program began its third cycle and its seventh year
of monitoring with a focus on both the Sixteen Mile
Creek and Grindstone Creek watersheds. The
Sixteen Mile Creek Valley
Sixteen Mile Creek watershed is the largest
watershed within the Conservation Halton
jurisdiction and drains approximately 372 square kilometres across the Regional Municipality of
Halton and the City of Mississauga, along the eastern portion of Conservation Halton’s
jurisdiction. The main branches of the creek are formed within the wetlands and forested
swamps associated with the Niagara Escarpment and then flow southwards through natural,
Conservation Halton
10
rural, urban and agricultural lands before meeting its confluence with Lake Ontario (Dunn 2006).
The resulting watershed encompasses a variety of natural features including large tracts of forest
with interior habitat, provincially and regionally significant wetlands, the Niagara Escarpment,
significant valley lands and warm, cool and coldwater streams. Within the watershed there are
also two concrete diversion channels and three flood storage reservoirs as well as expansive
residential growth within Milton and Oakville (Dunn 2006).
Grindstone Creek is the smallest of
Conservation Halton’s major watersheds
and is located in the southwestern portion
of the Conservation Halton jurisdiction
within the City of Hamilton and the City
of Burlington. The watershed is
approximately 99 square kilometres in size
and conveys about 14% of the natural
water that flows into Hamilton Harbour
(HRCA 1998). The watershed is
predominately rural in character with the
majority of it composed of rural
residential, agricultural and open space.
The Grindstone Creek watershed also
consists of approximately 28% forest
Grindstone Creek Valley downstream of Smokey Hollow
cover. A portion of this forest falls within
the Carolinian Forest zone, which reaches its northern limit in this region of Southern Ontario.
The landscape is varied and includes parts of the Niagara Escarpment, glacial features, drumlin
fields and a complex system of streams and wetlands (HRCA 1998). The watershed also faces
various issues including extensive agriculture, water taking impoundments, habitat fragmentation
by transportation networks as well as increased residential development and quarry extractions.
Figure 1 illustrates the watersheds within the Conservation Halton jurisdiction.
Conservation Halton
11
Figure 1: Watersheds within the Conservation Halton Jurisdiction
Conservation Halton
12
2.1.1
Fish Community Monitoring
Sampling Methodology
Conservation Halton’s fish community
monitoring uses module 3 of the Ontario Stream
Assessment Protocol (OSAP) to sample the fish
community (Stanfield 2005). According to this
protocol, sampling stations are first identified by
locating both a downstream and upstream
crossover that are separated by a minimum of 40
metres and are comprised of at least one
riffle/pool sequence. Once identified, the
sampling station is sampled using a Smithroot
backpack electrofishing unit progressing across
all available habitats from bank to bank. The
amount of effort expended at each sampling
station is dependent on the total area of the site.
The stream area is then multiplied by two and
five, to determine the minimum and maximum
number of electrofishing seconds. This ensures
that Conservation Halton’s protocol is within the
OSAP screening level assessments (Stanfield
2005). All fish captured are then bulk weighed
and measured with the exception of any sport fish
Staff electrofishing in Sixteen Mile Creek
species, which are individually weighed and
measured. The condition of the fish and any
identifiable diseases are also noted. All fish are then released back to the stream. Site attributes
and selection are detailed in Appendix 1.
Analysis
Fish community monitoring was assessed using a modified Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) first
adapted to Southern Ontario Streams by Steedman (1988). This methodology measures fish
community associations to identify the general health of a stream ecosystem based on its
upstream drainage area. Steedman’s original IBI utilizes ten different indices including indicator
species, trophic composition, fish abundance and health. Although these metrics are useful
indicators of stream health, all indices may not be suited to all streams. In order to use the IBI
analysis for both warmwater and coldwater tributaries throughout the watershed, two sub-indices
were modified to better reflect stream conditions. The first sub-indice removed was the presence
of blackspot, a common parasite of fish. Although this may affect stream fish, it does not
necessarily reflect unhealthy stream conditions and as such was removed from the analysis. The
second sub-indice modified, the presence or absence of Brook Trout, was removed to better
reflect stream conditions where Brook Trout would not naturally occur (i.e. warmwater
tributaries). In order to account for the removal of these sub-indices, IBI scores for coldwater
stations were based on nine sub-indices whereas warmwater stations were based on eight subConservation Halton
13
indices and are standardized to be equally weighted for direct comparison with coldwater
stations, as was done in the Humber River Fisheries Management Plan (OMNR and TRCA
2005). Indices used to form the Index of Biotic Integrity are found below:
SPECIES RICHNESS
Number of native species
Number of darter and/or sculpin species
Number of sunfish and/or trout species
Number of sucker and/or catfish species
LOCAL INDICATOR SPECIES
Presence or absence of Brook Trout (coldwater stations only)
Presence or absence of Rhinichthys species
TROPHIC COMPOSITION
Percent of sample as omnivores
Percent of samples as piscivores
FISH ABUNDANCE
Catch per minute of sampling
It should be noted that with the IBI methodologies, assessment appears to be sensitive to the
capture of particular species such as darters, trout and suckers. Generally, a year catch that
fluctuated by the number of darter, sucker or trout species could shift the IBI scores significantly.
Scores may also fluctuate in response to Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) as annual changes in
summer staff may effect catch efficiency. It is also important to note that if suitable information
is not collected (i.e. the number or biomass of fish) IBI analysis cannot be completed. For this
reason, analysis based on historical information may not be possible. Table 1 provides a
summary of IBI ratings and associated scores.
Table 1: IBI ratings and associated scores using the Modified Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI).
IBI Rating
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
Modified IBI Scores
9-20
21-27
28-37
38-45
Sixteen Mile Creek
The fish community within the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed is varied with approximately 68
different species of fish recorded since the early 1900’s (Conservation Halton 2013). This
diverse assemblage of fish species inhabit a wide variety of habitats including small and
intermediate riverine coldwater, intermediate riverine warmwater, rivermouth and near shore
habitats. It should be noted that only wadeable habitats within the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed
Conservation Halton
14
were sampled as part of the Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program, due largely to
access and site suitability (relating to both safety and monitoring protocol). Figure 2 illustrates
sampling locations within the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed.
In the 2011 sampling season, a total of 30 different species of fish were captured with a total of
1,859 individual fish captured. The largest number of species caught at a single station was
fifteen (SXM-435). Fish captured in 2011, ranged from warmwater forage fish to coldwater
sportfish indicating the wide variety of species and habitat diversity within the watershed. As in
previous years, Creek Chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), Blacknose Dace
(Rhinichthys atratulus) and White
Sucker (Catostomus commersoni) were
the most widely distributed species and
were found at 74%, 59% and 56% of the
stations respectively. In 2011,
Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) was
widely found and was also captured at
56% of the stations. This is a large
increase in the incidence of capture for
this species as it is typically found at
less than 21% of stations. Other
commonly found species included
Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae)
and three types of darters species,
Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) was found at 56% of the
specifically Fantail Darter (Etheostoma
stations in Sixteen Mile Creek in 2011
flabellare), Rainbow Darter (Etheostoma
caeruleum) and Johnny Darter (Etheostoma nigrum). The remaining species were randomly
distributed throughout the watershed. Species distribution within the watershed has varied over
the years, as illustrated in Figure 3. Current species distribution indicates a minor shift towards
species that are more tolerant and able to withstand stream instability and urban conditions.
In terms of numbers, Longnose Dace, Blacknose Dace and Creek Chub were the most abundant
species within the watershed. As in the 2009 sampling, no invasive species, specifically
Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) or Round Gobies (Neogobius melanostomus), were
encountered in 2011. In terms of Species At Risk (SAR) only one individual of a single species,
Silver Shiner (Notropis photogensis), was captured during regular LEMP sampling. Silver
Shiner, considered threatened (THR) both nationally and provincially, had been found in Sixteen
Mile Creek in previous years. Additional sampling for this species was completed by Fisheries
and Oceans Canada in 2011 on Sixteen Mile Creek as part of status updates for this species.
Additional sampling for another SAR, Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus), was completed as
part of Conservation Haltons supplemental monitoring and is outlined in section 3.2.
For a complete list of species captured within the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed in 2011, please
see Appendix 2.
Conservation Halton
15
Figure 2: Sixteen Mile Creek Fisheries Sampling Stations and Associated IBI Classifications.
Conservation Halton
16
Conservation Halton
17
Mottled Sculpin
Longnose Dace
Logperch
Yellow Perch
White Sucker
Stonecat
Smallmouth Bass
80
Silver Shiner
Sea Lamprey
Round Goby
Rosyface Shiner
Rock Bass
River Chub
Redside Dace
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Darter
Pumpkinseed
Northern Redbelly Dace
Northern Pike
Northern Hog Sucker
Species
Largemouth Bass
Lake Chub
Johnny Darter
Horneyhead Chub
Goldfish
Golden Shiner
Fourspine Stickleback
Fathead Minnow
Fantail Darter
Emerald Shiner
Creek Chub
Common Shiner
Common Carp
Central Stoneroller
Central Mudminnow
Carps and Minnows
Brown Trout
Brown Bullhead
Brook Trout
Brook Stickleback
Brassy Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Blacknose Dace
Black Crappie
Alewife
% of stations
Figure 3: Frequency Distribution of Individual Fish Species in Sixteen Mile Creek
Distribution of Individual Fish Species in Sixteen Mile Creek
90
2011
2009
2005
1957
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
As illustrated in Table 2, the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) analysis of the fish community
showed a range of biotic health from “poor” to “good” across the watershed with 2011 being the
first year where a single station was considered to be “very good”. Stations considered to be in
poor biotic health generally had low species diversity based on their stream habitat and location
within the watershed. In contrast, sites considered to be in good to very good biotic health had a
higher diversity of species, more specialist species and fewer generalist species. These stations
also contained higher numbers of fish and associated biomass, indicating higher stream
productivity. Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of sampling stations within the watershed and
the associated IBI classifications for each station. Please see Appendix 4 for specific station
scores and associated classifications.
Table 2: Distribution of IBI scores in the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed.
Subwatershed
Upper West Branch
West branch
Middle Branch
Middle East Branch
Lower Middle
Branch
East Branch
East-Lisgar Branch
Lower Main Branch
Urban Diverted
Tributaries
Overall Watershed
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
(9-20)
1 (33%)
2 (33%)
1 (33%)
1 (25%)
(21-27)
2 (67%)
2 (33%)
1 (33%)
(28-37)
(38-45)
2 (67%)
2 (33%)
1 (33%)
2 (50%)
1 (33%)
Not
Sampled/No
fish caught
1 (25%)
1
1 (50%)
1 (50%)
1 (50%)
2 (100%)
1 (50%)
9 (36%)
9 (36%)
1
6 (24%)
1 (4%)
2
Overall, the IBI scores for the majority of the watershed were relatively consistent and fell
largely within the poor and fair categories however, 2011 was unique in that on a subwatershed
scale biotic health was varied within the subwatersheds with only stations within the Urban
Diverted Tributaries considered entirely to be in poor health. A brief description of biotic health
for the subwatersheds is described below.
Upper West Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
Within the Upper West Branch, sampling stations were in natural areas with minimal disturbance
however, species predicted to be captured through the IBI were not encountered. Dominant
species were varied but included Creek Chub, Blacknose Dace and within Briton Tract
Pumpkinseed. Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) an indicator species in these reaches was not
encountered (although predicted through the IBI and in vicinity to known populations). Both of
these stations were consistent with observations made in 2009 with SXM-437 being considered
Conservation Halton
18
poor and SXM-433 considered fair. As in previous years, potential factors influencing these
stations include low flow (at SXM-437) and beaver dams and associated ponding at SXM-433.
Near the bottom of the Upper West branch SXM-63 was considered to be in fair health in 2011.
This station has fluctuated over the years, being good in 2005 and poor in 2006 yet has
consistently been considered fair since 2008.
West Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
Within the West Branch of the creek,
obvious trends can be observed as one
moves from the upstream to the
downstream end of the sub-watershed.
Within the upper reaches, a station
sampled below Kelso Reservoir (SXM30) was considered to be in fair
condition and has been consistently so
since 2005. Within this reach
coldwater contributions, favourable
substrate sizes, isolated pools and
woody debris provides habitat for a
variety of fish species including a
number of trout species. Although
considered fair, temperatures and flows
West Branch downstream of Kelso Reservoir
associated with the managed reservoir
upstream limit the ability for this reach
to greatly improve. Further downstream through the watershed, conditions remain constant
despite an influx of urban influences. Within the main channel, the reach alongside the Milton
Mill Pond at station SXM-105, which varied little in terms of habitat from previous years, is
considered to be in fair condition again in 2011. This station has fluctuated over the years and
was considered to be in poor condition in 2009. Similarly, station SXM-131 saw a dramatic
increase in biotic health in 2011. This station, within a terrafix channel has virtually no habitat
beyond a few shrubs and long grass. Despite this 2011 sampling saw the capture of 106
individual fish of 8 different species. This is very different than the 6 individuals captured in
2009. This increase in catch is largely reflective of the much higher water levels observed in the
2011 season, which allowed for greater movement of fish species throughout the watershed.
Similar conditions resulted in improvements in biotic health at station SXM-431. This station,
considered poor in 2009, was considered to be in good biotic health in 2011. This is likely due
to an increase in the number of native fish species as well as the capture of indicator species such
as Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) and Pumpkinseed. Habitat within this station is
still heavily degraded with excess silt and debris and garbage in the creek.
As one moves downstream to Britannia Road, biotic health decreases resulting in a classification
of poor at station SXM-103. This station has had consistently low scores resulting in a poor
classification for all years sampled (2005, 2009, 2011). Similar conditions exist downstream at
station SXM-216. This station has fluctuated over the years between poor and fair (2005-2009,
2011), but IBI scores have remained consistently low. It is unclear why SXM-103 has remained
Conservation Halton
19
poor over the years but it is likely that both of these stations are within a zone of influence
downstream of Milton which is being affected by both urban development within the Town of
Milton and the Milton Wastewater Treatment Plant. These effects are varied, likely as a result
of local weather and climatic conditions from one year to the next, but this site has remained
consistently low in terms of biotic health.
Middle Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
The Middle Branch of the creek had three stations sampled within the sub-watershed. One
station upstream of the Scotch Block Reservoir (SXM-314) considered good in 2005 had
decreased in biotic integrity and was considered to be in fair condition in 2011. This station, had
a low number of fish caught (only 23) but did have a variety of indicator species. Habitat
conditions at this station would have historically favoured coldwater species as water
temperatures, woody debris and adjacent habitats would make this reach favourable, however
excessive silt, emanating from unknown sources upstream, is a definite limiting factor through
this reach. The 2011 sampling of this station found Largemouth Bass and Black Crappie
(Pomoxis nigromaculatus), both of which have extended their range in this tributary with this
station being the furthest upstream they have been observed. It is likely that these species may
have originated from the Scotch
Block reservoir and are moving
upstream. One station, located
immediately downstream of the
Scotch Block Reservoir (SXM113), was considered to be in poor
condition in 2011. This station has
been considered poor for all years
sampled and is likely so due to
limited available habitat, altered
flow regimes and potential water
quality impairments. The station is
located within an algae covered,
gabion basket lined channel that is
within a few hundred metres
downstream of the flood control
reservoir. Instream habitat through
Gabion lined channel downstream of Scotch Block Reservoir
this reach is limited however some
small shrubs and associated pools
did provide minimal cover. Three Rainbow Trout (Orchorhynchus mykiss) were captured within
the reach indicating that spawning trout are still able to navigate upstream to the Scotch Block
dam during spawning.
Further downstream in the watershed one station sampled in the vicinity of Fifth Line and
Steeles Avenue was considered to be in good condition. This station (SXM-349) is one of a
handful of stations that had been sampled annually due to the previous monitoring program.
Although there was a period when this station was considered to be in fair condition (2007-2009)
it has improved slightly and is considered to be in good condition again (similarly to 2005 and
Conservation Halton
20
2006). This station continues to have issues with garbage, debris and cement blocks in the creek.
Regardless there has almost always been a relatively high diversity of fish species inhabiting the
reach.
Middle East Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
Stations within the Middle East
Branch were found to have the
highest biotic health with the
majority of stations falling within
the good to very good categories.
This subwatershed also encompasses
the first station (SXM-40) to be
considered very good. On the west
side of the subwatershed station
SXM-347 was considered to be in
good biotic health. Although this
station has significant issues with
erosion and sediment in the stream
high numbers of native fish and
indicator species for the area inhabit
the creek. Enhancements to riparian
buffers directly adjacent and
SXM-40, considered to be in very good biotic health in 2011
upstream of this reach would be very
beneficial for the stream and its
inhabitants. On the east side of the subwatershed, the furthest station upstream was considered
to be in poor health. This station (SXM-281), although naturally vegetated in the immediate
area, is surrounded by and drains a number of agricultural fields in the vicinity. This in addition
to the shallow depth of the stream, silty substrates and low slope provide little in terms of diverse
habitat to support fish. As one moves downstream to station SXM-40, more diverse habitat,
some exposed cobbles and deeper pools provide habitat for fish. In 2005 and 2009, this station
was considered to be in good biotic health however increased water levels in 2011 made more
habitat available to species and is likely a contributing factor that pushed this station into the
very good category. Although this station also drains agricultural fields it is likely that the more
diverse and available habitat in 2011 is what is influencing the health at this station. The last
station within this subwatershed (SXM-152) located in Hornby Park, was also considered to be
in good health. This station has typically fallen within the fair category but a high number of
native fish caught and a high catch per unit effort greatly increased the score in 2011. This
station would also benefit with restoration efforts including instream habitat improvements to
diversify habitats and remove large amounts of angular rock and boulders.
East and East-Lisgar Branches of Sixteen Mile Creek
Within the upper reaches of the East Branch, station SXM-144 was considered to be in fair
health. This station typically scores on the high end of the fair category with 2011 being no
different. High numbers of native fish species were found at the site, however lower diversity
Conservation Halton
21
and lower catch per unit effort was observed in 2011. Downstream at station SXM-436, low
diversity and low overall catch (2 species, 15 individuals) resulted in poor biotic health. This
station is downstream of the Trafalgar Road/401 interchange and may be experiencing effects
from adjacent landuse. The lack of diverse habitat and extreme seasonal variations in flow
regime through the reach may also be a limiting factor.
Within the East-Lisgar branch no fish were caught within the sample boundaries at station SXM434. This station is essentially within a concrete lined channel covered in algae which is
downstream of a large stormwater management pond. The station provides no diverse habitat for
fish species. Two pumpkinseeds were caught in a reach downstream however they were not
captured within the station boundaries and could not be included in the IBI.
Lower Middle Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
The Lower Middle branch of Sixteen
Mile Creek is considered to be largely
in fair biotic health with the exception
of station SXM-435 which was in
good health. This subswatershed is
experiencing a large amount of
residential development and stream
reaches sampled in the upper reaches
(SXM-255) are downstream of a
number of stormwater management
ponds and relatively new residential
areas. Conversely, station SXM-38
which was also considered fair, is
within a relatively naturalized area
albeit downstream of a large ponded
area associated with a barrier and
Station SXM-435 within the Lower Middle Branch
online ponds within a golf course.
Station SXM-435, further east of these
stations showed slight improvements and was considered good in 2011. This station is also
downstream of a large ponded area yet diverse habitat ranging from large deep pools to shallow
riffles with woody debris provide more habitat for a variety of species. Station SXM-205 at the
Sixteen Mile Conservation Area could not be sampled due to construction in the immediate area.
Lower Main Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
Within the Lower Main Branch, two stations were sampled, both within the Sixteen Mile Creek
Valley. Both of these stations had minimal direct influences, however cumulative impacts
throughout the watershed including development and road construction could be identified at
these stations. As a result, areas of high sedimentation, construction debris and litter, erosion
and increased algal growth were observed. Regardless, high levels of diversity were observed in
the lower reaches of the creek with up to 13 species of fish caught at a single station (SXM-108).
Although diversity was high, very low numbers of fish were caught for the amount of area
Conservation Halton
22
sampled. This indicates poor stream productivity which is likely reflective of the limited diverse
habitat within the sampled stations. For 2011, observations were similar to those in 2009 (fair),
however biotic integrity at station SXM-151 slightly decreased putting it into the poor category
in 2011.
Urban Diverted Tributaries
As in 2009, the Urban Diverted
Tributaries were all considered to be
in poor condition. This has
remained a constant trend for both
stations SXM-107 and SXM-381
since sampling began in 2005.
These two stations are within the
Urban Diverted Tributaries
subwatershed and are located within
the Morrison Creek valley, upstream
of the Morrison-Wedgewood
Diversion Channel. The stream
reaches within these valley lands
have been severely affected by both
the increase in stormwater and the
flashy inconsistent flows coming off
Gabion lined channel within the Morrison Creek Valley
the urban landscape. This has
resulted in substantial erosion and
slumping of the banks throughout the reach. Numerous attempts have been made to stabilize the
banks and reduce stream downcutting by constructing gabion baskets along the banks and in
some locations along the bottom of the stream. These alterations to habitat, in conjunction with
low stream flows and shale substrates have resulted in limited instream habitat for fish. Fish
captured through these reaches, were largely associated with deep pools with overhead cover
(either eroding banks or gabion baskets) or in small riffles. Improvements to stormwater
management within the adjacent Town of Oakville could improve conditions through this
subwatershed.
Inter-year Data Comparison
As illustrated in Figures 4-6, overall variations in stream health from stations sampled in 2009 to
those in 2011 showed a slight improvement in biotic health. The number of stations considered
to be in poor biotic health in 2011 increased by 3% as a result of changes at a single station. The
number of stations considered to be in fair health decreased by approximately 14% accounting
for changes in three stations. Improvements were seen in the number of good stations, which
increased by 8% or three stations. In addition, 2011 was the first time a single station was
considered to be in very good biotic health. Overall, biotic health for the watershed tends to be
fair to poor with the majority of stations falling within these classifications. It is important to
note that biotic health at individual stations varies greatly and that 2011 saw an extremely large
shift in biotic health at a number of stations. Of the 25 stations sampled in 2011, 22 stations
Conservation Halton
23
were previously sampled in 2009. Of those 22 stations, changes to the biotic integrity were
noted at 14 stations. In comparison with 2009, only 4 stations were found to have a shift in
biotic health between 2005 and 2009. Interestingly, two of those stations that had decreased in
biotic health from 2005 to 2009 had increased in biotic health in 2011 (SXM-151 and SXM-38)
and 2 stations which had increased in biotic health from 2005 to 2009 had decreased in biotic
health in 2011 (SXM-349 and SXM-105). The remaining stations (9) that did not show any
changes in 2011, have remained consistently within the same IBI classification for all years they
have been sampled. Station SXM-347, within the Middle East Branch is the only station that has
remained in good biotic health for all years sampled. Conversely, stations SXM-107, SXM-381
(Urban Diverted Tribs), SXM-113 (Middle) and SXM-103 (West) are the stations that have
consistently been considered poor for all years sampled. The remaining stations SXM433(Upper West), SXM-30 (West), SXM-144 (East) and SXM-108 (Lower Main) have all been
considered fair for all years sampled. Long term monitoring of the stations that have remained
constant over the years is particularly important as significant changes to the biotic integrity at
these stations may indicate potential impairments or improvement to the streams health. For a
list of all individual station IBI scores and their associated classifications for all years sampled
please see appendix 4.
Figure 4: Distribution of IBI Classifications in the Sixteen Mile Creek Watershed in 2005
Sixteen Mile
Creek
2005
Good
5 stations
28%
Poor
7 stations
39%
Fair
6 stations
33%
Conservation Halton
24
Sixteen Mile
Creek
2009
Good
4 stations
17%
Poor
8 stations
33%
Fair
12 stations
50%
Sixteen Mile
Creek
2011
Very Good
1 station
4%
Good
6 stations
24%
Poor
9 stations
36%
Fair
9 stations
36%
Conservation Halton
25
Grindstone Creek
The fish community of Grindstone Creek is varied with 82 different species of fish recorded
since the early 1900’s (Conservation Halton Fish Database 2013). This diverse assemblage of
fish species inhabit a wide variety of habitats including small riverine warmwater, intermediate
riverine warmwater and coldwater, inland lakes (Lake Medad), rivermouth and near shore
habitats (OMNR and RBG 2006). As with monitoring on Sixteen Mile Creek only wadeable
habitats within the Grindstone Creek watershed were sampled as part of the Long Term
Environmental Monitoring Program.
For a list of all species captured in the
Grindstone Creek watershed in 2011, see
Appendix 3.
Fish sampling in 2011, saw the capture
of 18 different species of fish and a total
of 876 individual fish caught. This is a
slight increase in both the number of
species and individuals caught from
sampling in 2009, however it should be
noted that 12 stations were sampled in
2011 (3 more than sampling in 2009).
As in previous years Longnose Dace was
Longnose Dace (Rhinichthys cataractae)
the most abundant species, followed in
2011 by Central Mudminnow (Umbra limi) and Rainbow Darter. In contrast, the most widely
distributed species were Creek Chub and Johnny Darter which were observed at 85% and 54% of
the stations respectively. Central Mudminnow, Longnose Dace and White Sucker were the next
most frequently observed species, all found at 46% of the stations. The remaining species were
found in relatively low numbers and randomly distributed across the watershed. 2009 sampling
indicated that there was a decrease in indicator species with species composition moving towards
more tolerant species. Although this trend appears to continue in 2011, some species not found
in 2009 have rebounded and were sampled at a number of stations in 2011. Indicator species
used to calculate the IBI, that were observed again in 2011 include, Stonecat (Noturus flavus),
Pumpkinseed, Green Sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) and Brown Bullhead (Ameuirus nebulosus).
Species distribution for years sampled through the LEMP is illustrated in Figure 7.
As seen in Table 3, IBI scores throughout the Grindstone Creek watershed are fair to poor with
the majority of stations falling within these two categories. Only 2 stations were considered to
be in good health and no stations were considered to be in very good health. Stations with a
higher IBI classification had a larger number of individual fish caught and increased species
diversity, with 10 being the highest number of species caught at a single station. Stations with
low IBI scores typically had poor species composition (i.e. low numbers of native species and
indicator species based on their location in the watershed) as well as a low Catch Per Unit Effort
(CPUE). This is indicative of low diversity and stream productivity which may be reflective of
the habitat and instream conditions at a number of sites. Figure 8 illustrates fisheries sampling
stations within Grindstone Creek and the associated IBI classifications.
Conservation Halton
26
Table 3: Distribution of IBI Classifications in the Grindstone Creek Watershed
Watershed
Grindstone Creek
Poor
(9-20)
3 (25%)
Fair
(21-27)
7 (58%)
Good
(28-37)
2 (17%)
Very Good
(38-45)
-
Stations considered to be fair were
widespread across the watershed. In the
headwater reaches within Hayesland
Swamp, the tributaries flow through
low-lying forest/swamp habitat with
bottom substrates consisting largely of
organic matter and silt. Stations within
Hayesland Swamp, upstream (GRN-22)
and downstream (GRN-60) of the
Fuciarelli property, were both
considered to be in fair biotic health.
These stations both had low species
diversity and were dominated largely by
Central Mudminnow, a species that
prefers this type of stream habitats.
Station GRN-60, downstream of the Fuciarelli Property
Downstream of Fuciarelli, the stream
then continues between agricultural
fields before heading towards Highway 6. Directly downstream of Highway 6 station GRN-7
was considered to be in poor biotic health. This station was considered to be in good health
when last sampled in 2006, however a low number of native fish and a low catch per unit effort
lowered the IBI score in 2011. This station does experience flashy and high flows associated
with storm events and the spring freshet and could not be sampled in 2009 for this reason. These
flows have the ability to significantly alter habitat making conditions less favourable for fish.
This station did consist of a large pool with woody debris in 2006 however in 2011 it was largely
featureless with soft silty banks and substrates. Downstream of this station at Centre Road,
minor improvements in fish community composition resulted in a shift to fair at station GRN-20.
This station has fluctuated over the years being considered both good and poor in 2006 and 2009
respectively. A low number of native species, and very few indicator species helped to maintain
a low score in 2011.
Conditions remain fair through the remainder of the watershed with the exception of station
GRN-16 and station GRN-50, both considered poor and GRN-101 and GRN-65 both considered
to be good. GRN-16 at Dundas Road was the lowest scoring station with an IBI score of 13.5, as
was the case when it was last sampled in 2006. This station had low scores (1) for all metrics
used to evaluate the IBI except the % sample of omnivores. As a result, the only fish caught
were typically common and tolerant species. At this station the stream, lined with armour stone,
runs adjacent to a railway line on the east side and is bordered by downtown Waterdown on the
west side. As a result habitat conditions are degraded and heavily littered. Conversely, GRN-50
which also was considered to be in poor health is within a well vegetated and rehabilitated
Conservation Halton
27
section of Hidden Valley Park. This reach within the portion of the park upstream of Lemonville
Road typically provides diverse habitat for fish as it has a number of large rocks, boulders, riffles
and runs. This station was likely affected by the extreme variation in flows that hit Grindstone
Creek in 2011. Spring flows, which may have flushed fish downstream were followed by
extremely low flows in July and August. As a result, this reach may have had limited available
habitat for fish over the summer months. Conversely, station GRN-101 on the downstream side
of Hidden Valley Park, consists more of runs and large pools which was able to provide ample,
yet featureless, refugia for a variety of species in 2011. As a result, this station was considered
to be in good biotic health as it had the highest number of species (10) and the highest number of
individual fish caught (212) for a single station in Grindstone Creek. This station is typically
considered to be in poor to fair condition as it consists largely of shale, featureless runs and deep
pools separated by shallow and sometimes dry riffles. In previous years, the reach has been
covered in a dense mat of algae however, no algae was observed in 2011.
This lack of algae within Hidden Valley Park may potentially be attributed to the
decommissioning of the Waterdown Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) outlet into
Grindstone Creek. This outlet had been decommissioned on August 26, 2010 effectively
removing treated effluent from the lower reaches of Grindstone Creek. One station GRN-28 is
located directly downstream of the old outlet and was considered to be in fair biotic health in
2011. This is a small improvement as sampling in both 2006 and 2009 resulted in a
classification of poor.
GRN-28, looking upstream towards the old Waterdown Wastewater Treatment Plant
outlet (tributary to the left).
Conservation Halton
28
Conservation Halton
29
Species
Yellow Perch
70
White Sucker
80
Stonecat
Rock Bass
Rainbow Trout
Rainbow Darter
Pumpkinseed
Pearl Dace
Northern Pike
Longnose Dace
Logperch
Largemouth Bass
Johnny Darter
Green Sunfish
Golden Shiner
Fathead Minnow
Emerald Shiner
Creek Chub
Common Carp
Central Mudminnow
Carps and Minnows
Brown Bullhead
Brook Stickleback
Brassy Minnow
Bluntnose Minnow
Blacknose Dace
% of stations
Figure 7: Frequency Distribution of Individual Fish Species in Grindstone Creek (2006, 2009, 2011)
Distribution of Individual Fish Species in Grindstone Creek
90
2011
2009
2006
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 8: Grindstone Creek Fisheries Sampling Stations and Associated IBI
Classifications
Conservation Halton
30
Inter-year Comparison
Fisheries sampling was completed at 12 stations in the 2011 sampling season, 9 of which
had been sampled previously in 2009 as part of the Long Term Environmental
Monitoring Program. Of the sites sampled in 2006, 2009 and 2011, five sites remained in
the same biotic health classification while the remaining four stations showed changes in
2011. The remaining stations all showed improvements in biotic health with stations
GRN-28, GRN-60 and GRN-66 moving from poor to fair health and station GRN-101
moving from fair to good health. When evaluating the individual IBI metrics for each
station it shows that overall improvement in the number of native species and specifically
indicator species is what resulted in the increased scores in 2011.
As seen in Figures 9-11, IBI scores across the watershed had an improvement in 2011
with an increase in the number of fair stations from 22% in 2009 to 58% in 2011. An
increase from 11%-17% (from 2009-2011) was observed for stations considered to be in
good biotic health (two stations) and is reflective of improvements observed at one
station (GRN-101). This is still lower than the number of good stations observed in 2006
(21% or 3 stations). Some stations including GRN-101, saw improvements as a result of
the increase in available habitat due to both high and fluctuating water levels. These high
water levels allowed for larger fish movement throughout all watersheds in the area, but
as the flows decreased fish were restricted to deeper areas where refuge habitat was
available. Since variations in stream levels are a possible outcome with climate change it
is likely that these scenarios will continue into the future and as such, long term
monitoring of the fish community should continue. For a list of station IBI scores and
associated classifications for all years sampled please see Appendix 4.
Figure 9: Distribution of IBI Classifications in the Grindstone Creek Watershed in 2006
Grindstone
Creek
2006
Good
3 stations
21%
Poor
6 stations
43%
Fair
5 stations
36%
Conservation Halton
31
Grindstone
Creek
2009
Good
1 station
11%
Fair
2 stations
22%
Poor
6 stations
67%
Grindstone
Creek
2011
Good
2 stations
17%
Poor
3 stations
25%
Fair
7 stations
58%
Conservation Halton
32
2.1.2
Benthic Community Monitoring
Rinsing benthic invertebrates collected from the stream
Benthos are used as biological water
quality indicators because they are
abundant and ubiquitous, they are
sedentary, their life cycles range
from several months to years, and
because they are sensitive to
changes in the quality of the aquatic
ecosystem (Jones et al. 2005).
Changes to environmental
conditions can result in changes to
the benthic community. It is the
presence or absence of certain
species that can help determine the
status of the aquatic ecosystem. The
presence of pollution sensitive taxa
suggests that the aquatic ecosystem
is healthy; conversely their absence
would suggest that there are factors
negatively influencing the local
system.
Benthic community monitoring is based on the Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network
Protocol (Jones et. al. 2005). The main purpose of the OBBN is to enable the assessment
of aquatic ecosystem conditions using benthic invertebrates as indicators of water and
habitat quality (Jones et al. 2005).
At each station, three transects were sampled. Two transects were selected at stream
crossovers (riffle habitat) at the upstream and downstream limits of the station and the
third transect was selected to traverse across pool habitat, between the two crossovers.
Samples were collected using the kick and sweep method, whereby the sampler stood
upstream of a 500µm D-net and excavated the top 10 centimetres of sediment with their
feet. This allowed any attached and free moving benthic invertebrates to flow into the
500µm D-net and be collected. The sampler continued this action across the transect for
one sample, and repeated the sampling at the other two transects, thereby sampling the
available habitats and collecting a total of three samples. Once collected, samples were
taken back to the lab and randomly sub-sampled. A minimum of 100 organisms were
collected from each sub-sample (transect), with all samples being identified to family or
lowest practical level for analysis (Jones et al. 2005).
The spring of 2011 presented a number of problems for benthic invertebrate collections,
mainly high flows that continued into June and staffing constraints. Ideally the sampling
Conservation Halton
33
should be completed in April and May to capture the most diverse amount of species and
to aid in identification, as most macroinvertebrates have yet to emerge at this point in
time and are at their largest size (Griffiths 1999). Additionally, organisms should be
picked live within 48 hours of collection to reduce potential predation and sample
deterioration. The high flows made it difficult to sample and most samples had to be
preserved to be sorted at a later date. This may have affected the sub-sampled taxa
composition, with organisms such as those in the Oligochaeta family being absent from
the sample due to breakdown during preservation. A list of taxa captured at each station
can be found in Appendix 5. Appendix 6 illustrates how the classifications were
interpreted.
Analysis
The 2011 benthic analysis used a number of biological indices, including taxa richness,
relative abundances of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera and Plecoptera), Oligochaeta,
Chironomidae, Isopoda, Gastropoda, Diptera, and insects, as well as Hilsenhoff index
(HFI) and the Shannon-Weiner diversity index (SDI). Each index was evaluated
separately against the target values as set out in Table 4. Station gradings of unimpaired,
potentially impaired or impaired were then based on the cumulative results of each
individual metric in a manner similar to the Citizens Environmental Watch methodology
(Borisko 2002). All index values were added up and grouped into the three categories
that defined the health of the stream.
Table 4: Benthic Invertebrate Indices and Associated Classifications
Water Quality Index
Unimpaired
Possibly Impaired
Impaired
EPT
>10
5-10
<5
Taxa Richness
>13
% Oligochaeta
<10
10-30
>30
% Chironomidae
<10
10-40
>40
% Isopoda
<1
1-5
>5
% Gastropoda
1-10
0 or >10
% Diptera
20-45
15-20 or 45-50
<15 or >50
% Insect
50-80
40-50 or 80-90
<40 or >90
HFI
<6
6-7
>7
SDI
>4
3-4
<3
<13
Sixteen Mile Creek
Sixteen Mile Creek is a watershed with diverse landscape features including small
forested headwater sections and large open river sections. Some of the stations flow
Conservation Halton
34
through or are downstream of farm fields with intensive agriculture. Other sections are
straightened or realigned creeks that flow through heavily urbanized areas in Milton,
Mississauga and Oakville. Additionally, uncontrolled surface runoff from urban
development results in flashy hydrologic regimes, which can influence benthic
invertebrates and their habitat. Different benthic invertebrate species have different
tolerance ranges of environmental conditions. Some of these factors include temperature,
vegetated riparian zones, feeding and nutrient preferences and substrate types. All these
variables make it difficult to compare one site to another. Rather, it is easier to identify
trends by comparing data collected over time at the same location. In order to begin a
trend line the stations must be sampled a minimum of three times. This year was the first
year that the majority of the sites were visited for the third time.
Sampling at 27 stations in 2011 resulted in the collection of 71 different taxa spread
across the watershed. In 2009 there were also 71 different taxa found in Sixteen Mile
Creek. Over 8,000 benthic invertebrates were captured and identified for the 2011
benthic study. This season’s benthic index results were variable across the watershed,
with some groups of stations that showed definite impairment while other groups in close
geographic proximity had a range of health gradings. In total 7 stations were considered
impaired, 11 potentially impaired and 9 stations were considered to be unimpaired.
Figure 12 illustrates the distribution of stations and their associated water quality
classifications across the watershed.
Individual taxa groups including Chironomidae and Elmidae
were by far the most abundant taxa groups encountered.
Chironomidae and Oligochaeta were the only taxa found at all
27 stations. Chironomidae are a tolerant family that can live in
almost every type of habitat and have numerous reproductive
periods per year (Borisko 2002). Oligochaeta were the next
most widely distributed taxa, found at all the stations. The
Oligochaeta (aquatic worms) were found in fairly low densities
throughout Sixteen Mile Creek. Only one station (SXM-431)
could be considered impaired based on a high percentage of
oligochaeta (60%). This data may be slightly biased since most
of the samples were preserved in alcohol which does not
preserve Oligochaeta very well. Elmidae were found in large
A Coleoptera of the
abundance at the stations where they were present. They spend
Elmidae family
both the larvae and most of their adult lives in water and are
commonly found in cool, clear, fast flowing waters (Voshell
2002). The remaining taxa were evenly distributed throughout the watershed.
Richness scores reflect the number of taxa found at a site. Approximately 80% of the
sites had at least 13 different taxa, indicating non-impairment. Six of these stations were
found to be unimpaired overall as well. The highest richness station (SXM-433) had 28
different taxa collected. The average number of taxa found at a station in Sixteen Mile
Creek was 18.
Conservation Halton
35
The amount of Dipterans (flies) present indicates the health of a stream as well (Borisko
2002). Generally, too many or too few indicates an unhealthy system. Only stations that
had a Dipteran abundance accounting for 20-45% all organisms would be considered
healthy. Only twelve stations fell within this range.
The relative abundance of insects combines the taxa found in the EPT and Dipteran
families as well as Odonata, Coleoptera, Hemiptera and Megaloptera. Therefore it is a
more complex index with some families requiring a healthy aquatic environment and
others being tolerant to unhealthy systems. A station is considered healthy if its taxa
composition is made up of 50-80% insect population. Only one station was classified as
unimpaired with this index. Therefore most stations had either a high percentage or low
percentage of insects collected.
The Hilsenhoff Biotic Index assigns a tolerance value to different families of
macroinvertebrates based on their tolerance to organic pollution. The value is the mean
tolerance value for the entire sample. Generally, lower scores indicate higher water
quality (Hilsenhoff, 1988). Sixteen Mile Creek stations had 21 unimpaired scores.
Analysis of the individual subwatershed benthic data illustrated some interesting
findings. Every branch of Sixteen Mile Creek had at least one unimpaired station with
the exception of East Lisgar and the Urban Tributaries where all stations were considered
impaired.
Upper West Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
The Upper West Branch is varied between potentially impaired and unimpaired. This
branch has the least amount of development and most sections of the creek run through
forested areas. Two of the stations located here (SXM-433 and SXM-63) had the highest
number of EPT species with 13 taxa present at each station. Finding these families in the
sample is an indicator of better water quality since they are intolerant to pollution. Both
SXM-432 and SXM-437 had 20 different species found. The habitat conditions at SXM432 are more wetland in nature with no defined channel structure.
West Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
The West Branch of Sixteen Mile runs from below the Kelso reservoir through Milton
down to Lower Baseline Road. The most upstream station (SXM-30) is located in Kelso
Conservation Area. It was found to be unimpaired and it had over 50% EPT species in
the samples. SXM-131 is a terrafix channel that receives a large amount of urban runoff
in heavy rainstorms. Habitat availability for benthic macroinvertebrates is minimal and
the resulting classification as potentially impaired is as expected. SXM-105 is a
straightened channel located downstream of the Mill Pond old dam that is now a rocky
ramp and was found to be potentially impaired. The station downstream of the Town of
Milton (SXM-431) was classified as impaired. This station receives a large amount of
runoff and at times heavy flows. There is evidence within the creek of debris such as
grocery carts and other garbage that flow downstream creating small debris jams
Conservation Halton
36
narrowing the creek and creating deep pools. It was classified as impaired mainly
because 60% of the benthos found were Oligochaeta. This was over 11 times higher than
the average of 5.3% found at the rest of the stations in Sixteen Mile Creek. SXM-103 is
located downstream of the Milton wastewater treatment plant which contributes organic
enrichment to the creek. This station had the highest quantity of Isopods (60%) of all the
samples collected. It was found to be potentially impaired. The furthest downstream
station in this watershed is found just upstream of Lower Baseline Road (SXM-216). It
has a few fast flowing riffles that provide ideal habitat for benthos to live in. It was
found to be classified as unimpaired.
Middle Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
The Middle Branch has three stations
within this subwatershed. The station
near the top of the watershed (SXM314) has trout ponds upstream and a
large amount of silt has filled in the
creek bed. The station has good
buffers of shrubs and overhanging
habitat and has a lot of groundwater
input but was classified as impaired.
The next station (SXM-113) is almost
immediately downstream of the
Scotch Block reservoir. It has been
SXM-113 located downstream of the Scotch Block
channelized and lined with gabion
Reservoir has dams and gabion basket stabilization
baskets. There is little to no riparian
or instream cover. Due to these
confounding factors it was classified as impaired. The last station in the subwatershed
(SXM-349) has less impacted habitat despite having concrete blocks in the creek. It was
found to be unimpaired.
Middle East Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
The Middle East Branch has 4 stations; 3 were found to be potentially impaired and the
other was considered unimpaired. SXM-347 was classified as unimpaired despite high
silt inputs found in the stream during the channel morphology sampling. This is most
likely caused by agricultural runoff. There is an abundance of riparian cover associated
with this site and plenty of woody debris available for benthos to cling to. The
uppermost station (SXM-281) is a narrow forested channel with plenty of habitat but the
majority of the samples were chironomidae therefore pushing it towards potentially
impaired classification. The station downstream on that same reach (SXM-40) was also
potentially impaired. It has more silt and rock habitat but has some shallow areas. The
station at the bottom of the subwatershed (SXM-152) is found next to Hornby Park and
runs along a roadway. It was classified as potentially impaired. It has plenty of large
boulder substrates that do not provide very good habitat for benthos to live on.
Conservation Halton
37
East Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
The East Branch has 2 stations located within it. The upper station (SXM-144) was
classified as potentially impaired. It only had two EPT species found in the samples.
The downstream station (SXM-436) was classified as unimpaired. It had particularly high
flows during spring sampling, with the stream flooding the banks.
Urban Diverted Tributaries and East Lisgar Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
Both stations found within the Urban Diverted Tributaries (SXM-107 and SXM-381) are
situated in the Town of Oakville and are impacted by uncontrolled stormwater inputs and
runoff from the surrounding urban landscape. Both channels consist of hard packed shale
with minimal habitat availability for aquatic species. The banks are not stable despite the
attempt of putting up gabion baskets at SXM-381. The East Lisgar Branch station
(SXM-434), was also found to be impaired. This station was the only station sampled
within that subwatershed (based on random selection) and was located on a straightened
concrete channel upstream of Highway 407. There is no varied habitat found within the
channel allowing only eight different species of benthic invertebrates to call their home
here.
Lower Middle Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
The Lower Middle Branch has 3 stations located within it and all 3 of the stations
exhibited different states of impairment. The uppermost station SXM-255 is a flashy
headwater narrow silty stream that appears to be impacted by the new residential
development. It was found to be classified as impaired as zero EPT species were found
in the samples. The next station downstream (SXM-38) was found to be classified as
unimpaired. It has stable banks, larger rocks and woody debris creating better habitat for
benthos to live in. The bottom station in the subwatershed (SXM-435) was found to be
potentially impaired. It has a large catchment (over 14300 hectares) with flows from the
East Branch and Middle East Branch and most of the Lower Middle Branch. It is a deep
and wide site with a large amount of silt in some areas.
Lower Main Branch of Sixteen Mile Creek
The only branch of the creek where all the stations were considered to be unimpaired was
the Main Branch near the mouth of the creek. Both stations sampled here (SXM-151 and
SXM-108) were classified as unimpaired. Both stations had 11 EPT species found and
over 22 species richness. These stations are located within the Sixteen Mile Creek valley
which consists of steep forested valley walls and wide creek beds.
Sixteen Mile Creek’s benthic community is in the mid range of healthiness. As long as
impacts from future urbanization and the associated environmental stressors are
minimized, the benthic community should be healthy.
Conservation Halton
38
Figure 12: Benthic Sampling Stations and Associated Water Quality Associations in
Sixteen Mile Creek
Conservation Halton
39
2011 marked the third time that many of the stations were sampled in Sixteen Mile
Creek. Ten stations monitored in 2005 were not monitored in 2009 or 2011, however
new stations were monitored beginning in 2009 and as a result have only undergone two
monitoring cycles. As seen in Figures 14, 15 and 16, there were some variations from the
previous cycles of monitoring. There were more unimpaired stations in 2011 than during
the 2009 monitoring year. The map in Figure 13 depicts how the stations have been
graded through the years.
Five stations have been found to be consistently classified as impaired. They all have
obvious stressors associated with them. These stations were found in the Urban
Tributaries (SXM-107 and SXM-381) which have shale substrate and little to no instream
habitat for the benthos. The East Lisgar branch (SXM-434) is in a solid concrete channel
and it is the only station monitored in this branch. The station downstream of Derry Road
in Milton (SXM-431) had an impaired percentage of Oligochaeta in both 2011 (60%) and
2009 (86%). The station immediately downstream of the Scotch Block Reservoir (SXM113) has been channelized and has effects from the reservoir which is only a short
distance upstream.
Only two stations in Sixteen Mile Creek have been consistently classified as unimpaired.
SXM-30 which is located downstream of the Kelso reservoir and SXM-433 which is
located in Briton Tract. Both of these stations are in protected natural park settings.
SXM-63 does fluctuate through sampling years between unimpaired to potentially
impaired rankings. It is consistently closer to a healthy state than to an impaired state. It
is almost always the station with the highest EPT scores throughout the years most likely
because of the coarse substrates and healthy riparian buffer alongside the creek.
Three stations (SXM-314, SXM-347 and SXM-349) have had inconsistencies throughout
the monitoring cycle, with each station receiving a different classification each time it
was monitored.
More sampling years are required to adequately identify trends at individual stations.
Based on limited data, variations in benthic community health between years may either
over-estimate or under-estimate health. There are not enough years of data to indicate
clear trends. It would also be helpful to add in extra stations to the monitoring cycle to fill
in gap areas where little data is available in order to determine the health over the whole
watershed.
Conservation Halton
40
Figure 13: Benthic Sampling Stations and Associated Water Quality Associations in
Sixteen Mile Creek through multiple years
Conservation Halton
41
Figure 14: Distribution of Benthic Community Classification in Sixteen Mile Creek in
2005
Sixteen Mile 2005
Impaired
6 stations
21%
Potentially Impaired
Unimpaired
14 stations
50%
8 stations
29%
Figure 15: Distribution of Benthic Community Classifications in Sixteen Mile Creek in
2009
Sixteen Mile Creek 2009
Unimpaired
Impaired
6 stations
21%
3 stations
11%
19 stations
68%
Conservation Halton
42
Figure 16: Distribution of Benthic Community Classifications in Sixteen Mile Creek in
2011
Sixteen Mile Creek 2011
Impaired
7 stations
26%
Unimpaired
9 stations
33%
Potentially
Impaired
11 stations
41%
Grindstone Creek
Grindstone Creek is the smallest of Conservation Halton’s three major watersheds. The
watershed has large wetland complexes, on-line ponds, deep valley systems and streams
running through intensive agriculture. The only urbanized area that the main channel
flows through is the Town of Waterdown into Aldershot. It empties into the western end
of Hamilton Harbour. Sampling of the 14 stations in 2011 resulted in the collection of 47
different taxa spread across the watershed. Over 4,400 benthic invertebrates were
captured and identified for the 2011 Grindstone Creek benthic study. Sensitive taxa
groups and families were present at a limited number of stations. In total nine stations
were considered potentially impaired, two impaired and for the first time three stations
were considered to be unimpaired. Figure 17 illustrates the distribution of stations and
their associated water quality classifications across the watershed. A list of taxa captured
at each station can be found in Appendix 7, while Appendix 8 illustrates how the
classifications were interpreted.
Individual taxa groups including Chironomidae and Oligochaeta were by far the most
abundant taxa groups encountered and were collected at all of the stations sampled.
Aquatic worms are typically found in locations that contain organic pollution and anoxic
conditions (Borisko 2002). Chironomidae are the most common family found in benthic
samples as they are tolerant to unhealthy streams. Chironomidae made up almost half of
the benthic invertebrates found in Grindstone Creek with over 2000 collected. There are
over 2000 species of Chironomidae and they range in tolerance values. It is a warning of
Conservation Halton
43
poor aquatic health caused by some type of pollution if the majority of species found in a
stream are Chironomidae (Voshell 2002).
Across the Grindstone Creek watershed there are some general trends revealed. All
stations had low EPT families present. EPT is an important indicator of the health of an
ecosystem, with a high taxa richness indicating a healthy ecosystem. This is shown in the
data with three of the four stations that had more than five EPT families being classified
as unimpaired. GRN-73, downstream of Evans Sideroad, had the highest EPT richness
with a total of seven different taxa. It had a high abundance of the Plecoptera family
Perlodidae. This family is sensitive to water quality changes. This station is very narrow
with meadow riparian edges and a forest upstream. The station directly downstream of a
large pond on the Fuciarelli property (GRN-60) had a large percentage of Caenidae
(54%). Caenidae are an exception to the rule that mayflies are indicators of good water
quality as they can be found in degraded systems and are also more likely to be found in
lakes and ponds than in streams (Voshell 2002).
The average number of taxa found at a station was fifteen which would be considered
unimpaired. Only two stations had low taxa richness. Both these stations (GRN-27 and
GRN-7) were the only ones classified as impaired overall. The station GRN-27 has
sections of deep silt and chutes of large boulders with a small rocky dam at the top of the
station. It most likely is influenced by the agriculture farms that are upstream of the
station. GRN-7 is located downstream of Highway 6 downstream of the confluence with
the 6th Concession East tributary (a branch that flows through four on-line ponds) and the
main branch that flows through the Fuciarelli wetland property.
Isopoda were found at almost all the
stations which are an indicator of the
presence of organic wastes. The highest
amounts were found at GRN-16 (Dundas
Street) with 127 Isopods in total.
The Hilsenhoff index looks at all the
families present and assigns each of them a
predetermined intolerance value. The
Hilsenhoff index considered 50% of the
stations unimpaired. The Shannon diversity
index determined all of the sites to be impaired. This index takes the richness of taxa into
account and many of the stations had few numbers of families present.
An Isopod from the Assellidae family
There were a few remarkable grades from the 2011 sampling. Three stations were
classified as unimpaired; GRN-73, GRN-49, and GRN-28. Overall the benthic
community for Grindstone Creek would be considered potentially impaired with 65% of
the stations in that range.
Conservation Halton
44
Grindstone Creek
Conservation Halton
45
Grindstone Creek was monitored in 2011 for the third time as part of the Long Term
Environmental Monitoring Program. Some stations have had additional monitoring
through the years when stations were visited on an annual basis. The watershed seems to
be improving in some areas (see Figure 18). It was the first time that any monitoring
station in Grindstone Creek was classified as unimpaired (see Figures 19-21). Some of
the highlights are discussed below.
The upper west station (GRN-22) is in the headwaters of the western portion of
Grindstone Creek. It is upstream of the Fuciarelli property on Edgewood Road. It is
more wetland in nature than defined stream channel. On the upstream side of the road
there is a mushroom processing plant and associated effluent ponds. This station has had
some interesting findings. In 2006 the station was sampled and 68% of the sample
contained the mayfly Leptophlebiidae and only 4% Oligochaeta. In 2009 the station was
sampled again and this time no mayflies were found and the Oligochaeta made up 39% of
the sample. These Oligochaeta were unusually large and were present in high quantities
throughout the creek. This sampling year only found 27% Oligochaeta and only 1
Leptophlebiidae.
The station (GRN-60) immediately downstream of Fuciarelli property on the Fifth
Concession West had a dramatic change from 2005 to 2009. It was impaired in 2005 and
upgraded to potentially impaired in 2009. Chironomidae dominated the sample with 43%
in 2005 and only 3% of the total counts in 2009. The Ephemeroptera family Caenidae
made up only 13% of the sample in 2005 and in 2009 they made up 88% of the sample.
This year 54% of the sample was Caenidae and once again it was considered potentially
impaired.
The station downstream of Highway 6 (GRN7) is very wide and silty and the habitat has
changed between sampling years. Debris jams
seem to pile up and disappear through the
years. In 2009 benthics were collected in the
spring but the channel morphology and
electrofishing assessments were unable to be
completed due to constant high flows. It has
been classified as impaired for each of the
three years it has been sampled. The on-line
ponds upstream are one the confounding
factors that influences the outcome of
impairment at this station.
The next station downstream is GRN-20. The
stream is located in the middle of a cow
pasture that was previously fenced off as part
of a stewardship project. Prior to the fence
Station GRN-20 has re-established a healthy riparian
buffer as a result of stewardship efforts to prevent cow
access to the creek
Conservation Halton
46
going in the site was impaired and it has since increased to potentially impaired each year
it has been sampled. This is likely a reflection of both the limited suitable substrates
within the creek at this location in combination with potential agricultural influences
emanating from sources upstream. The fence has been a notable improvement to the
aesthetics and water quality at the site.
The Fifth Concession East station (GRN-27) has fluctuated between potentially impaired
and impaired through the many sampling years. This station used to be part of the annual
stations monitored throughout the watershed.
The small headwater tributary along Beaforth Road runs alongside a horse pasture.The
potentially impaired classification of station GRN-65 remains unchanged from previous
sampling years. There are many factors that could influence the health of this station
such as the road immediately upstream and the pasture lands that surround it.
Downstream of the two upper east headwater tributaries is station GRN-66. In 2006 it
was classified impaired and since then in both 2009 and 2011 it has been classified as
potentially impaired. The majority of benthic invertebrates collected at this station are
oligochaeta and chironomidae. There is not a significant amount of instream habitat
found at this station. It is also located downstream of Lake Medad.
The station GRN-49 is located on
Parkside Drive. It went from
being classified as impaired in
2006 to unimpaired in 2011. This
site has various habitat features
and a concrete spillway just
upstream of the station. It has
only been monitored twice;
therefore continued monitoring
will determine the health of this
section of the creek.
The station GRN-73 has had
varying degrees of health over the
three monitoring years. It is an
GRN-49 was classified as unimpaired in 2011
intermittent narrow headwater
stream that can dry up over the summer months. This year a dramatic increase in EPT
resulted in 7 families found. In 2009 there were only 2 EPT families found and most of
the samples were made up of oligochaeta and isopoda.
The station (GRN-16) is in downtown Waterdown at Dundas Street. It is located along
the train tracks and is influenced by its urban setting. It has been classified as potentially
impaired in 2011; previously it was classified as impaired.
Conservation Halton
47
The Grindstone Valley downstream of Smokey Hollow is where the station GRN-28 is
located just off the Bruce Trail in a beautiful setting. It is below the confluence of all the
headwater streams and immediately downstream of the side channel where the
Waterdown Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) released its effluent. The WWTP
closed down on August 26, 2010. This year marked the first year it was classified as
unimpaired. Future monitoring will determine if this is due to the WWTP closure.
Sassafras Woods is located just upstream of the North Service Road and on the east side
of Waterdown Road. The station GRN-47 is located within these woods. Unfortunately
the channel was altered in 2010 due to the construction of an off ramp to Highway 403.
The original station was located within a wide forested riparian area and shale bottom
creek. The station now has no canopy cover with minimal riparian cover. Most of the
taxa found in 2009 were still present in 2011.
Hidden Valley Park is intersected
by Lemmonville Road. There are
two stations in the park, one
station upstream of the road
(GRN-50) and downstream
(GRN-101). The channel that
runs through the park had been
redesigned and bioengineered in
2002 to improve the habitat at the
site. Both stations fluctuated
between classified impaired and
potentially impaired. Potential
improvements to the water
quality here may occur in future
years now that the removal of the
Looking downstream at station GRN-50 within Hidden
WWTP upstream has taken place.
Valley Park
These stations are also likely
affected by the train tracks and Highway 403 located a short distance upstream.
It is imperative to continue benthic invertebrate monitoring to see if there is a measurable
improvement in Grindstone Creek. Since the benthic community may shift from one year
to the next, continued monitoring to determine the long term health of the community is
recommended. As more development occurs within the watershed it will be imperative
to monitor to see if any changes occur. Continued monitoring of specific stations like
GRN-47 will help determine the effects of the habitat changes that have occurred as a
result of channel alteration. The closure of the WWTP will have to be monitored through
the stations that are located downstream. Will there be positive effects with less
chemicals entering the stream or negative effects with less flow of water to the stream?
This will require many more years of study to determine the effects. It may also be
helpful to add some extra stations into the monitoring program to improve coverage
throughout the watershed.
Conservation Halton
48
Grindstone Creek through multiple years
Conservation Halton
49
Figure 19: Distribution of Water Quality Classifications in the Grindstone Creek in 2006
Grindstone Creek 2006
Impaired
8 stations
42%
11 stations
58%
Figure 20: Distribution of Water Quality Classification in the Grindstone Creek in 2009
Impaired
3 stations
27%
8 stations
73%
Conservation Halton
50
Figure 21: Distribution of Water Quality Classification in the Grindstone Creek in 2011
Impaired
2 stations
14%
Unimpaired
3 stations
21%
9 stations
65%
Conservation Halton
51
2.1.3
Channel Morphology
Channel morphology measurements were
taken according to the Ontario Stream
Assessment Protocol (OSAP) Point
Transect Sampling for Channel Structure,
Substrate and Bank Conditions (section 2
module 4). As part of this module,
specific physical characteristics of stream
channels are documented including, water
depth, velocity, substrate type and size,
cover types and amount, instream
vegetation, woody debris, undercut banks
and bank composition, riparian vegetation
and bank angle. All these characteristics
can provide insight into the physical
conditions of streams on both a spatial and
temporal level and may also identify the
limiting features of a stream’s physical
habitat (Stanfield 2005).
CH staff member measuring water depth and substrate size
as part of channel morphology monitoring
Channel morphology measurements were taken at 22 stations within the Sixteen Mile
Creek watershed and at another 10 stations within the Grindstone Creek watershed.
Information collected was input into the provincial HabProgs database so that it can be
used for analysis on both a local and provincial scale. Detailed information on the
streams channel width, width/depth ratio, proportion of stable banks, particle size, D16,
D50 and D84 and transect channel profiles can all be developed. Comparisons of these
physical attributes can be done between years to document how much the channel is
changing. At time of publication, quantitative results of the channel morphology
measurements were not available. In lieu of these results, qualitative assessments based
on annual photographs of the sites and rapid assessments completed during both the
benthic and fish surveys were completed.
Sixteen Mile Creek
Stream flows are important in defining stream habitats and are specifically related to the
distribution of substrates, riffles, runs and pools. In 2011, water levels and stream
velocities were both high and able to alter habitat conditions on a large scale. Despite
this, large scale changes to the channel morphology were observed at only 2 of the 22
stations sampled on Sixteen Mile Creek. These changes were noted at SXM-107 in the
Urban Diverted Tributaries subwatershed and SXM-347 within the Middle East
subwatershed. At station SXM-107 extensive erosion of the stream banks has been
evident throughout the reach since sampling began in 2005 and extensive measures to
reduce erosion have also been observed. On the downstream end of the station the first
Conservation Halton
52
pool is lined with armourstone as it falls adjacent to the Morrison Creek Valley trail
system. In 2011, high water levels were able to move the armour stone causing some of
the large stones to fall into the creek. In addition, a large debris jam has formed adjacent
to the exposed armour stone causing additional erosion and scouring of the stream banks.
Reconstruction of this bank will be required in order to reduce further erosion and to
maintain the adjacent trail in the future.
At station SXM-347, bank erosion and slumping is continuing in the areas directly
downstream of No. 5 Sideroad. This area has had significant problems with bank
slumping as the west bank is mowed completely to the stream edge. This channel has
steeply sloped banks and without substantial vegetation to stabilize them, they easily
slump with any increase in flows. Reestablishing a healthy vegetated riparian buffer will
help to stabilize the banks and reduce the extra sediment and turbidity in the creek.
Grindstone Creek
As in previous years substantial changes have been noted at stations on Grindstone
Creek. Station GRN-28 downstream of Smokey Hollow, experiences extremely strong
and fast flows resulting in substantial movement of large substrates and woody debris.
In 2011, this was no different with large boulders and substrates moved within the
channel. Woody debris observed from previous years had also been flushed down the
channel. These changes are expected due to the high gradient of the stream through this
reach, however it should be monitored as increased growth in Waterdown may see larger
and stronger flows come through the valley.
In contrast, GRN-47 is a small
tributary that flows through
Sassafras woods. It experiences
higher flows through the spring
freshet but during the summer
months water levels can be quite
low. Due to the nature of the
channel and the adjacent soft,
sandy erodible banks there is
extensive erosion that occurs
regularly at this station.
Continued erosion and build-up of
woody debris was noted again in
2011. It is important to note that
in 2009, the lower reach of the
The reconstructed section at the downstream end of GRN-47
station had been reconstructed and
realigned in conjunction with the new Waterdown Road exit off the 403 Highway. The
2011 observations indicate that herbaceous vegetation has reestablished within the
adjacent riparian areas and natural substrate transport has resulted in more native
substrates within the channel rather than the large stone that was added during
construction. It is important to note that even though the reconstructed channel has
Conservation Halton
53
shown signs of improvements, substrate type between reaches upstream and downstream
are still not uniform.
2.1.4
Surface Water Quality Monitoring
The term “water quality” refers to the physical,
biological and/or chemical constituents of waters. The
quality of water directly affects its suitability for
specific usage. “Polluted water” is a general term
commonly used to indicate that the water is unsuitable
to support fish and other aquatic life, recreation,
municipal and/or industrial use, or aesthetic enjoyment.
In this context, pollution is related to human activity,
including municipal and/or industrial effluent, urban
and agricultural runoff, etc. Water pollution can
therefore be divided into one or more of the following
types depending upon the nature of the substance
causing the pollution:
Measuring water quality parameters
through the use of a YSI meter
1. Toxic pollution, such as those caused by heavy metals, other inorganic
elements,pesticides, and compounds in industrial wastes which may be toxic to
humans as well as aquatic life.
2. Organic pollution, which can be caused by oxygen demanding organic compounds in
domestic sewage that can severely affect fish life.
3. Nutrient pollution caused by phosphorus and nitrogen runoff. This type of pollution
is responsible for excessive plant growth that can rapidly deplete oxygen supplies in
the water.
4. Pathogenic or disease-carrying pollution, which is caused by the presence of bacteria
and viruses in domestic sewage that may transmit infectious diseases to humans.
5. Thermal pollution, which is caused by heated discharges from impoundments or
industrial plants that could be damaging to aquatic flora and fauna.
6. Sediment pollution, which is often generated by runoff in rural areas and on urban
construction sites in areas that are devoid of vegetation. This can inhibit fish
reproduction and negatively affect respiration of aquatic animals.
7. Aesthetic pollution, which is associated with floating objects and unsightly
accumulations of trash along steam banks and lake shores, as well as any combination
of the above types of pollution.
All of the above types of pollution regularly occur in surface waters whereas ground
water pollution is normally limited to chemical and pathogenic pollution sources.
Unfortunately, examples of each of these types of pollution can be found in portions of
the Conservation Halton watershed. The determination of whether or not a certain water
resource is polluted is related to the intended use of the water resource. Waters may be
polluted for one use but not for others. Consequently, water pollution is a relative term,
Conservation Halton
54
depending on the uses or needs that the water is to satisfy, and the quality of the water
relative to the minimum requirements established for those uses or needs.
Deterioration in water quality and in the aquatic habitat of the Conservation Halton
watershed can be related to many factors. Channel alteration, barriers to fish passage, a
reduction in base flows, a reduction in riparian cover, increases in temperature, peak flow
events, nutrient loading, erosion, siltation and sedimentation, as well as anthropogenic
inputs have all adversely affected water quality.
The freshwater ecosystem is composed of the biotic community (biological producers,
consumers, and decomposers), its abiotic constituents (physical and chemical
components) and their interactions. Diverse aquatic ecosystems exist within the
Conservation Halton watershed and are influenced by numerous factors.
Within the aquatic ecosystem a complex interaction of physical and biochemical cycles
exists and changes do not occur in isolation. For example, there are diurnal cycles that
are measured in hours, seasonal cycles that are measured in months, and long-term cycles
that are measured in years. As a result, aquatic systems undergo constant change.
However, an ecosystem which has evolved over a long period of time will support
organisms that have adapted to their environment. The system may be unbalanced by
natural factors such as drastic climatic variations or disease, or by factors due to human
activity. Any changes, especially rapid ones, can have detrimental or disastrous effects
on the aquatic ecosystem.
As part of Conservation Halton’s Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program surface
water quality was assessed in 2011. Conservation Halton has been monitoring surface
water quality in partnership with the Ministry of Environment’s (MOE) Provincial Water
Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) at 58 different stations for over 40 years.
Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) outlined by the Ministry of the
Environment are used to assess surface water quality parameters to ensure the protection
of the fresh water aquatic environment.
During 2011 surface water samples covering 37 parameters were taken at 10 stations
throughout the watershed over a seven-month period between April and November. Six
stations were sampled monthly while 4 stations were sampled every other month. One
station (SXM-205) that is normally sampled each year could not be accessed during 2011
due to road construction. The PWQMN sampling Stations are shown in Figure 23.
Surface Water Quality Data Analysis
Results indicate that while most water quality parameters measured meet MOE objectives
most of the time, some remain a source of concern. The best water quality is usually
found in relatively undisturbed headwater areas while the poorest is associated with the
more urbanized or altered reaches of the lower watershed. Of all samples collected in
2011 where there is an MOE objective for the protection of the fresh water aquatic
Conservation Halton
55
environment, about 20% exceeded the relevant objective, based on non-random
subsampling. This increase from previous years may be due to the significant rainfall
events and resulting increased erosion that occurred during the spring and fall of 2011.
For the purpose of this report, detailed analysis of the 2011 results was conducted on six
parameters: chloride, nitrogen, total phosphorus, copper, lead and zinc. The Provincial
Water Quality Objective (PWQO) or the “desired objective” for each of these parameters
is shown in Table 5. By meeting these objectives, all other objectives, except the most
stringent relating to drinking water, are met. Where applicable, federal guidelines may
also be considered.
Table 5: Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) and/or Desired Objectives
Parameter
PWQO Desired Objective
Chloride
N/A
<250 mg/L
Nitrate + Nitrite
N/A
<2.93 mg/L
Total Phosphorous (TP)
N/A
<0.03 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) N/A
<25mg/L
Copper
<5 µg/L N/A
Lead
<25 µg/L N/A
Zinc
<30 µg/L N/A
“Box plot” charts have been created to represent the maximum, seventy-fifth quartile,
median, twenty-fifth quartile and minimum values for each parameter concentration at
the sampling stations across the watershed.
Figure 22 represents a sample box plot chart where 100 is the maximum, 75 is the
seventy-fifth quartile, 50 is the median, 25 is the twenty-fifth quartile and 10 is the
minimum.
Figure 22: Sample “Box Plot” Chart
Sample "Box Plot" Chart
120
Concentration
100
80
100
75
60
50
40
20
25
10
0
Sampling Station
Conservation Halton
56
Figure 23: Surface Water Quality Monitoring Stations
Conservation Halton
57
A brief discussion of each parameter is provided below.
Chloride
Chloride is an important anion in domestic wastes and in some natural waters. Chloride
ions are conservative and highly mobile, tending to remain in solution once dissolved.
Nearly all chloride added to the environment will eventually migrate to surface or
groundwater. Winter application of road salt can produce high salt concentrations in
water after runoff. The majority of chloride concentrations at all stations in the
Conservation Halton watershed were well below the MOE objectives. In 2011, only one
sample or 12% of all samples taken in the Fourteen Mile Creek watershed exceeded the
provincial maximum desirable concentration of 250 mg/L (Figure 24). This single
exceedence represents less than 2% of all samples collected in 2011 and represents a
slight improvement based on the data from the previous three years.
Figure 24: Chloride Concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s Annual (PWQMN)
Monitoring Stations in 2011.
Conse rvation Halton Wate rshed
Chloride Data
300
PWQO
Chloride (mg/L)
250
200
150
100
50
0
S XM- 53
S XM- 205
S XM-216
S XM- 349
S XM- 63
FOR- 58
BRO- 119
BRO-16
BRO- 2
S HL-48
N=8
N=0
N=8
N=3
N=3
N=8
N=8
N=7
N=3
N=4
N=8
S he ldon Cr
Gr indst one Cr
16 Mi Cr
14 Mi Cr
Br ont e Cr
GRN- 5
Wate rsheds - PWQ MN Sampling Stations
Nitrogen
Nitrogen can occur in various forms. The nitrate ion is soluble and highly mobile in the
aquatic environment. It plays a major role in biological processes and is a significant
nutrient for plant growth. However, high concentrations of nitrogen can lead to excessive
plant and algae growth and ultimately, in eutrophication and oxygen depletion, thus
degrading the aquatic habitat. High concentrations of nitrogen can also be toxic to some
juvenile fish species. Nitrogen sources include atmospheric deposition, agricultural
wastes, municipal wastewater, septic systems and fertilizers. Nitrogen concentrations
tend to be highest in areas of intensive farming and downstream of municipal wastewater
Conservation Halton
58
discharges. While there is no PWQO for nitrogen, concentrations of less than 2.93 mg/l
are considered desirable to prevent excessive plant growth.
Nitrate + Nitrite concentrations are sometimes elevated in the Conservation Halton
watershed. Three samples or 38% of all nitrate + nitrite samples taken in Sixteen Mile
Creek (SXM-216), one sample or 14% of all samples taken from the Bronte Creek
watershed (BRO-16) and 2 samples or 25% taken from the Grindstone Creek watershed
(GRN-5) exceeded the maximum desirable concentration of 2.93 mg/L (Figure 25). The
maximum concentration was recorded in the Sixteen Mile Creek (SXM-216) watershed
at 3.52 mg/L or 20% more than the desired objective.
Figure 25: Nitrate + Nitrite Concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s Annual
(PWQMN) Monitoring Stations in 2011.
Conse rvation Halton Wate rshe d
Nitrate + Nitrite Data
Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/L)
4
PWQO
3
2
1
0
SXM-53
SXM-205
SXM-216
SXM-349
SXM-63
FOR-58
BRO-119
BRO-16
BRO-2
SHL-48
N=8
N=0
N=8
N=3
N=3
N=8
N=8
N=7
N=3
N=4
N=8
Sheldon Cr
Gr inds tone Cr
16 Mi Cr
14 Mi Cr
Br onte Cr
GRN-5
Watersheds - PWQ MN Sampling Stations
Total Phosphorus
Phosphorus can occur in numerous organic and inorganic forms. It plays a major role in
biological processes and is generally the limiting nutrient for plant growth. Phosphorus is
not directly toxic to aquatic life; however, high concentrations of phosphorus can result in
excessive plant and algae growth and ultimately, in eutrophication. As this overabundance of plant material dies, oxygen is consumed in the process. The resulting
oxygen depletion can reduce biodiversity. Phosphorus sources include commercial
fertilizers, animal wastes and municipal and industrial wastewater. There is also a close
relationship between phosphorus concentrations and suspended sediments. Areas with
high levels of erosion usually have increased suspended sediments and phosphorus
concentrations. Elevated levels of sediments can also adversely affect the aquatic habitat.
There is no final PWQO for total phosphorus: however, an interim objective recommends
concentrations of less than 0.03 mg/L in order to prevent excessive plant growth. In the
Conservation Halton
59
Conservation Halton watershed, excess growth of Cladophora or nuisance algae is a
problem in many reaches of watershed creeks. Watershed streams also deliver elevated
concentrations of nutrients to the Lake Ontario near-shore area. Excess growth of
Cladophora and blooms of Cyanobacteria or toxic blue-green algae are serious problems
in the Lake Ontario near-shore environment.
Figure 26: Total Phosphorous Concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s Annual
(PWQMN) Monitoring Stations in 2011.
Total Phosphorus Data
0.9
PWQO
0.8
T.P. (mg/L)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
S XM-53
S XM-205
S XM-216
S XM-349
S XM-63
FOR-58
BRO-119
BRO-16
BRO-2
S HL-48
N=8
N=0
N=8
N=3
N=3
N=8
N=8
N=7
N=3
N=4
N=8
S he ldon Cr
Grindst one Cr
16 Mi Cr
14 Mi Cr
Bront e Cr
GRN-5
Wate rshe ds - PWQ MN Sampling Stations
Total phosphorus concentrations are generally elevated throughout the Conservation
Halton watershed. About 67% of all total phosphorus samples exceeded the desired
objective of 0.03 mg/L in 2011 (Figure 26). The highest single concentration throughout
the watershed was 0.835 mg/L recorded in Indian Creek at Appleby Line (BRO-16).
This concentration is approximately 28 times the interim PWQO. Sheldon Creek (SHL48) had the highest median concentration calculated to be 0.147 mg/L or almost 5 times
the desired objective of 0.03 mg/L. The median concentration at seven monitoring
stations exceeded the desired objective. One hundred percent of the samples collected
from Grindstone Creek (GRN-5) and Sheldon Creek (SHL-48) exceeded the desired
objective, while 88% in Fourteen Mile Creek (FOR-58), 56% in the Bronte Creek
watershed and 50% in the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed exceeded the desired objective.
Only the samples taken in Sixteen Mile Creek upstream of Kelso Reservoir (SXM-63)
were all below the desired objective.
Elevated total phosphorus concentrations in the Conservation Halton watersheds may
have been exacerbated by the higher-than-normal precipitation and resulting erosion that
occurred during the spring and fall of 2011. For example, the highest single concentration
Conservation Halton
60
of 0.835 mg/L that occurred in Indian Creek at Appleby Line (BRO-16) was recorded
after a rain event in November.
Copper
Copper is a common heavy metal constituent of natural water. It is essential for all plants
and animal nutrition. Copper is generally present in trace amounts resulting from
weathering. Like many metals, copper binds readily to dissolved substances (e.g.
dissolved organic carbon) and adsorbs to suspended solids (i.e. clay particles). Therefore
copper concentrations may be elevated in areas of significant erosion. Human input of
copper to waters can be significant. Contact with brass and copper plumbing and
equipment is but one source. Others include household products, industrial byproducts,
mine tailings, and building or construction materials (McNeely et al. 1979). The MOE
objective is 5.0 µg/L (MOE 1984).
Figure 27: Copper Concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s Annual (PWQMN)
Coppe r Data
Copper (µ g/L)
15
PWQO
10
5
0
SXM -53
SXM -2 0 5
SXM-2 16
SXM -3 4 9
SXM -6 3
FOR-58
BRO-119
BRO-16
BRO-2
SHL-4 8
N=8
N=0
N=8
N=0
N=0
N=8
N=8
N=7
N=0
N=4
N=8
Sheld o n Cr
Grind s to ne
Cr
16 Mi Cr
14 M i Cr
Bro nte Cr
GRN-5
Watersheds - PWQMN Sampling Stations
Copper concentrations are sometimes elevated throughout the watershed. Twenty-four
percent of all samples collected exceeded the PWQO. The maximum concentration
recorded in West Sixteen Mile Creek at Lower Base Line (SXM-216) was 14.1µg/L. This
site is located downstream of the Milton Wastewater Treatment Plant. Only the median
copper concentration in Sheldon Creek (SHL-48) exceeded the desired objective.
Like some other parameters, elevated copper concentrations may have been exacerbated
by the higher-than-normal precipitation and resulting erosion that occurred during the
spring and fall of 2011. For example, the highest single copper concentration that
Conservation Halton
61
occurred in Sixteen Mile Creek (SXM-216) was also recorded after a rain event in
November.
Although sometimes elevated, copper concentrations in the Conservation Halton
watershed are comparable to other urbanized watersheds in the Greater Toronto Area
and, due to the abundance of substances to bind the copper ion, are not believed to be
harmful to the aquatic environment.
Lead
Lead is ubiquitous in the natural environment and may be found in both soluble and
suspended forms in water. Generally low concentrations of lead are found in water
owing to its low solubility. The concentration of lead and its relative toxicity depends on
its hardness, pH, alkalinity, and dissolved oxygen content of water. Lead is strongly
absorbed by soils and therefore, does not affect most plants. The principle natural source
of lead is weathering.
Man’s input of lead to the environment outweighs all natural sources. The burning of
leaded fuels, particularly automobile fuels was a major source. Other sources include ore
smelting and refining, production of storage batteries, lead pipes, and recycling lead
products and motor oils. Lead is a toxic substance that accumulates in the skeletal
structure of man and animals (McNeely et al. 1979). In order to protect the freshwater
environment, MOE objective concentrations are 1 µg/L (hardness as CaCO3 <30), 3 µg/L
(hardness as CaCO3 30 - 80) and 25 µg/L (hardness as CaCO3 >80) (MOE 1984).
Figure 28: Lead Concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s Annual (PWQMN)
Conse rvation Halton Wate rshed
Le ad Data
25
PWQO
Lead (µ g/L)
20
15
10
5
0
SXM-53
SXM-205
SXM-216
SXM-349
SXM-63
FOR-58
BRO-119
BRO-16
BRO-2
SHL-48
N=8
N=0
N=8
N=0
N=0
N=8
N=8
N=7
N=0
N=4
N=8
Sheldon Cr
Gr inds tone
16 Mi Cr
14 Mi Cr
Br onte Cr
GRN-5
Conservation Halton
62
No lead samples collected throughout the Conservation Halton watershed during 2011
exceeded the PWQO. However, caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the
lead data since many of the samples approached the minimum detection limits.
Zinc
Zinc is commonly found in nature as zinc sulfide and zinc carbonate. Zinc has many
industrial applications and can enter the aquatic environment as industrial discharge. On
the other hand, in plants, zinc is an essential nutrient for growth, and plants in zinc
deficient soil are severely stunted. In animals, zinc (a constituent in enzymes) is vital for
normal respiration (McNeely et al. 1979). Like many metals, zinc binds readily to
dissolved substances (e.g. dissolved organic carbon) and adsorb to suspended solids (i.e.
clay particles). MOE guidelines suggest that concentrations of zinc should not exceed 30
µg/L (MOE. 1984).
Figure 29: Zinc Concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s Annual (PWQMN)
Zinc Data
35
PWQO
30
Zinc (µ g/L)
25
20
15
10
5
0
SXM-53
SXM-205
SXM-216
SXM-349
SXM-63
FOR-58
BRO-119
BRO-16
BRO-2
SHL-48
N=8
N=0
N=8
N=0
N=0
N=8
N=8
N=7
N=0
N=4
N=8
Sheldon Cr
Gr inds tone
16 Mi Cr
14 Mi Cr
Br onte Cr
GRN-5
Two zinc samples collected throughout the Conservation Halton watershed during 2011
exceeded the PWQO. One of the eight Zinc samples collected in Fourteen Mile Creek
(FOR-58) and one of the four samples collected in Sheldon Creek (SHL-48) exceeded the
PWQO. The maximum concentration for Zinc was recorded in Fourteen Mile Creek
(FOR-58) at 32.2 µg/L. Both exceedances occurred during the November 29th collection.
Conservation Halton
63
2.1.5
Groundwater Monitoring
Conservation Halton’s Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program incorporates
existing groundwater quantity and quality monitoring protocols into the program. Sites
have been selected to take into consideration data from existing Ministry of
Environment’s (MOE) Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network (PGMN)
groundwater monitoring wells administered by Conservation Halton. The Provincial
Groundwater Monitoring Network is part of a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary
response developed to formulate an effective overall water resource strategy.
Conservation Halton is participating in the program in partnership with the Region of
Halton, other area municipalities and concerned stakeholders to safeguard the
groundwater resources of the watershed.
The PGMN monitoring sites were selected to fulfill several criteria, including:
• Areas where there is no current monitoring.
• Areas that are about to undergo significant urban development or land use
change.
• Areas that represent significant recharge for watershed creeks.
• Areas that will provide an indication of magnitude of the groundwater/surface
water interaction.
• Areas that contain significant aquifers and/or municipal wells.
• Areas that represent significant hydrogeological features.
• Areas where there is significant demand for groundwater resources and
• Areas of the watershed where there is a history of water quality or supply
problems.
The 12 sites were selected to allow assessment of the impacts on groundwater quantity
and quality of land use change, pumping, drought, climate change and other factors.
Groundwater Sampling Methodology
The 12 monitoring wells established throughout the watershed are designed to
complement and augment regional wells and other data sources. The network helps
refine aquifer and hydrogeologic mapping for the watershed, including the identification
of recharge and discharge areas, availability and quality of groundwater, susceptibility to
contamination and depth to groundwater. It provides for chemical analysis to assess
groundwater conditions and trends. Results are stored in an information management
system called the Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Information System (PGMIS) that
collects and stores the monitoring data for controlled access and development.
Groundwater levels and temperatures are recorded automatically every 15 minutes by a
levelogger. Some wells are automated with telemetry that can be contacted on a cellular
network where the data is uploaded automatically to the PGMIS database. The data from
manual wells is uploaded regularly to laptop PCs and transmitted to the PGMIS database
Conservation Halton
64
by E-mail. The data stored in PGMIS is available to Conservation Halton via the
internet.
In accordance with the MOE’s Provincial Groundwater Monitoring Network protocol,
water quality samples are collected annually and analyzed to determine levels of major
ions and nutrients, metals (fixed with acid), pesticides, volatile organic compounds and
certain other parameters. Samples and field notes are taken by staff of Conservation
Halton. Analysis of the samples is provided by the MOE and results forwarded to
Conservation Halton. Results are tabulated in a database.
With a significant portion of watershed residents relying on groundwater for their
drinking water, the groundwater monitoring network enables an accurate assessment of
current groundwater conditions. It provides an early warning system for changes in water
levels or for changes in water quality. It provides information for making sound land use
planning decisions. The groundwater monitoring network is integrated with other
relevant data bases including, including the province’s low water response strategy and
Conservation Halton’s environmental monitoring program.
Groundwater quantity and quality has 12 wells established across the Conservation
Halton watershed. Conservation Halton has been monitoring groundwater elevations and
water quality in partnership with the Ministry of Environment’s (MOE) Provincial
Groundwater Monitoring Network (PGMN) at these wells for the past 9 years. The
location of the PGMN wells in the Conservation Halton watershed is shown in Figure 30.
Analysis
Groundwater samples covering 51 parameters were taken at 7 wells throughout the
watershed over several days in September 2011. Results indicate that all but one of the
ground water quality parameters measured meet the MOE’s Ontario Drinking Water
Standards. Sodium concentrations (PWQO/ODWS of less than 20 mg/L) were elevated in
5 of the wells. Well GA004 had a sodium concentration of 321 mg/L or approximately
16 times the PWQO/ODWS. The elevated sodium concentrations are likely the result of
road salting adjacent to the wells.
Conservation Halton
65
Figure 30: Groundwater Quality Monitoring Stations
Conservation Halton
66
2.1.6
Water Temperature Monitoring
Water temperature monitoring was
conducted at 9 sites within the Grindstone
Creek watershed and another 20 sites within
the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed in 2011.
Data was collected using Hobo Water Temp
Pro V2 dataloggers installed at each
monitoring location in late spring and left in
place for the duration of the monitoring
season (removed in September). A single
logger was not removed in the fall due to
construction in the immediate area.
Analysis
HOBO Water-Temp Pro temperature datalogger
(Onset)
As in previous years, data was assessed
using the nomogram developed by Stoneman and Jones (1996) to classify stream sites
based on their thermal stability. The nomogram uses point in time data and considers
both water temperature and ambient air temperature in determining thermal stability.
Conditions for the protocol are met between the months of July and August when the air
temperature is above 24.5 °C and after days of similar weather conditions. Water
temperature readings are then recorded between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., the
times typically representative of the maximum daily water temperature of a stream. Once
the thermal stability of a stream is known, it can be classified as a cold, cool or
warmwater system.
Since 2009, stream temperature assessments were taken one step further with an updated
nomogram completed by Chu et al. (2009). This nomogram essentially uses the same
protocol but has identified 5 water temperature classifications including cold, cold-cool,
cool, cool-warm and warm. In doing so, this nomogram better identifies transition zones
and areas with potential groundwater input. It is especially helpful in identifying water
temperature classifications in areas where temperatures previously overlapped categories
and a definitive classification was not clear.
Figure 31 illustrates the nomogram completed by Chu et al. (2009). The dashed lines on
the nomogram also indicate the coldwater and coolwater limits according to Stoneman
and Jones (1996). In order to obtain an accurate assessment of thermal stability, all
temperature values that met protocol conditions were considered and graphed against the
Chu et al. (2009) nomogram. Streams were then classified based on the overall
proportion of values within each representative classification. Figure 32 and Figure 33
illustrate temperature monitoring locations and associated water temperature
classifications. Water temperature graphs can be seen in Appendix 10.
Conservation Halton
67
Figure 31: Water Temperature Nomogram. Chu et. al. (2009)
Thermal Classifications
Water Temeperature
30
28
Stoneman Cool
26
Stoneman Cold
Cool-Warm
24
22
Cool
20
18
Cold-Cool
16
14
Cold
12
10
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
Maximum Daily Air Temperature
Temperature Monitoring Results – Sixteen Mile Creek
On Sixteen Mile Creek, 20 loggers were deployed across the watershed with all of them
deployed at existing monitoring stations. Of the 19 loggers retrieved, only one had
unusable data as it had been exposed during periods of the summer months. Of the 18
loggers with useful data, 3 were considered to be coolwater, 8 warmwater and 7 within a
cool-warm transition zone. Stations considered to be coolwater were typically associated
with headwater tributaries or were associated with groundwater discharge emanating
from the Niagara Escarpment.
One station located near the base of the Niagara Escarpment and upstream of Scotch
Block reservoir, once again had the coldest temperatures of the season however in 2011
temperatures were increased pushing the classification from cold-cool in 2009 to just cool
in 2011.
Similar increases in temperature were seen at 5 other stations across the watershed
however the majority of stations (11) remained in the same water temperature
classification. Only one station, SXM-30 located downstream of the Kelso Reservoir,
illustrated a decrease in water temperature going from cool-warm in 2009 to cool in
2011. Although the Kelso Reservoir has a significant effect on water temperatures
downstream, coldwater emanating from the Niagara Escarpment as well as groundwater
springs throughout the reach typically aid in mitigating any thermal extremes caused by
the reservoir. This is especially true in 2011, as stations even further upstream of Kelso
Conservation Halton
68
Reservoir were considered to be warmwater in 2011. Unfortunately, coolwater
conditions are not maintained and a cool-water transition zone extends through
downtown Milton where it moves to warmwater in the vicinity of Britannia Road. Coolwarm transition zones are also identified as one moves downstream within both the
Middle Branch and Middle-East Branch however water temperature classifications shift
to warmwater by the time the tributaries run under the 401 Highway. The remaining
stations along the main branches are considered to be warmwater to their confluence with
Lake Ontario. The Urban-diverted tributaries upstream of the Morrison-Wedgewood
Diversion channel remain in a cool-warm transition zone despite poor stormwater
management and urban influences. Improvements to stormwater management in these
areas could result in significant decreases in water tempertures as the majority of the
stream reaches in this area flow through a forested valley with ample groundwater inputs.
Overall stream temperatures within Sixteen Mile Creek are varied with 2011 showing
increases in warmwater classifications around the watershed. Warmwater temperatures
are likely a result of the high water levels experienced in the spring and early summer
months where surface waters in combination from overflows from both residential and
stromwater management ponds may have aided in increasing stream temperatures. These
increased flows may have also reduced the impact of any groundwater contributions
which would have the potential to significantly decrease stream temperatures.
Increased stream temperatures are also the result of increases in daily maximum
temperatures observed in 2011. Stream temperature classifications are based on summer
months when thermal extremes are most observed. In Ontario, these extremes fall largely
in July and August however June and the first week of September may also exhibit heat
extremes. As seen in Table 6, 2011 had more extreme heat days (where temperatures
were above 24.5°C) then in 2009. These hot summer days can lead to increased water
temperatures as well as increased evaporation, resulting in lower water levels and thermal
stresses on fish. These increases may continue to increase with changes in urbanization
and global climate change. In order to reduce stream temperatures, enhanced riparian
buffers, agricultural best management practices, improved stormwater management
activities and implementation of low impact development is recommended.
Table 6: Number of Days in Which Temperatures Reached Above 24.5 °C in 2009 and
2011
Month
June
July
August
1st Week of September
Total
2009
7
8
14
1
30
Conservation Halton
2011
7
18
9
1
35
69
Temperature Monitoring Results – Grindstone Creek
Within Grindstone Creek, 10 loggers were deployed across the watershed with seven of
them at existing monitoring stations. Of the 10 retrieved, 2 had been found in dry stream
beds whereas another 2 had been found exposed and out of the water during periods of
the summer. Stations where the stream bed was dry when the logger was retrieved were
in headwater reaches of the main branch, both upstream and downstream of the Fuciarelli
Property. From the available data, 2 sites were classified as cool, 3 as cool-warm and 1
as warm.
Sites considered to be coolwater were located on smaller groundwater fed tributaries.
One station was in Millgrove on the tributary emanating from the 6th Concession. This
tributary has significant groundwater influences and historically could have supported a
coldwater fish community, however a number of on-line ponds along the tributary are
warming stream temperatures in this reach. Further efforts to remove these on-line ponds
would significantly benefit the aquatic community through this reach and improve stream
temperatures in Grindstone Creek. The other coolwater station was on a small headwater
tributary that emanates from the Wyatt Road Wetland (City of Hamilton ESA: FLAM46). This wetland has a high water table with perennial seeps indicating that this
tributary is partially supported by groundwater discharges (Dwyer 2006), which are likely
influencing the coolwater classification in this area. The addition of treed riparian buffers
in areas upstream of the station may aid in shading the creek and further reducing stream
temperatures.
As in 2009, the remaining areas of the watershed were largely considered to be in a coolwarm transition zone. Although Grindstone Creek and its tributaries do have significant
groundwater influences, the watershed itself also has many attributes that aid in warming
temperatures. On-line ponds and sparsely vegetated riparian buffers both aid in warming
the creek. Further downstream in the Grindstone Creek valley, cooler temperatures are
likely masked by effects of urbanization and stormwater management in Waterdown.
Just downstream of the valley at Unsworth Avenue was the only station considered to be
warmwater in 2011. This station saw an increase in temperature from 2009 when it was
classified as cool-warm. Further monitoring to see if water temperatures continue to
increase in this area and the remainder of the watershed is recommended.
Conservation Halton
70
Figure 32: Sixteen Mile Creek Water Temperature Stations and Associated
Classifications
Conservation Halton
71
Figure 33: Grindstone Creek Water Temperature Stations and Associated Classifications
Conservation Halton
72
2.2
Terrestrial Monitoring
Sampling and monitoring of the terrestrial environment
was completed at numerous sites throughout the
Conservation Halton watershed in order to document
baseline conditions and identify changes in the terrestrial
environment. In doing so, specific biological
components (trees, forest shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, birds and amphibians) were sampled as well
as the physical environment and habitat conditions.
When compiled, information about the biological
communities and examination of the physical
environment can provide an assessment of the health of
the watershed. Terrestrial monitoring for the Long Term
Environmental Monitoring Program was completed
across the watershed.
Terrestrial Data Collection and Study Design
Currently Conservation Halton has terrestrial monitoring
Conservation Halton staff completing habitat
stations in localized areas of the watershed. When
assessments at marsh monitoring sites
Conservation Halton began its terrestrial monitoring
program a few concentrated sites were a good starting
place and fit the capacity of the organization. Between 2011 and 2012 Conservation
Halton proposes to expand the reach of its terrestrial monitoring program. This will
include expanding the following monitoring programs: tree health, forest ground
vegetation, forest regeneration, marsh monitoring (birds and amphibians) and forest bird
monitoring. This will provide for a more comprehensive watershed wide monitoring
program that should let Conservation Halton better determine whether the watershed
health is changing over time. Conservation Halton staff have divided the watershed into
three distinct sampling areas based on physiography, climate and floristics. These three
areas would coincide with the current Ecodistrict boundaries located within the
watershed. These would break down as follows (Figure 34):
•
•
•
Area 1 - eastern watershed – Ecodistrict 7E-4
Area 2 - central watershed – Ecodistricts 6E-7, 7E-3 (approximately the Niagara
Escarpment Plan area)
Area 3 - western watershed – Ecodistrict 6E-1
Although randomization of the new site selection would add statistical robustness to the
monitoring program, Conservation Halton has decided to concentrate monitoring efforts
within publicly owned lands in order to guarantee site access in perpetuity. These
locations will be concentrated within mainly upland deciduous forest communities as
these are the most common forest communities within the watershed and therefore the
most logical to monitor on a broad scale. Adding monitoring locations and spreading
Conservation Halton
73
them throughout the watershed will allow Conservation Halton to monitor a cross section
of the watershed. This will lend itself to greater statistical robustness and allow for
answers to questions in regards to the health of the watershed as a whole. This is also
similar to Conservation Authorities in adjacent watersheds that have spread their
monitoring locations throughout their respective jurisdictions.
It is important with any monitoring program that
the monitoring questions are defined up front and
the subsequent program designed around these
questions. Conservation Halton has completed a
total of five years of terrestrial monitoring and is
now in a good position to define its monitoring
questions more fully. Although there is a
discrepancy in the depth of data analysis being
completed across other organizations completing
monitoring works, Conservation Halton has
struck a balance between complicated statistical
analysis, simple yearly comparisons and a 5-year
review of the program. Ideally, the details
collected and the analyses performed will be
enough to answer the monitoring questions.
Conservation Halton’s primary question is: “Is
the health of the watershed changing over time?”
All of the components of the monitoring program
will be used to answer this question and many
others that will form a subset to this.
Conservation Halton staff member
measuring a tree stump as part of down
wooody debris monitoring
Conservation Halton
74
Figure 34: Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN) Plot Locations
within the Three Sampling Areas
Conservation Halton
75
2.2.1
Ecological Land Classification
Ecological Land Classification (ELC) uses a hierarchical approach to identify recurring
ecological patterns on the landscape in order to compartmentalize complex natural
variation into a reasonable number of meaningful ecosystem units (Bailey et al. 1978).
This facilitates a comprehensive and consistent approach for ecosystem description,
inventory and interpretation (Lee et al. 1998).
Ecological Land Classification was initiated within the Conservation Halton watershed in
2001 and continued through to 2011 in order to document plant communities to
vegetation type. In recent years, work has focussed primarily on various Conservation
Halton properties undergoing a master plan update process. Initially, ELC is completed
through air photo interpretation, which identifies and groups plant communities by
Community Series. Community Series are fairly broad descriptors distinguishing between
the types of communities based on whether the community has open, shrub or treed
vegetation cover as well as whether the plant form is deciduous, coniferous or mixed
(Lee et al. 1998). A site visit is required to collect data for determining the Vegetation
Type (e.g. Dry-Fresh Maple-Oak Deciduous Forest Type). Vegetation Types are the
finest level of resolution in the ELC and include specific species occurrences within the
site.
In 2011 the sampling of Kelso Conservation Area was continued for ELC. It was
surveyed in order to document plant communities to Vegetation Type. Small portions of
Lake Medad ESA and Grindstone Creek Resource Management Area were also
inventoried. Figure 35 illustrates sites visited in the 2011 field season. Brief descriptions
of the properties surveyed are included below.
Kelso Conservation Area
Kelso Conservation Area is located within the
West Branch subwatershed of the Sixteen Mile
Creek watershed. It contains a large reservoir
built for flood control in the early 1960’s.
Extensive plant inventory work and community
mapping was undertaken in support of the
previous version of the master plan, however this
work pre-dated the establishment of ELC. ELC
was completed at Kelso Conservation Area on a
broad scale during the Natural Areas Inventory of
2003-2004 when the major vegetation
communities were defined, but the area was
revisited in 2011 in order to perform a more
detailed inventory to inventory some of the small
communities and inclusions to meet the needs of
the Conservation Halton Parks Master Plan updates.
Conservation Halton
Kelso Talus Slope
76
The park contains a wide range of ELC communities including rare cliff and talus
communities associated with the Niagara Escarpment, a defining feature within the park.
There is a high representation of early successional communities and communities in
different stages of regeneration. Included in this variety of communities is escarpment
cliff face, talus, maple-oak forest, regenerating fields, plantations, swamps, thickets and
meadow marshes. The dominant mature natural community in the park is the maple-oak
forests.
Some parts of the park have patches of invasive species. Garlic Mustard (Alliaria
petiolata) occurs throughout the park and it is quite extensive in some areas but in low
numbers in others. Other invasive species are also onsite and dominate in some areas
such as Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo), Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum),
Dog-strangling Vine (Cynanchum rossicum) and Black Locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia).
Onsite but mainly contained to the former homestead areas are a number of invasive
garden escapees such as Orange Day Lily (Hemerocallis fulva), Lily-of-the-Valley
(Convallaria majalis), Periwinkle (Vinca minor) and Common Comfrey (Symphytum
officinale). Control measures should be enacted to prevent these garden invasives from
spreading more into the natural areas of the park.
Lake Medad ESA
The vernal pools surveyed in early spring for salamander breeding were revisited later in
the season to describe and define vegetation communities. Due to time constraints only
the vernal pool areas were inventoried. The first vernal pool was determined to be Black
Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD2-1) and west of that a Swamp Maple Mineral
Deciduous Swamp (SWD3-3) and the second vernal pool area was mainly composed of
Silver Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp (SWD3-2) with a pond area inclusion typed as a
Bur-reed Shallow Organic Marsh (MAS3-7).
Grindstone Creek Resource Management Area
The vernal pools surveyed in early spring for salamander breeding were revisited later in
the season to describe and define vegetation communities. Due to time constraints only
the vernal pool areas were inventoried and were determined to be the following meadow
marsh communities; Jewelweed Meadow Marsh (MAM2-9), Reed-canary Grass Meadow
Marsh (MAM2-2) with a small central area dominated by Duckweed, and a second Reed
Canary Grass (MAM2-2) surrounding an area of shallow water dominated by Duckweed
(SAF1-3). Surrounding areas were confirmed to be Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple – Lowland
Ash DeciduousForest, as stated in previous inventories. As such, no further updates were
required.
Conservation Halton
77
Figure 35: Ecological Land Classification Sites Visited in 2011
Conservation Halton
78
2.2.2
Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN)
In 2006 Conservation Halton began
its long term monitoring program for
forest health using the Ecological
Monitoring and Assessment Network
(EMAN) protocols. Although EMAN
no longer exists as an organization,
the protocols and methods which it
developed are still used by a variety
of conservation authorities and nonprofit organizations. This has
allowed for continued partnership
between organizations outside of the
formal network established through
EMAN. These partnerships continue
A 1 m X 1 m ground vegetation monitoring plot
to assist organizations with
monitoring and research that is essential for identifying, understanding and explaining
observed changes to forest ecosystems.
To date, Conservation Halton has set up eighty-three 20 x 20 m EMAN plots spread out
over 12 stations (Figure 36). The first station was established in 2006 as a group of ten
20 x 20 m plots within the Grindstone Creek watershed (Waterdown Escarpment Woods
Resources Management Area). In 2007, Conservation Halton set up its first one hectare
station in the Bronte Creek watershed at Rattlesnake Point Conservation Area. In 2008,
another one hectare station was set up at Glenorchy Conservation Area. Both one hectare
stations consist of 25 20 x 20m plots which are only monitored in their entirety every five
years. Conservation Halton plans to monitor tree health, tree canopy class, tree height,
ground cover, sapling regeneration, woody debris decomposition rates and plethodontid
(lung-less) salamander abundances within these EMAN plots. These components of the
overall EMAN monitoring framework will be described as they are added to the program.
Twenty-three EMAN plots were added to the terrestrial monitoring program in 2011,
bringing the total number of 20 x 20 m plots across the watershed to eighty-three. These
were placed throughout the watershed such that 15 20 x 20 m plots are located in each of
the three sampling areas. They were predominantly added to the eastern and western
areas as the central area has a high proportion of the previously established plots. A
summary of the plots is found in Table 7. In addition to the new plots, 2 x 2 m shrub subplots were added to the existing plots at Waterdown Escarpment Woods Resource
Management Area, Glenorchy Conservation Area and Rattlesnake Point Conservation
Area.
Conservation Halton
79
Figure 36: Terrestrial Monitoring Locations
Conservation Halton
80
Table 7: EMAN Monitoring Plots by Area
Area 1: Eastern Watershed
Glenorchy Conservation Area (1 ha)
North Oavkille (Town of Oakville)
Iroquois Shoreline Woods Park (Town of
Oakville)
Drumquin Park (Town of Milton)
Wildflower Woods Resource Management
Area
Total
Area 2: Central Watershed
Speyside Resource Management Area
Waterdown Escarpment Woods Resource
Management Area
Rattlesnake Point Conservation Area (1 ha)
Total
Area 3: Western Watershed
Mountsberg Conservation Area
Burns Conservation Area
Yaremko Resource Management Area
Twiss Resource Management Area
Total
Final Total
Number of plots to be monitored
Ground
Tree
Shrub
Vegetation
7
24
24
2
8
8
2
8
8
2
2
8
8
8
8
15
56
56
2
10
8
36
8
36
3
15
12
56
12
56
8
2
3
2
15
45
28
8
12
8
56
168
28
8
12
8
56
168
Beginning in 2013, Conservation Halton will monitor all of its plots following a panel
design, such that each plot will be monitored following full EMAN protocols once every
five years. Every year three plots from each area will be monitored.
Under the EMAN monitoring program tree health/tree condition, shrub and sapling
regeneration, ground cover biodiversity and plethodontid salamander abundance were
monitored in 2011. Within each 20 m x 20 m plot the health of each tree over 10 cm
diameter at breast height (dbh) was monitored. This included tree status (alive or dead),
stem defects (i.e. fungus, open wounds, closed wounds, blights or cankers), crown class
(place in the canopy: dominant, co-dominant, intermediate or suppressed) and crown
rating (fullness of the crown). Tree height and diameter at breast height measurements
are conducted every 5 years.
Shrub and sapling regeneration was measured in each plot at 2 m x 2 m quadrats. These
are located outside of the main plot at the middle of each edge with the centre of each
Conservation Halton
81
quadrat placed 2 m from the edge of the main plot and marked with a plastic pipe. All
trees and shrubs 0.16 – 2 m tall were recorded as seedlings and those greater than 2 m
were recorded as saplings.
Ground cover biodiversity was measured at each EMAN monitoring location using a 1 m
x 1 m quadrat marked by small wooden stakes. These smaller plots are scattered
throughout the 20 m x 20 m plots, mainly along the edges to avoid trampling. In the new
EMAN plots the 1 m x 1 m quadrats have been placed within the 2 m x 2 m shrub and
sapling plots. These are re-located each year and a 1 m x 1 m wooden square is laid in
conjunction with the small wooden stake in the same location as previous years. All
herbaceous vegetation (forbs, grasses, sedges, ferns) and trees and shrubs less than 16 cm
in height are recorded along with the overall percent cover for each species within the 1
m x 1 m quadrat. Ground vegetation was monitored bi-annually, in spring and midsummer, to ensure accurate identification of species and to capture plants blooming
through the season. Methodology followed standardized EMAN protocols (RobertsPichette and Gillespie 1999).
Conservation Halton’s Artificial Cover
Object (ACO) design is based on the
MNR plethodontid salamander
sampling protocol (OMNR 2001).
These are wooden boards,
approximately 20 cm x 75 cm in size.
Small bridging pieces are nailed to the
lower board and two 10 cm x 75 cm
cover boards are placed on each bridge
support. This creates a small space
between the lower board and the cover
board. This double-decker
construction helps to mimic
salamanders’ natural habitat of rotting
Conservation Halton staff member checking an
logs and other woody debris found on
Artifiical Cover Object (ACO) for salamanders
the forest floor. It provides a range of
cavity sizes, as different sized salamanders prefer habitat cavities of different heights. In
the fall the boards are placed on the forest floor in direct contact with the soil. This
allows the boards to weather over one winter before the first field visit is conducted.
Beginning in the spring the ACOs are checked for salamanders every other week for a
twelve week period. Salamanders are recorded from both between the top cover boards
and under the lower board. Each visit is completed at the same time of day and the
species and age class of each individual is recorded. Total number of salamanders under
each board is also recorded.
Plethodontid salamanders are particularly easy to monitor with Artificial Cover Objects.
These salamanders have long life spans (10+ years), low birth rates, small home ranges
and are a very common component of the forest ecosystem. They are lung-less and
complete their entire life cycle on the forest floor. Being lung-less, they respire mainly
Conservation Halton
82
through their skin, making them sensitive to pollutants and changes in forest floor
moisture levels. Other stressors that will alter the quality of the soil, or the amount of
direct sunlight onto their habitat (the ACO) can also impact the salamander population.
Therefore once ACOs are established around a plot the population of salamanders
inhabiting them should be fairly stable through time. As a result changes to their
environment that are detrimental to the population should be evident over the short term.
Analysis
Annual tree mortality was calculated by comparing the number of trees that died in 2010
with the number that died in 2011. Tree height measurement comparisons were made by
assigning the following height classes: less than 10 m, 10-15 m, 15-20 m, 20-25 m, 25-30
m and greater than 30 m. Each plot was analyzed to determine the total number of trees
per class and the change in number per class over a five year period.
Shrub and sapling regeneration was measured for the first time in 2011 and as a result
temporal analysis could not be completed. Spatial trends reported on describe the
dominant regenerative species at each site.
Groundcover biodiversity was analyzed using the five following indices: Floristic Quality
Index (FQI), Mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mCC), Richness, Shannon’s Evenness,
and Shannon’s Diversity Index. A description of each index is provided below.
The Floristic Quality Assessment System for Southern Ontario (Oldham et al. 1995)
assigns Coefficient of Conservatism (CC) scores to native vegetation in Ontario. These
scores are based on a species tolerance to disturbance and habitat fidelity. Mean
Coefficient of Conservatism was calculated by averaging the CC values for each species
present at a site. Both the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Mean CC are measures of
the floristic quality of a given site. The Mean CC value is based solely on the
requirements of the species detected at the site, while FQI incorporates species richness
into its calculations. Richness refers to the total number of species present at a site and is
useful for examining whether a site is able to support a variety of species. However, it
does not take into account the abundance of a species and can be misleading when a plot
has a high number of species, but only one species has a high number of individuals and
therefore species composition is not highly even.
The Shannon’s Index of Diversity is based on species evenness and species richness and
is used to determine how diverse a site is. The Shannon’s Evenness Index is used to
determine how equal the abundance of a species is. Evenness is important for
understanding if plots with similar richness have an even distribution of individuals
among all species or an uneven distribution, with one or two species having the dominant
number of individuals. Values range between 0 and 1, with a value of 0 indicating that a
plot is predominantly covered by few individuals and a value of 1 indicating that a plot is
evenly covered by all individuals or few individuals are present (Credit Valley
Conservation 2010).
Conservation Halton
83
Results
Waterdown Woods Resource Management Area (Grindstone Creek Watershed)
A total of 218 trees larger than 10 cm diameter at breast height (dbh) was measured over
the 10 plots in 2011. Of this total, 57 trees were removed from analysis due to lack of
data and previous death. Tree mortality for the stand from 2010 to 2011 was 3.1%. A
mortality rate of 1-3% is considered normal and can be linked to known disturbances
such as insects and disease. A mortality rate between 3-5% is above normal, but could be
attributed to yearly changes in biotic or abiotic conditions. When the mortality rate is 5%
or greater it reaches a threshold of concern and signals that mortality is not likely a result
of insects, disease, or yearly fluctuations. At this point further study is required to
determine its cause (Sajan, 2006). The mortality rate at Waterdown falls between the 3%
normal rate and 5% threshold of concern for 2010-2011. It is not yet at a level of
concern, but will be monitored closely in the coming years.
Changes in tree height between 2006 and 2011 can be seen in Figure 37. As expected, a
decrease in one category between years corresponds with increases in the next category
between years.
Figure 37: Change in Tree Height Composition between 2006 and 2011 at Waterdown
Escarpment Woods Resource Management Area
Change in Stand Composition between 2006 and 2011
60
Number of Trees
50
40
2006
30
2011
20
10
0
<10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
>30
Tree Height Categories (m)
Shrub and sapling regeneration monitoring was completed in 9 plots in 2011. A total of
279 seedlings was observed and one sapling. Of the total observed, 200 were Sugar
Maple (Acer saccharum) seedlings, accounting for 71.7% of all individuals.
Groundcover biodiversity monitoring was not completed in 2011.
Conservation Halton
84
The forty double-decker ACOs placed around Plot 6 at Waterdown Woods were
monitored this spring for the fifth year in a row. The boards were monitored on April 12,
May 4 and 20, June 6 and July 13, 2011. A total of 625 salamanders was recorded, a 4%
increase over 2010. Of these salamanders 582 were red phase Eastern Red-backed
Salamander (RESA) (Plethodon cinereus), 41 were lead phase Eastern Red-backed
Salamanders (LESA) and two were young Spotted Salamanders (YSSA) (Ambystoma
maculatum). Average snout to vent length was 34.89 mm for the RESA, 33.93 mm for
the LESA and 38 mm for the YSSA. Average vent to tail length was 33.87 mm for the
RESA, 32.41 mm for the LESA and 30 mm for the YSSA. Figure 38 shows the
salamander abundance found at Waterdown Woods from 2007 to 2011.
Figure 38: Salamanders Recorded at Waterdown Woods between 2007 and 2011
Salamanders Recorded under ACOs at Waterdown Woods
Number of Salamanders Recorded
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Rattlesnake Point Conservation Area (Bronte Creek Watershed)
In 2011, tree health was monitored at plots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 21
and 23. A total of 241 trees with a diameter at breast height larger than 10 cm was
observed. Sixty-five trees were removed from analysis due to lack of data or death in
previous years. Tree mortality for the stand from 2010 to 2011 was 4.0%, falling in
between the threshold of concern and the normal mortality rate. Although mortality at
Rattlesnake between 2010 and 2011 was higher than a normal rate, it was not above the
5% threshold indicating an abnormal cause.
Conservation Halton
85
Shrub and sapling regeneration monitoring was completed at 12 plots at Rattlesnake
Point. A total of 136 seedlings and 17 saplings was observed. Sugar Maple was the most
common seedling and sapling, with a total of 118 observations and accounting for 86.8%
and 58.8% of seedlings and saplings respectively.
The twenty double-decker and twenty
single layer ACOs around this one
hectare EMAN plot were monitored
for the fourth time in 2011. The
boards were monitored on April 13,
May 6 and 23, June 9 and 20 and July
15, 2011. A total of 267 salamanders
was recorded, a 50% increase over
2010 (which had 135 salamanders).
This could be partially a result of the
differences in weather (fairly dry
spring in 2010) but most likely a
result of the aging of the boards as the
older boards are more appealing to
An Eastern Red Backed Salamander (Plethodon
the salamanders. Of the total 267
cinereus) amongst some moss
salamanders observed in 2011, 263 of
these were red phase Eastern Red-backed Salamanders (RESA) and four were lead phase
Eastern Red-backed Salamanders (LESA). Average snout to vent length was 34.07 mm
for the RESA and 38.0 mm for the LESA. Average vent to tail length was 36.83 mm for
the RESA and 31.25 mm for the LESA. Figure 39 shows the salamander abundance
found at Rattlesnake Point Conservation Area from 2007 to 2011.
Conservation Halton
86
Figure 39: Salamanders Recorded at Rattlesnake Point Conservation Area between 2008
and 2011
Salamanders Recorded under ACOs at Rattlesnake Point
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Glenorchy Conservation Area (Sixteen Mile Creek Watershed)
A random selection of plots was used to measure tree health at Glenorchy Conservation
Area. These included plots 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19 totalling 248 trees.
Fifty-four trees were removed from analysis due to lack of data and previous tree death.
Tree mortality for the stand from 2010 to 2011 was 0.5% due to the death of only one
tree within the plot. This is below the threshold developed by Sajan (2006) of 5% and is
a decrease from a tree mortality of 4.1% from 2009 to 2010.
Shrub and saplings were monitored at 10 plots at Glenorchy with a total of 17 seedlings
and 14 saplings observed. Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana sp.) was the most common
seedling with a total of 9 observations and accounting for 52.9% of all individuals.
Alternate-leaved Dogwood (Cornus alternifolia) was the most common sapling with a
total of 10 observations and accounting for 71.4% of all individuals.
The forty double-decker ACOs around this one hectare EMAN plot were monitored for
the third time in 2011. The boards were monitored on April 14, May 5 and 24 and June 7
and 29, 2011. A total of 201 salamanders was recorded, a 40% increase over 2010. Of
Conservation Halton
87
the 201 salamanders; 184 were red phase Eastern Red-backed Salamanders (RESA), 11
were lead phase Eastern Red-backed Salamander (LESA), and six were Spotted
Salamander (YSSA). Average snout to vent length was 36.47 mm for the RESA, 36.1
mm for the LESA and 55.67 mm for the YSSA. Average vent to tail length was 38.83
mm for the RESA, 38.6 mm for the LESA and 63 mm for the YSSA. Figure 40 shows the
salamander abundance found at Glenorchy Conservation Area from 2007 to 2011.
Figure 40: Salamanders Recorded at Glenorchy Conservation Area between 2009 and
2011
Salamanders Recorded under ACOs at Glenorchy CA
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2009
2010
2011
Year
New Plots
Six new 20 x 20 m plots were set-up and monitored in 2011. The location of these are:
two plots at Burns Conservation Area, one plot at Mountsberg Conservation Area, one
plot at Speyside Resource Management Area (RMA), one plot at Wildflower Woods
RMA and one plot at Yaremko RMA. All plots were monitored for tree health, shrub and
sapling regeneration and groundcover biodiversity to provide a baseline for future
analysis. As such, tree mortality could not be calculated for 2011.
Shrub and sapling regeneration was monitored in 2011 and the results are presented in
Table 8. No shrub or sapling species were found in the plot at Yaremko RMA. White
Conservation Halton
88
Ash (Fraxinus americana) was the dominant regenerative species across all plots,
accounting for 56.5% of all species.
Table 8: Dominant Shrub and Sapling Species at Burns Conservation Area, Mountsberg
Conservation Area, Speyside RMA and Wildflower Woods RMA plots 2011
Total Observed
Burns
Mountsberg
Conservation Area Conservation Area
Seedling Sapling Seedling Sapling
162
10
35
4
Speyside RMA
Seedling
58
Sapling
2
Wildflower Woods
RMA
Seedling Sapling
16
5
Dominant Species
Buckthorn
species
(Rhamnus sp.)
Choke Cherry
Sugar Maple
White Ash
Witch Hazel
(Hamamelis sp.)
--
--
--
--
--
--
4
--
--
--
--
--
32
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
4
--
111
7
34
3
--
2
4
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
4
Groundcover biodiversity was completed for plots listed above. Table 9 and Figure 41
describe the groundcover biodiversity indices baseline values for the new monitoring
plots.
Table 9: Health Indices for Groundcover Biodiversity at Burns Conservation Area,
Mountsberg Conservation Area, Speyside RMA, Wildflower Woods RMA and Yaremko
RMA 2011
Burns
Conservation
Area
3.55
Mountsberg
Conservation
Area
2.80
Floristic Quality
Index
Richness
11.90
Shannon’s Index of
Diversity
Shannon's
Evenness
Health Index
Mean Coefficient
of Conservatism
Speyside
RMA
Wildflower
Woods RMA
Yaremko
RMA
4.65
5.00
4.33
9.29
21.80
18.71
10.61
22.00
13.00
23.00
14.00
6.00
2.08
2.08
2.36
1.67
1.09
0.82
0.81
0.75
0.63
0.61
Conservation Halton
89
Figure 41: Health Indices for Groundcover Biodiversity at Burns Conservation Area,
Mountsberg Conservation Area, Speyside RMA, Wildflower Woods RMA and Yaremko
RMA 2011
Summary of Biodiversity Indices for Groundcover 2011
25
Mean Coefficient of
Conservatism
Index Values
20
Floristic Quality
Index
15
Richness
10
Shannon’s Index of
Diversity
5
Shannon's
Evenness
0
Burns
Mountsberg
Conservation Conservation
Area
Area
Speyside
RMA
Wildflower
Woods RMA
Yaremko
RMA
Properties
Both the mean Coefficient of Conservatism (mCC) value and the Floristic Quality Index
(FQI) for Burns Conservation Area, Mountsberg Conservation Area and Yaremko RMA
are low indicating that they are currently not floristically diverse areas. The mean CC
value and FQI for Speyside RMA and Wildflower Woods RMA are both greater than 4.5
and greater than 18 respectively. This indicates that there are numerous species present
at each site that require specialized habitat and have a relatively low tolerance for
disturbance, as well as a diverse number of native species at each site.
In addition to the plots listed above, 17 new plots were set-up but not monitored in 2011.
These are located such that there are two plots at Twiss RMA, two plots at Drumquin
Woods Park (Milton), and two plots at Iroquois Shoreline Woods Park (Oakville). An
additional seven plots were established at Mountsberg Conservation Area, two plots were
established at Yaremko RMA, one plot was established at Wildflower Woods RMA and
one plot was established at Speyside RMA. These plots will be monitored for baseline
conditions in 2012.
Tree height was measured at all 25 new plots to provide baseline values for future
analysis.
Conservation Halton
90
2.2.3
Marsh Monitoring (Amphibians and Marsh Birds)
Amphibian monitoring was completed
following the protocols in the Marsh
Monitoring Program (MMP). This
protocol uses an "unlimited distance"
semi-circular sampling area. Each
amphibian station was visited on three
nights, no less than fifteen days apart,
during the spring and early summer.
Stations were surveyed in sequence,
starting about the same time on all visits
(BSC 2006a). The visits were dictated
by ambient air temperature as follows:
•
•
•
•
Wood Frogs (Rana sylvatica) are one of the first
The first visit was undertaken
frogs to call in the spring time
with a minimum night-time air
temperature of at least 50C and after the warm rains of spring had begun
The second visit was undertaken once the night-time air temperature was at least
100C and
The third visit was undertaken once the night-time air temperature was at least
170C.
Each station was surveyed for three minutes and the surveys started one half hour
after sunset and ended before midnight. All surveys were conducted in weather
conducive to monitoring amphibians (i.e. on a warm, moist night with little or no
wind). All amphibians heard and their associated calling codes were documented
to provide a general index of abundance. The call codes are as follows:
•
•
•
Code 1 – Individuals can be counted; calls not simultaneous. This number
is assigned when individual males can be counted and when the calls of
individuals of the same species do not start at the same time.
Code 2 – Calls distinguishable; some simultaneous calling. This code is
assigned when there are a few males of the same species calling
simultaneously. A reliable estimate of the abundance (rough number or
range of individuals heard) should be made.
Code 3 – Full chorus; calls continuous and overlapping. This value is
assigned when a full chorus is encountered. A full chorus is when there
are so many males of one species calling that all the calls sound like they
are overlapping and continuous. There are too many for a reasonable
count or estimate, therefore no abundance is recorded.
Conservation Halton
91
The marsh bird monitoring also followed the
Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) protocol
(BSC 2006b). This program uses a "fixed
distance" semi-circular sampling area. Surveys
were conducted from a central point located on
the edge of a 100 m radius semi-circle sample
area. Each marsh bird monitoring station was
surveyed twice each year between May 20 and
July 5, no less than 10 days apart. Routes were
surveyed in their entirety, in the same station
sequence, at about the same time on all visits.
All surveys began after 6 p.m. and ended at or
before sunset. Each station was surveyed for 10
minutes. A five-minute broadcast tape was
played during the first half of the survey in order
to ensure that data were collected on some
important, but shy marsh birds
Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia)
(Dick Daniels)
In addition to the collection of amphibian and marsh bird population information, habitat
information was also collected. The vegetation surrounding each station was recorded
and a general map was drawn of the station location and vegetation structure.
Summary and Analysis
Table 10 below summarizes the field work completed for marsh bird monitoring in 2011.
All calculations use birds recorded in stations only, not flyovers. All surveys were
completed within suitable weather conditions. A summary of the species seen and heard
at the marsh bird monitoring stations is available in Appendices 10-12.
Table 10: Summary of Marsh Monitoring Program Bird Survey Dates and Times in 2011
Location
Hilton Falls Conservation
Area
Mountsberg Conservation
Area
Fuciarelli Resource
Management Area
Total
Stations
Survey Dates
3
June 6 and
June 29
June 21 and
July 5
June 15, 21
and July 5
3
4
Survey
Times
7:00 9:00 p.m.
7:00 8:30 p.m.
5:30 7:30 p.m.
10
Similarly, Table 11 summarizes the field work completed for marsh amphibian
monitoring in 2011. All surveys were completed in suitable weather conditions and
during the dates specified by the Marsh Monitoring Program. A summary of the species
Conservation Halton
92
seen and heard at the amphibian marsh monitoring stations is available in Appendices 1315.
Table 11: Summary of MMP Amphibian Surveys 2011
Location
Hilton Falls Conservation
Area
Mountsberg Conservation
Area
Fuciarelli Resource
Management Area
Total
Stations
2
3
4
Survey
Times
April 13, May
9:00 –
11, June 30
11:00 pm
April 13, May
8:45 –
11, June 30
11:30 pm
April 13, May
8:30 –
23, June 15
10:30 pm
Survey Dates
9
As a result of the marsh monitoring activities, species richness and abundance
calculations were completed for both the marsh bird and amphibian communities in 2011.
Species richness refers to the number of species counted at each station and species
abundance refers to the number of individual birds/amphibians counted. Figure 42
illustrates bird species richness and abundance in 2011, and Figure 43 illustrates
amphibian species richness in 2011.
Figure 42: Marsh Monitoring Program Bird Survey Data 2011
Conservation Halton
93
Figure 43: Marsh Monitoring Program Amphibian Survey Data 2011
The Index of Marsh Bird Community Integrity (IMBCI) was used to examine how each
marsh’s ability to support indicator species has changed over time. This index uses
species characteristics (nesting habitat, foraging habitat, migratory status and breeding
range) and the richness of marsh obligates to determine the health of a marsh ecosystem
(DeLuca et al. 2004). Further information collected at each monitoring location is
documented below.
Hilton Falls Conservation Area
Nine species of birds were observed during the Marsh
Monitoring Program this year. Of special note are
the Great Crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) and
Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) which have not
been seen on this property since 2007 and 2008
respectively. Additionally, the Ring-billed Gull
(Larus delawarensis) was seen for the first time
during marsh monitoring at Hilton Falls. Red-winged
Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) was the most
abundant species, as has been the trend for the
previous nine years. Species composition at Hilton
Falls for 2011 is shown in Figure 44.
Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) was
observed at Hilton Falls for the first time in
2011
Conservation Halton
94
The Index of Marsh Bird Community Integrity (IMBCI) for Hilton Falls is shown in
Figure 45. Trends in this index are correlated with changes in the richness of marsh
obligate species. Although no marsh obligate species were found at Hilton Falls in 2011,
Station B has historically supported a higher number of marsh obligate species than
Station A, explaining why Station B is showing a decreasing trend while Station A
remains consistent.
Frogs heard during the surveys at Hilton Falls Conservation Area this year were typical
of previous results. Over the ten years of study most of the species have been heard
regularly with the exception of the Western Chorus Frog (Pseudacris triseriata), a
species of Special Concern which was heard during the first survey in 2001 and again
from 2006-2009 but was not heard in the last two years. The Western Chorus Frog is one
of the very first to start calling in the spring. The Green Frog was heard in relatively high
numbers in 2011 with 23 individuals estimated calling at the last visit, more than twice
the number normally heard. Species composition observed at Hilton Falls for 2011 is
shown in Figure 46.
Figure 44: Bird Species Recorded at Hilton Falls Conservation Area within a 100 m
Fixed Distance
Conservation Halton
95
Figure 45: Index of Marsh Bird Community Integrity from 2001 - 2011 for Hilton Falls
Conservation Area
Hilton Falls Conservation Area Index of Marsh Bird
Community Integrity
Index Value
12
10
Station A
Station B
Station C
Station D
8
6
4
2
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Figure 46: Estimated Amphibian Relative Abundance based on Call Strength at Hilton
Falls Conservation Area
Conservation Halton
96
Mountsberg Conservation Area
Fifteen species of birds were observed during the Marsh Monitoring Program this year.
Of special note are the American Goldfinch (Spinus tristis), Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla
cedrorum), Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
and Song Sparrow last seen in 2008, 2006, 2008, 2006 and 2007 respectively. Redwinged Blackbird was the most abundant species as has been the trend for the previous
five years. Species composition at Mountsberg Conservation Area is shown in Figure 47.
The Index of Marsh Bird Community Integrity (IMBCI) for Mountsberg is shown in
Figure 48. All three stations have shown decline over the sampling period. In 2010 the
index values for both Stations A and C more than doubled as a result of a higher richness
of marsh obligate species. Two marsh obligate species were found at Station A, one was
found at Station B, and no obligate species were found at Station C in 2011.
The species of frogs heard at Mountsberg Conservation Area for 2011 was typical
compared to previous years, but the number of individuals had decreased (for all species
except the Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) from those heard in 2010. Between one
and five individuals of each species were estimated to be calling during visits with the
exception of the Spring Peeper which was heard at a full chorus on all three of the visits.
Species composition observed at Mountsberg Conservation Area is shown in Figure 49.
Figure 47: Bird Species Recorded at Mountsberg Conservation Area within a 100 m
Fixed Distance
*indicates a Marsh Obligate species
Conservation Halton
97
Figure 48: Index of Marsh Bird Community Integrity from 2001 - 2011 for Mountsberg
Conservation Area
Mountsberg Conservation Area Index of Marsh Bird
Community Integrity
12
Index Value
10
8
6
4
2
Station A
Station B
Station C
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Figure 49: Estimated Amphibian Abundance based on Call Strength at Mountsberg
Conservation Area
Conservation Halton
98
Fuciarelli Resource Management Area
Twenty-one species of marsh birds were
observed during the Marsh Monitoring
Program this year. Of special note are the
Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Cedar
Waxwing, Green Heron (Butorides
virescens) and Song Sparrow which have not
been seen since 2001, 2007, 2004 and 2008
respectively. Additionally, the American
Coot (Fulica americana), Chipping Sparrow
(Spizella passerina), Cliff Swallow
(Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), House Wren
(Troglodytes aedon) and Ruby-throated
Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) were
An American Coot (Fulica Americana) was
observed for the first time during marsh
observed at Fuciarelli for the first time in 2011
monitoring at Fuciarelli. Tree Swallow
(Dick Daniels)
(Tachycineta bicolor) was the most abundant
species with 17 individuals present throughout the sampling season. Species composition
at Fuciarelli is shown in Figure 50.
The Index of Marsh Bird Community Integrity (IMBCI) for Fuciarelli is shown in Figure
51. All four stations have remained relatively stable over the monitoring period. Stations
B and C have shown decreases in recent years, while Stations A and D have shown
increases. Two marsh obligate species were found at Stations A and Station B while one
was found at Station C and Station D in 2011.
Spring Peeper (Pseudacris crucifer)
Frog species heard at the Fuciarelli Resource
Management Area over the ten years of
monitoring have remained fairly consistent, with
the exception of Pickerel Frogs (Rana palustris)
heard in the 2008 surveys and again in the 2011
surveys. This species had not been heard
previous to 2008 surveys, when 11 were
estimated to be calling. In the 2011 survey six
individuals were estimated to be calling. Reasons
for the significant changes in this species’
numbers detected at this site from year to year
are unknown. Species composition observed at
Fuciarelli Resource Management Area is shown
in Figure 52.
Conservation Halton
99
Figure 50: Bird Species Recorded at Fuciarelli Resource Management Area within a
100m Fixed Distance
*Indicates a Marsh Obligate species
Figure 51: Index of Marsh Bird Community Integrity from 2001 - 2011 for Fuciarelli
Resource Management Area
Fuciarelli Resource Management Area Index of Marsh
Bird Community Integrity (2001 - 2011)
12
Index Value
10
Station A
Station B
Station C
Station D
8
6
4
2
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Conservation Halton
100
Figure 52: Estimated Amphibian Abundance based on Call Strength at Fuciarelli
2.2.4
Forest Bird Monitoring
The Forest Bird Monitoring Program (FBMP) is administered by the Ontario Region of
the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. The FBMP began in Ontario in
1987 to provide information on population trends and habitat associations of birds that
breed in the forest interior. Carried out throughout the province, volunteers perform 10
minute point counts at stations twice between late May and early July, identifying all
birds by song or sight. Specifically, the first visit is made between May 24 and June 17,
and the second visit between June 13 and July 10, with at least six days between visits.
The stations are visited in the early morning between 5 and 10 a.m. and within a half an
hour of the previous year’s visit. Surveys are conducted in calm to light winds (< 15kph)
and in clear or slightly damp conditions. Surveys are not conducted in the rain. All
stations within a site are completed on the same day. Stations are 100 m circular “fixed
distance" sampling areas (Environment Canada, 2006).
Summary of Results
In 2011, Conservation Halton staff surveyed seven sites, Hilton Falls Central within
Robertson Tract (Sixteen Mile Creek watershed), Bronte-Burloak Woods (Sheldon Creek
watershed), Waterdown Escarpment Woods Resource Management Area (Grindstone
Creek watershed), Rattlesnake Point Conservation Area (Bronte Creek watershed)
Conservation Halton
101
Glenorchy Conservation Area (Sixteen Mile Creek watershed), Kelso Conservation Area
(Sixteen Mile Creek watershed), and Wildflower Woods Resource Management Area
(Joshua’s Creek Watershed). All data was collected under suitable weather conditions.
Between these seven sites were a total of twenty-two stations. Field sampling is
summarized in Table 12 and Figure 53.
Table 12: Summary of FBMP Data 2011
Location
Stations
Survey Dates
Hilton Falls Central (HFC)
5
Bronte-Burloak Woods
(BBW)
Waterdown Escarpment
Woods RMA (WEW)
Rattlesnake Point
Conservation Area (RSP)
Glenorchy Conservation Area
(GCA)
(KCA)
Wildflower Woods Resource
Management Area (WFW)
Total
2
June 12 and
June 30
June 9 and
June 17
June 6 and
June 17
June10 and
July 5
June 6 and
June 27
June 6 and
June 20
June 9
4
3
3
4
1
Survey
Times
6:30 - 9:00
a.m.
7:30 - 8:30
a.m.
8:30 - 9:45
a.m.
8:45-9:30
a.m.
9:15 - 10:15
a.m.
8:00 - 9:30
a.m.
6:15 a.m.
22
Species
Richness
25
Species
Abundance
80
12
24
20
44
26
52
22
40
16
43
4
4
49
287
American Goldfinch and Great Crested
Flycatcher were both equally the most
abundant species at Bronte-Burloak Woods.
Blue Jay, American Goldfinch, and American
Robin (Turdus migratorius) were equally the
most abundant at Glenorchy Conservation
Area. Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus) and
Eastern Wood-Pewee (Contopus virens) were
equally the most abundant at Hilton Falls
Conservation Area. Red-eyed Vireo was also
the most abundant at both Rattlesnake Point
Conservation Area and Kelso Conservation
Great Crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus
Area. American Goldfinch and Red-eyed Vireo
crinitus)
were equally the most abundant at Waterdown
(Dick Daniels)
Escarpment Woods Resource Management
Area. Each of the species at Wildflower Woods Resource Management area had an equal
abundance. Red-eyed Vireo was encountered at every station in 2011, while the second
most encountered species was American Goldfinch. A summary of all species observed
can be found in Appendix 16.
Conservation Halton
102
Figure 53: Summary of Forest Bird Monitoring Program by Site 2011
Summary of Forest Bird Monitoring Program 2011
25
Species Abundance
Species Richness
Number Present
20
15
10
5
0
A
B
C
Hilton Falls (HFC)
D
E
A
D
Rattlesnake (RSP)
C
A
B
C
D
A
Waterdown Escarpment Woods (WEW)
Location
Conservation Halton
B
C
Kelso (KCA)
103
D
A
B
Glenorchy
A
B
Bronte-Burloak
Woods (BBW)
A
Wildflower
Woods
(WFW)
Species richness refers to the number of species counted at each station and species abundance
refers to the number of individual birds counted. Area-sensitive species were detected at all of
the survey locations. A list of these species and the locations in which they were observed is
provided in Table 13.
Table 13: Area Sensitive Species Recorded at Each Location
Species
American Redstart
(Setophaga ruticilla)
Black-and-White
Warbler (Mniotilta
varia)
Black-throated Green
Warbler (Setophaga
virens)
Brown Creeper
(Certhia americana)
Location
HFC
√
BBW
WEW
RSP
Requirements
GCA
KEL
WFW
Requires >100 ha forest area
√
Requires >100 ha continuous
forest
√
√
√
√
Hairy Woodpecker
(Picoides villosus)
Requires approximately 30 ha
of contiguous forest to
complete its lifecycle with a
multi-level canopy and well
developed shrub layer
√
√
√
Ovenbird (Seiurus
aurocapilla)
Pileated Woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus)
√
√
√
√
Scarlet Tanager
(Piranga olivacea)
Sharp-shinned Hawk
(Accipiter striatus)
√
√
Veery (Catharus
fuscescens)
White-breasted
Nuthatch (Sitta
carolinensis)
√
√
Requires trees >25 cm DBH;
requires approximately 4-8 ha
of contiguous forest
√
√
Requires >40 ha with trees
>25 cm DBH for nesting and
trees >40 cm DBH for
roosting
√
√
√
Requires 30 ha with dead
trees >25 cm DBH with loose
bark for nesting
Requires 4 ha of dense canopy
closure for nesting
Requires 10 ha forest area
√
√
Conservation Halton
Requires approximately 10 ha
of contiguous forest to
complete its lifecycle
104
Species
Location
HFC
Winter Wren
(Troglodytes
troglodytes)
Yellow-throated Vireo
(Vireo flavifrons)
Pine Warbler
(Setophaga pinus)
Number of Area
Sensitive Species
2.2.5
BBW
WEW
RSP
√
Requirements
GCA
KEL
WFW
Requires >30 ha forest; nests
in trees >10 cm DBH
√
√
10
√
1
1
8
4
Mature pine (red to lesser
degree) forests that are
somewhat open; requires at
least 15-30 ha to complete its
lifecycle
4
1
Forest Pest Monitoring
The forest health monitoring program was established in 1992 in an effort to monitor Gypsy
Moth (Lymantria dispar) populations on Conservation Halton lands. The monitoring is
completed using two methods. The first is to establish a Modified Kaladar Plot (MKP). This
becomes the permanent sample plot for the monitoring. Seventeen plots have been established
for this monitoring program. The MKP represents an area of 0.01 hectares (measured at 10 m x
10 m) and is located away from open areas such as roads or trails to avoid inflated counts caused
by the "edge effect". Above ground and on ground egg masses are counted and a formula is used
to determine egg masses/hectare. Egg mass surveys are completed in the fall each year. The
second method is to conduct pheromone trapping of the male Gypsy Moths. Pheromone traps
are baited with a bio-lure of the female, to attract
the males into the plastic traps. The traps are set
out in the permanent sample plots prior to July 1,
and remain in the plots until just after Labour Day.
The moths are counted twice weekly and recorded.
The monitoring provides Conservation Halton staff
with details of potential outbreaks of Gypsy Moth
and an annual record of trapped male moths in the
permanent sample plots. This monitoring led to the
successful aerial spray program in May of 2008 of
selected properties in the southern portion of the
watershed, combined with a natural collapse in the
Gypsy Moth population. Egg mass sampling in
2009 and 2010 indicated continued low populations
and little to no threat of severe defoliation.
Trap used for monitoring Emerald Ash Borer
Conservation Halton staff are concerned about invasive forest pests and continue to document
and monitor both the Asian Long-horned Beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) and Emerald Ash
Conservation Halton
105
Borer (Agrilus planipennis). Asian Long-horned Beetle has not been detected in Conservation
Halton’s watershed. The outbreak has been contained within the City of Toronto. Emerald Ash
Borer has been found and confirmed in the Region of Halton, specifically within the Town of
Oakville in 2008. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has placed the entire Greater
Toronto Area, which includes the Region of Halton, in an area regulated by Ministerial Order.
The CFIA regulation bans the movement of ash wood products from regulated areas to nonregulated areas, to help reduce the rate of spread of the insect. At this time, ash trees are
inspected for Emerald Ash Borer as they are removed through our hazard tree program and
reported to the Forestry Coordinator. No finds of EAB have been documented, except those in
Oakville. In 2012, CH plans to carry out EAB trapping following CFIA protocols in forested
areas, using NRC/CFS recommended green prism traps. The trapping period is approximately
from May to September. The traps will be analyzed by CFIA to determine whether EAB adults
were collected.
Currently Ash decline, Oak decline, Beech bark disease, Butternut canker and Red Pine pocket
decline are being observed in both private and public forested lands in Halton. Two-lined
Chestnut Borer (Agrilus bilineatus) has recently been observed in Mount Nemo Conservation
Area. To monitor Butternut canker, the location of Butternut Trees has to be confirmed on
Conservation Halton properties. This is completed through forest land inventory and natural
heritage inventories. Monitoring of Butternut is important as it is listed as an Endangered
Species, under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. The threat to this tree species is the Butternut
canker, a fungal disease that eventually kills the tree. Proper monitoring involves a “health
assessment” of the tree. The purpose of the Butternut Health Assessment is to determine
whether the tree is retainable and important for the recovery of the species. A retainable tree
exhibits characteristics that indicate possible resistance to the Butternut canker. A number of
Conservation Halton staff have been certified by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources as
Butternut Health Assessors. Reports of healthy trees are submitted to the Forest Gene
Conservation Association for follow-up inspections. All incidences of disease are documented
in the perpetual forestry files located at the administration office of Conservation Halton.
Natural Resources Canada conducted aerial surveys and ground truthing in early 2008 and found
Fall Cankerworm (Alsophila pometaria). Moderate to severe defoliation in Hilton Falls, Kelso,
Rattlesnake Point and Crawford Lake Conservation Areas were reported. The defoliation was
initially blamed on Gypsy Moth since the Fall Cankerworm feeds on the same species and at the
same time. No defoliation by Fall Cankerworm was reported by Natural Resources Canada
during 2009 aerial survey inspections. Aerial surveys in 2010 and 2011 did not detect any
further outbreaks of Fall Cankerworm in the Conservation Halton properties.
OMNR carries out aerial defoliation detection throughout the province, followed up by ground
truthing their finds of various forest pests. These surveys detected minor defoliation of Basswood
(Tilia americana) and Red Oak (Quercus rubra) by Japanese Beetle (Popillia japonica) in the
Milton and Oakville areas in 2011, as well as minor defoliation on Sugar Maple caused by Maple
Webworm (Pococera asperatella), south of Scotch Block. There is no indication from the
province as to whether these were significant finds and/or will cause increased defoliation in
2012.
Conservation Halton
106
3.0 Supplemental Monitoring
3.1
Lake Ontario Shoreline Electrofishing
Lake Ontario is a large freshwater lake that
measures approximately 193 km long and 53
km wide making it the fourteenth largest lake
in the world. Despite this, it is the smallest of
the Great Lakes in North America and has
approximately 1,200 km of shoreline habitats.
Shoreline habitats across the lake area are
varied ranging from barrier beaches, coastal
wetlands and rocky shores. Historically, the
shoreline was largely naturalized however over
the past century the shoreline has been
developed and/or altered for recreational
purposes (harbours and public access) and
industry and private developments. As part of
Lake Ontario Shoreline looking at Bronte Harbour
Conservation Halton’s mandate, staff work
with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans to ensure that developments along the shoreline are done in
such a way as to minimize flooding, injury or loss of life and property while ensuring that works
are done in an environmentally sound manner. Through this process, opportunities to enhance
that natural shoreline habitat for fish and other wildlife can be explored.
Approximately 90 species of fish have been recorded
in Lake Ontario including warmwater, coolwater,
native and exotic fish species. In order to gear
potential restoration projects for specific fish
communities, it was important to determine what fish
communities are utilizing the existing shoreline
habitats within the Conservation Halton jurisdiction.
To do so, staff completed boat electrofishing surveys
during the fall in order to see what species are using
the shoreline and river mouth habitats. Sampling was
completed with assistance from the Toronto Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) and their
electrofishing boat. Staff sampled the shoreline
within the Conservation Halton jurisdiction over a
CH staff member with a Freshwater Drum
two-night period, focusing on habitats that included
(Aplodinotus grunniens)
natural cobble beaches, river mouth marshes, previous
habitat enhancement projects (i.e. islands), piers and shorelines hardened with sheet piling,
armourstone or cement breakwalls. In focusing on these areas, staff were able to observe what
habitat types were used by which fish species and whether certain types were more productive or
suitable then others.
Conservation Halton
107
Through the sampling over 600 individual fish were captured, consisting of 27 different species
of fish (Table 14). The majority of the fish captured were Emerald Shiner (Notropis
athernoides) with over 430 individuals captured. This is expected as this species and other small
minnows provide the food base for a number of larger fish species. The next most abundant
species were Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni),
Brown Trout (Salmo trutta), and the exotic and invasive Round Goby (Neogobius
melanostomus). Each of these species had 23 individuals recorded. Other catches included the
capture of 5 large Freshwater Drums (Aplodinotus grunniens), 1 Longnose Gar (Lepisosterus
osseus) and 1 Shorthead Redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum). One Silver Shiner (Notropis
photogensis) considered threatened Provincially and Special Concern Nationally was also
captured within the Sixteen Mile Creek harbour. During the electrofishing staff also observed
spawning runs of both Chinook Salmon and Brown Trout. Chinook Salmon were in high
abundance and sampling at one station in the mouth of Bronte Creek had to stop as the holding
tank on the boat was overwhelmed by the large number of Chinook Salmon captured. Sampling
continued with further Chinook observed but purposely not collected.
The most interesting catch was the capture of
a single Largemouth Bass (Micropterus
salmoides) along the Bronte Creek outer pier.
Although Largemouth Bass are typically
observed in this area, this particular specimen
had been previously captured by the Toronto
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
around the Toronto Islands on June 8, 2011
and tagged as part of a study following the
movements of Largemouth Bass in Lake
Ontario. TRCA followed the movements of
this particular Bass (#095) around the Toronto
Islands until it was last observed leaving the
Toronto Harbour (via Ontario Place) on
Largemouth Bass collected off of Bronte Harbour.
September 29, 2011. It was caught 7 days
Note the yellow tag indicating its part in a study with
later during Conservation Haltons
TRCA.
electrofishing surveys on October 6, 2011
along the Bronte Creek harbor outer break pier. In total this fish swam a straight line distance of
just over 35km from Toronto to Bronte Creek in Oakville. Additional information collected
during the surveys included habitat conditions, lake substrates and water temperatures.
Conservation Halton
108
Table 14: Species Captured During Boat Electrofishing of the Lake Ontario Shoreline 2011
Common Name
Alewife
Black Crappie
Brook Silverside
Brown Trout
Chinook Salmon
Common Shiner
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Golden Shiner
Lake Chub
Largemouth Bass
Longnose Dace
Longnose Gar
Northern Hog Sucker
Pumpkinseed
Rainbow Smelt
Rainbow Trout
Rock Bass
Round Goby
Shorthead Redhorse
Silver Shiner
Spotfin Shiner
Spottail Shiner
White Bass
White Sucker
Yellow Perch
Grand Total
3.2
Scientific Name
Alosa pseudoharengus
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Labidesthes sicculus
Salmo trutta
Onchorynchus tshawytscha
Luxilus cornutus
Notropis athernoides
Aplodinotus grunniens
Dorosoma cepedianum
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Couesius plumbeus
Micropterus salmoides
Rhinichthys cataractae
Lepisosterus osseus
Hypentelium nigricans
Lepomis gibbosus
Osmerus mordax
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Ambloplites rubestris
Neogobius melanostomus
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Notropis photogensis
Cyprinella spiloptera
Notropis hudsonius
Morone chrysops
Catostomus commersoni
Perca flavescens
Number of Fish
1
8
3
23
10+
15
433+
5
23
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
6
4
1
23
1
1
5
1
1
23
3
600+
Rare Species Monitoring
Conservation Halton’s Species At Risk Stewardship Fund projects from 2008 to 2010 filled
extensive knowledge gaps through species at risk surveys and implemented numerous recovery
actions at five conservation areas. During this time, Conservation Halton staff collected new
information on over 2041 centroid coordinates and 117 polygons for species at risk and
provincially tracked species.
The 2011-2012 project shifted focus away from conservation areas, broadening to a landscape
approach to species at risk and focusing on priority species. This project year, Conservation
Halton staff implemented recovery, protection and monitoring measures for three species at risk;
Eastern Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida), Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) and
Conservation Halton
109
Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica) as well as monitoring populations of two species at risk;
Jefferson Salamander (Ambystoma jeffersonianum) and Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus).
Recovery and protection measures included conducting health assessments, removing direct
threats, and creating and enhancing habitat. Information gained through previous years' work
was utilized and built upon.
Highlights of Conservation Halton’s 2011 Species at Risk projects include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reconfirmed Jefferson Salamander vernal pool breeding areas at Drumquin
Woods ESA.
Documented a new population of Jefferson Salamanders within the Grindstone
Creek Resource Management Area.
Documented 9 new Chimney Swift roosting sites.
Mapped and completed preliminary health assessments for an additional 57
Eastern Flowering Dogwood trees.
Documented one new occupied reach for Redside Dace in Sixteen Mile Creek.
Completed decommissioning of trails to protect the habitat of American Ginseng
and other provincially rare plants.
Created 1 full time and 2 part time job opportunities and engaged 8 volunteers
for 90.5 hours of support.
Developed and implemented outreach and awareness activities at various
workshops, events, and media articles.
Compiled information on 673 point and 15 polygon element occurrences for
species at risk and provincially tracked species.
Jefferson Salamander and Unisexual Individuals
The national status of Jefferson salamander was uplisted from Threatened to Endangered in
November 2010, and the province of Ontario followed suit in 2011. The apparent population
trend in Canada is significantly downward, thus increasing the urgency of monitoring this
species and continuing to collect other baseline data. Jefferson Salamander surveys were
completed in April and May of 2011 targeting the Grindstone Creek, Drumquin Woods, Hilton
Falls and King Road areas. DNA samples were taken from individuals caught by dip-netting,
minnow traps, road mortality and from incidental observations. Samples were sent to Dr. Bogart
for DNA analysis at the University of Guelph. Vernal pool polygons were mapped and
described in the study area. Permits for the works were completed and retained during field
investigations relating to the Endangered Species Act (AU-B-001-11) and Scientific Wildlife
Collectors Authorization (1061997).
Spring movement of Jefferson Salamander from the forest to the vernal pools for breeding occurs
during warm wet nights. The weather in 2011 did not provide ideal conditions as there were
several fluctuations in temperature and often predicted overnight rainfalls did not materialize.
This made it difficult to predict when movement would occur or when the optimum time for
trapping was. No single major movement night (or series of nights) was observed; instead there
appeared to be a gradual flow of salamanders on somewhat suitable nights.
Conservation Halton
110
As per the recovery strategy of the species, this monitoring work helps to identify and monitor
extant populations of the Jefferson Salamander. It also provides additional data on population
biology, improving understanding of the ecology of the species (Jefferson Salamander Recovery
Team 2010). Table 15 summarizes the locations and DNA verifications of the specimens
assessed in 2011.
Table 15: Jefferson Salamander 2011 Survey Results
Ambystoma
jeffersonianum
Location
Grindstone Creek
Resource
Management Area
Drumquin Woods
ESA
King Road
Hilton Falls DNA
Study
Totals
GR01
GR02
GR03
DR18
Road Mortality
Survey
BR03 (Britton
Tract)
RO03
(Robertson Tract)
HFXX (On trail)
1
2
7
Ambystoma
jeffersonianum –
laterale
3 (LJJ)
7 (LJJ)
2 (LJJ)
Sample tissue was not viable
-
3 (LJJ)
1
1 (LJ), 14 (LJJ)
-
4 (LJJ), 1 (LJ)
11
2 (LJJ)
32
Grindstone Creek Resource Management
Area
Three vernal pools were sampled within the
Grindstone Creek Resource Management
Area (owned by Conservation Halton)
within the City of Burlington. Jefferson
Salamanders and polyploids were confirmed
in each vernal pool.
The vernal pools (GR 01, 02 and 03) are
located within the Grindstone Creek
floodplain below the Niagara Escarpment
and are all hydrologically connected via
temporary spillway channels. At the final
CH Staff Monitoring Minnow Traps at GR-02
vernal pool (GR03), a narrow channel
drains to the main Grindstone Creek. An oil-like sheen was observed at the vernal pools,
indicating substantial inputs of groundwater. A summary of each vernal pool is shown in Table
16.
Conservation Halton
111
The surrounding floodplain is characterized as a Fresh-Moist Sugar Maple – Hardwood
Deciduous Forest with associates comprised of Bitternut Hickory (Carya cordiformis), White
Ash, Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum), Black Maple (Acer
saccharum ssp. nigrum), Black Ash (Fraxinus nigra), Ironwood (Ostrya virginiana), Blue Beech
(Carpinus caroliniana) and Basswood. The vernal pools are generally free of trees and are
graminoid-forb dominated. A Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentine) has been observed in this
shallow water area on multiple visits.
On April 6, 2011 five minnow traps were set in GR01, 02 and 03 and collected the following
morning. A fourth seasonally inundated area had been identified by airphoto as a vernal pool,
but was not sampled because the water levels were too low to accommodate a minnow trap.
Table 16: Summary of Grindstone Creek Vernal Pools
Vernal Pool
Code
GR01
GR02
GR03
Habitat
Depth
Jewelweed Meadow
20 cm
Marsh (MAM2-9)
Reed-canary Grass
25-30 cm
Meadow Marsh (MAM22) with a small central area
dominated by Duckweed
Reed Canary Grass
25-35 cm
(MAM2-2) surrounding an
area of shallow water
dominated by Duckweed
(SAF1-3)
Other Species Noted
1 Spotted Salamander
21 Green Frog tadpoles, 2
Eastern Newt
6 Spotted Salamander, 1
Green Frog, 16 Jefferson
Complex which were not
sampled
No rainfall occurred in the 24 hours prior to the survey. However, two and three days prior to
setting the traps, there was significant rainfall.
The survey was conducted with no adult mortality. Eggs were attached to traps in GR-02 (one
egg mass on one trap, approximately 12 eggs) and GR03 (5 egg masses on one trap,
approximately 40 eggs). Egg masses were removed carefully and fixed to natural materials
(sticks) and submerged in the vernal pool. Less than 5% of the eggs were damaged in the
process. It was observed that GR03 lacked significant attachment sites. Therefore staff placed
appropriate dead woody branches in the vernal pool to increase attachment habitat.
Egg masses were visible from 10 to 15 cm below the surface and were attached to leaves, grass
and dead branches. The vernal pools were filled with sediment, both suspended and deposited
organic matter. The soil around the vernal pools was comprised of silt-clay-loam, susceptible to
sedimentation in ponds.
Conservation Halton
112
These vernal pools showed an unusually high number of pure Jefferson Salamanders in relation
to the polyploid (Jefferson dominated complex) individuals. Normally pure Jefferson
Salamanders make up only about 5 to 10% of the Jefferson-Complex population, but constituted
41% percent of the sampled population in these ponds. Further study is needed in order to
determine whether this is an accurate representation of this population.
Drumquin Woods ESA
Drumquin Woods Environmentally Sensitive Area is
entirely privately owned by 14 landowners within the
Town of Milton. The ESA consists of a glaciolacustrine
beach ridge and delta, resulting in the formation of
several vernal pools and swamp features dominated by
Silver and Freeman’s Maple (Acer X freemanii )
surrounded by mature Red Oak and American Beech
(Fagus grandifolia) upland forest (North-South
Environmental Inc. and Halton Region 2005).
On July 7, 1990 Dr. Jim Bogart of the University of
Guelph reported Jefferson Salamanders to be present in
the ESA. These were later assessed to be seven larvae
with the genetic makeup of LJJ. Since 1990, no formal
surveys have been completed documenting the presence
and or absence of the species. As part of this project,
Conservation Halton’s objective was to update historical
records of Jefferson Salamanders at this location.
Jefferson Complex Salamander at Drumquin
Woods ESA
Ten of the 14 landowners were contacted through a
mailing program seeking permission to access their woodlot for the purpose of amphibian
surveys. After receiving no positive responses to the letters, Conservation Halton staff went door
to door to priority landowners to attempt to gain access. Two landowners granted access to their
woodlots which contained vernal pool features as identified by ortho-photography interpretation.
On April 14, 2011 eight minnow traps were set in vernal pools throughout the two properties and
were collected the following morning. As it was late in the season, many of the vernal pools
contained egg masses typical of Jefferson Salamander polyploids (DR01, DR17, DR19, DR20)
and, as the adult salamanders had likely left the vernal pools, the traps were empty. One minnow
trap was successful in catching one salamander in vernal pool DR18. The analysis of this
specimens’ genetics was not possible as the sample was deemed not viable for an unknown
reason.
Further surveys should be carried out to better understand the population at Drumquin Woods.
The Drumquin Woods ESA wetlands are unevaluated. Given the potential that a Jefferson
Salamander population has persisted since 1990, it is suggested that the Ontario Wetland
Evaluation System be completed for this wetland complex to highlight its significance.
Conservation Halton
113
Lake Medad ESA
The Ontario Herpetofaunal Summary Atlas includes a record for Jefferson Salamander within the
Lake Medad ESA recorded by William Lamond in August 1990. The specimen was identified
by Dr. Jim Bogart and then stored at the ROM (#23018-21). It was decided this record should be
updated and the site revisited therefore it was added to the 2011 surveys.
Access was granted to two private properties in the ESA with an additional one denied. All
showed potential vernal ponds and wetland area. Staff conducted minnow trap sampling on two
nights. No adults were trapped and no egg masses were observed. A summary of each vernal
pool is shown in Table 17.
Table 17: Summary of Lake Medad Vernal Pools
Vernal Pool
Code
Habitat
Depth
30 cm
LM01
Black Ash Mineral Deciduous
Swamp (SWD2-1) west of that a
Swamp Maple Mineral
Deciduous Swamp (SWD3-3)
LM02
Mainly composed of Silver
75 cm
Maple Mineral Deciduous
Swamp (SWD3-2) with a pond
area typed as a Bur-reed
Shallow Organic Marsh (MAS37)
Other Species Noted
3 Stickleback Minnows
(Gasterostidae spp.)
and 4 Central
Mudminnow (Umbra
limi)
Stickleback Minnows
(Gasterostidae spp.)
Traps were set on the evenings of April 5 and 6, 2011 and checked the following morning.
LM01 received 2 traps on the first night and 4 on the second while LM02 received 8 traps on the
first night and 20 traps on second.
Pond LM01 and surrounding area appears to be connected to the nearby creek during spring
flood conditions. Wood Frogs and Spring Peepers were heard vocalizing in proximity to LM02,
but none were captured in the traps.
Further investigation is needed to determine the location of any breeding ponds in the area.
There are further potential breeding areas within the ESA that were not visited in 2011. Further
surveys in the Lake Medad area should be carried out in order to determine if breeding areas do
occur in the ESA.
King Road Mortality Survey
In the spring of 2011, Conservation Halton undertook a road mortality survey at the request of
the City of Burlington (the City) to assess the potential vehicular impact on the resident Jefferson
Salamander population during the temporary voluntary closure of King Road. This request was
made after Conservation Halton recommended to the City that a closure of King Road be
considered as part of the Waterdown Road Aldershot Transportation Master Plan Environmental
Conservation Halton
114
Assessment, either permanently or on a temporary basis during the spring Jefferson Salamander
migration and breeding period. As part of the King Road Technical Feasibility study, a
temporary road closure was confirmed as one of the preferred alternatives, which the City agreed
to implement.
Jefferson Salamanders have been confirmed in the surrounding area and the road mortality issue
is one that staff have been aware of for a number of years. In 2006 as part of the South
Waterdown Subwatershed Study, a wildlife survey was completed with confirmed Jefferson
Salamander road mortality noted within the limits of this survey work. In addition,
Conservation Halton, in association with the MNR, had been studying the populations on nearby
Conservation Halton lands for a number of years. It is knowledge of the species in this area and
the vehicular impact on this population that prompted our recommendation to close King Road.
Road mortality surveys were performed by
Conservation Halton staff from April 4 to 20, 2011.
Surveys were performed by walking a prescribed
section of King Road starting at 7:30 am following
a night of probable salamander movement (e.g.,
following a night of rain). The road transect
extended from around 1833 King Road to the
driveway of 398 Mountain Brow Road. Surveys
took approximately one hour to complete. Staff
walked down one side of the road and up the other
so that both sides received adequate coverage. Any
amphibian or reptile road mortality observed and
their location on the road were recorded, such as
other salamanders, frogs, toads and snakes. If it
Jefferson Salamander Road (LJJ) Mortality
appeared to be a salamander in the Jefferson
Specimen
complex a sample of tissue was collected, however
in cases of uncertainty a sample was collected regardless. Tissue samples were then sent to Dr.
Bogart, at the University of Guelph for DNA analysis. As an electronic traffic counter had not
been installed to monitor the usage of the section of road subject to the road closure, the number
of cars travelling in either direction during the survey period was recorded.
A total of three Jefferson Salamander complex samples were collected on King Road, two above
and one below the escarpment. The DNA for all three was determined to be Jefferson-dominated
polyploidy (LJJ).
Other road killed amphibians and reptiles observed included multiple frog species (most
unidentifiable to species), a Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) and an Eastern
Gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis).
Hilton Falls DNA Study
Sampling of known ponds continued in the Hilton Forest Complex. This sampling will help
further the understanding of the population dynamics within this large tract of habitat and
Conservation Halton
115
interactions between different ponds and different species (Jefferson, polyploid and Bluespotted) within these ponds. This study was mainly undertaken by Dr. Jim Bogart from the
University of Guelph with assistance from Conservation Halton staff.
On a suitable night the hiking trails were walked to look for any migrating salamanders and two
individuals were encountered on the trails within Hilton Falls Conservation Area south of pond
HF34.
On April 7, 2011 traps were placed in BR01 (4 traps), BR03 (6 traps) and BR04 (4 traps).
Results are listed below;
• BR04 - 28 Spotted Salamanders and one Wood Frog
• BR03 - 10 polyploid (LJJ), one Jefferson Salamander and 46 Spotted Salamanders
• BR01 - 15 Spotted Salamanders captured.
On April 9, 2011 traps were set in BR01 (3 traps), BR02 (4 traps) and BR03 (4 traps). Results
are listed below;
• BR01 - Spotted Salamanders and a Spring Peeper
• BR02 - Spotted Salamanders and a Wood Frog
• RO03 - Spotted Salamanders and 6 Jefferson complex polyploids (4 LJJ, 1 LJ). One
polyploid had evidence of tail clipping from last year so was not sampled this time.
Vegetation in the vernal pools of the Hilton Forest Complex varies. The majority of the vernal
pools are Silver Maple dominated swamps (SWD3-2 and SWD3-3) while BR01 consists of
sections of open water (or submerged vegetation) with cattails dominating adjacent to the road.
Additional sections are dominated by dogwood shrubs and an outer ring consisting of Silver
Maples with some ash.
Bobolink Breeding Bird Surveys
Bobolink surveys were compiled from May 2 to
July 5, 2011 from Conservation Halton staff,
volunteers and reports from the public using the
online reporting form.
Male Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus)
(Alan D. Wilson)
In total, 41 observations of Bobolink were
documented in suitable habitat. Staff
observations were typically made on roadsides
between dawn and 10 am on days with no
precipitation and low wind speed. Habitat
conditions were noted to include hay fields,
pastures (OAG) and open graminoid meadows
(MEGM4-1).
Land ownership was predominantly private (34
observations) with additional observations attributed to four public land parcels (City of
Burlington and Town of Milton), one cemetery, and one Hydro One corridor.
Conservation Halton
116
Additional effort is needed to quantify preferred habitat in Halton and to determine, at a
landscape scale, the location and quantity of habitat remaining on the landscape. This will assist
in recovery and land securement practices to benefit the
Bobolink as well as other open country bird species.
Eastern Flowering Dogwood
During 2010 field surveys, 104 live Eastern Flowering
Dogwood trees were documented. Building upon this,
remaining habitat not yet surveyed was identified
through airphoto interpretation and was targeted for 2011
surveys. This resulted in documenting 57 more trees and
several new populations in Halton.
Field notes were taken for each specimen using the MNR
supplied Cornus florida Census Datasheet. Accurate
UTM locations, site, tree and habitat descriptions were
noted on the datasheets. Table 18 summarizes the
known stems in Halton by ownership type indicating that
the majority of trees are located on privately owned
lands.
Monitoring Eastern Flowering Dogwood
Trees
Table 18: Eastern Flowering Dogwood Observations by Ownership Type
Ownership Type
Private
Ontario Heritage Trust (BTC Managed)
Corporation - Cumis Life Insurance
Company
Conservation Halton
Corporation – Other
Town of Oakville
City of Burlington
Hydro One Networks
Ontario Realty Commission
Number of
Trees
72
29
20
15
14
1
7
2
1
Of the 161 trees documented in Halton, a total of 372 stems were noted (as a result of multistemmed trees). Of the 372 stems, 205 were less than 2 cm diameter at breast height (dbh) and
were not included as part of calculations below. The average dbh for main stems (>2 cm dbh)
was 5.6 cm, with a maximum of 17 cm dbh from a tree located at the Nelson Escarpment Woods
ANSI. The previously largest recorded tree was at Sassafras Woods ANSI at 12.6 cm dbh.
Table 19 summarizes the number of stems per location, ownership and habitat associations for
those trees observed in 2010-11. Additional surveys are needed to complete detailed ELC
mapping for certain populations.
Conservation Halton
117
Table 19: Eastern Flowering Dogwood 2010-11 Survey Results
Owners
Number
of Trees
Grindstone Creek
Valley ANSI
Conservation Halton,
Ontario Heritage Trust (BTC
Managed), Private
49
Bridgeview Valley
ESA
Private, Hydro One,
Unopened Road Allowance,
ORC
32
Cumis Life Insurance,
Private
33
Private
25
-
Conservation Halton, Private
11
FOD1-2
Private
City of Burlington
Private
Town of Burlington
5
3
1
1
1 dead
standing
FOD5-3
FOD-2
FOD2-4
Location
Sassafras Woods
ANSI
Nelson Escarpment
Woods ESA
Waterdown
Escarpment Woods
ANSI
Mount Nemo ANSI
Tyandaga, Burlington
Flatt Road, Burlington
Bayview Park
Fourteen Mile Creek
ESA
Bronte Creek
Provincial Park
Clappison Escarpment
Woods ANSI
Town of Oakville
Habitat
ELC Type
WODM3-3*,
WODM3-1*,
FOD1-2, FOD2-2
WODM3-3*,
BLTM1-3*,
FOM2-1, FOD5-4,
FOD2-4, FOD1-2,
FOD5-3
FOD5, FOD5-2,
FOD5-3, FOD5-5
-
Ontario Parks
Scheduled for 2012 Surveys
Conservation Halton, Private
* indicate Version 2 of the SELC
It has been noted that forest succession, trending to more canopy closure, likely produced
conditions which increase the severity of anthracsnose fungus on Eastern Flowering Dogwood
(Bickerton and Thompson-Black 2010). As such, surveys documented the crown canopy closure
immediately above the location of the tree. Over 70% of the trees identified in Halton are
located within forests with over 60% canopy cover and the most common forest canopy closure
in Halton was 90% (see Figure 55).
The provincial recovery strategy for Eastern Flowering Dogwood encourages monitoring the
health of open-grown trees compared to those from more heavily shaded forests in Ontario
(Bickerton and Thompson-Black 2010). One method to demonstrate this would be to compare
the canopy dieback of each tree by its canopy cover class. This can be accomplished by
separating canopy cover classes by greater or less than 60% canopy cover as well as crown
canopy dieback into four health classes (healthy 0-10%, light to moderate 11-50%, severe
decline >50% and dead) (Sajan 2006). Results of this anaylsis are shown in Figure 56 which
demonstrates that there was no apparent difference between heavily and less shaded trees in
Conservation Halton
118
Halton during 2010-11 as it relates to crown dieback. Caution should be noted that not all dead
trees were found and that further long-term studies are needed to show health trends.
Figure 54: Distribution of Eastern Flowering Dogwood
35
32
30
Number of Trees
25
19
20
15
10
12
11
10
10
8
5
4
5
1
2
0
0
| 10
| 20
| 30
| 40
| 50
| 60
| 70
| 80
| 90
| 100 |
Canopy cover (%)
Figure 55: Comparative Canopy Dieback Classes of Eastern Flowering Dogwood Trees by
Canopy Cover
Percentage of Trees by Canopy Cover
Category
100%
48%
(N=14)
60%
(N=45)
48%
(N=14)
32%
(N=24)
3%
(N=1)
5%
(N=4)
0%
3%
(N=2)
0%
Healthy (0-10%)
Light to Moderate (11- Severe Decline (>50%)
50%)
Dead
Canopy Dieback Class
< 60% Canopy Cover
> 60% Canopy Cover
Conservation Halton
119
Chimney Swifts
During the 2011 field season Conservation Halton staff and volunteers monitored 17 chimneys
throughout the watershed. Results of this monitoring produced the documentation of nine new
chimneys which were used as roosting sites throughout the summer and reconfirmation of two
known roosting sites.
Survey methods followed a combination of the Chimney Swift Monitoring Protocol (Bird
Studies Canada 2011) and the Presence/Absence Worksheet also provided by Bird Studies
Canada. In early April, the older developed sections of Milton, Oakville, Burlington,
Campbellville and Waterdown were surveyed for potential chimneys. This involved driving
through the historic sections of these towns looking for chimneys that are at least 2.5 standard
bricks in width, 5 standard bricks long and have a minimum interior of one foot. A number of
chimneys were identified in this initial search that appeared to be suitable and uncapped. These
were compared with known observations of Chimney Swifts from Bird Studies Canada and the
Halton Natural Areas Inventory.
Following this, the presence/absence protocol was used in areas with suitable chimneys. These
surveys were completed between the following dates:
•
•
•
May 14th – May 26th – Spring Migration
June 9th – June 25th – Nesting
July 7th – July 23rd – Roosting
Potential chimneys were visited at least once within these time frames. Surveys began 20-30
minutes before sunset and continued until 30 minutes after sunset. Standing in a suitable
location so that the chimney was visible against the sky, the observer watched the chimney over
this time period and counted the number of Chimney Swifts entering, exiting and flying over the
chimney and recorded the time at which this occurred.
Due to the presence of multiple chimneys in some areas and a lack of observers, occasionally
chimneys were only observed until an entrance or exit was confirmed. This ensured that
chimneys that did contain Chimney Swifts were recorded and allowed for more than one
observation location on any given evening. Table 20 presents a summary of the monitoring
information gathered for each location.
Table 20: Chimney Swift Observations for 2011
Number
Date
Chimney Code
Chimneys
Swifts
Flying
Overhead
Entering
Chimney
1
8
2
Oakville
May 19
OA-2311-1
Conservation Halton
120
Number
Chimneys
Swifts
Flying
Overhead
Entering
Chimney
OA-MS-02
OA-2311-1
OA-MS-02
OA-2311-1
OA-MS-02
OA-OL-1
OA-KP-01
OA-SC-1
OA-OT-1-4
OA-KP-01
OA-OT-1-4
OA-OL-1
OA-PO-01
OA-KP-01
OA-OL-1
OA-SC-1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
10
6
6
6
10
4
4
4
10
4
10+
0
16
4
0
0
3
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
BU-SJ-02
BU-BC-01
BU-NF-01
BU-SJ-02
BU-BC-01
BU-NF-01
BU-PJ-01
BU-CH-1
BU-PJ-01
BU-NF-01
BU-SJ-02
BU-BC-01
BU-PJ-01
BU-SJ-02
BU-BC-01
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
3
6
0
2
2
4
5
4
3
1
2
1
3
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
Date
Chimney Code
May 19
June 20
June 20
July 23
July 23
May 21
May 21
May 21
May 21
June 25
June 25
June 25
July 20
July 20
July 20
July 20
Burlington
May 19
May 19
May 19
June 9
June 9
June 9
June 9
June 13
June 15
June 15
June 15
June 15
July 13
July 13
July 13
July 13
July 20
July 20
July 20
July 20
BU-NF-01
BU-SJ-02
BU-BC-01
BU-PJ-01
Conservation Halton
121
Number
Chimneys
Swifts
Flying
Overhead
Entering
Chimney
BU-CH-1
1
2
0
BU-CH-1
1
0
1
MI-CP-01/02
MI-KP-1
MI-SP-01/02
MI-KP-1
MI-SP-01/02
MI-CP-01/02
MI-SP-01/02
4
1
2
1
2
4
2
4
12
7
9
7
4
16+
0
0
3
0
6
0
16
June 15
June 20
CA-11-01
CA-11-01
2
2
2
2
June 20
CA-06-01
1
4
3
3 (same
3 as
above)
3
2
0
3
2
0
3
4
0
1
0
0
4
6-8
0
June 19
1
4
1
June 26
July 3
July 11
1
1
1
7
3
7
1
1
6
1
7
6
Date
Chimney Code
August
25
August
31
Milton
May 24
May 24
June 6
June 6
June 21
June 21
July 22
Campbellville
July 14
July 19
August
19
CA-11-01 CA-06-0
1
Waterdown
May 19
June 15
July 24
General survey
Intersection of Mill
Street and Dundas
Street.
WA-BB-01
A detailed chimney assessment has been completed for each chimney noted above.
Conservation Halton
122
Locating the chimneys used by this species presented different challenges in the various
locations. In the Bronte Creek area of Oakville (Chimneys OA-2311-01 and OA-MS-02) it took
multiple visits to confirm that Chimney Swifts were entering the chimney OA-MS-02. It is still
unclear as to how many Chimney Swifts are using these two chimneys. The downtown section of
Oakville (near Trafalgar Road) was particularly difficult. There was a number of Chimney
Swifts seen flying during each survey over a variety of available chimneys. No entrances or
exits were noted in the early part of the season. It was not until late July that Chimney Swifts
were confirmed using the chimney at the Canada Post building in downtown Oakville and Knox
Presbyterian Church. It is likely there are other chimneys in use in downtown Oakville that were
not observed during these surveys. The old Oakville Trafalgar High School is a well-known
breeding and roosting area for Chimney Swifts as observed on the OntBirds Listserve. With that
in mind and the abundance of swifts observed in other areas of Oakville, Conservation Halton
did not concentrate efforts at this location.
Three chimneys were identified in use in downtown Burlington. The choice of chimneys varied
throughout the season.
Chimney Swifts were confirmed in downtown Milton utilizing two chimneys on the same church
throughout the summer. Four were also noted flying at dusk over the Livingston Park area of
Milton, but the chimney in use by these birds was not located.
A small number of Chimney Swifts were observed at the main intersection in Campbellville and
confirmed in two separate private residence buildings.
In Waterdown, approximately seven Chimney Swifts were observed flying over the intersection
of Mill and Dundas Streets. Only one location (Bell Building on Mill Street) was confirmed
with approximately six observed entering the chimney. Other chimneys are likely in use in this
area, but have yet to be confirmed.
Redside Dace Monitoring
Redside Dace sampling was conducted
by Conservation Halton’s aquatic
ecology staff in 2011 relating to the
Endangered Species Act (AU-B-01311) permit. In all, 46 sites were
chosen for sampling: 17 in Bronte
Creek and 29 in Sixteen Mile Creek.
Sites were selected based on historical
records of Redside Dace presence
while also adding 15 new sites to
potentially locate remnant populations.
Several of the sampling reaches
crossed over two or more property
boundaries, requiring a total of 79
landowners to contact.
Conservation Halton Staff electrofishing for Redside Dace
Conservation Halton
123
Landowners were initially contacted through mail and provided with a letter of intent and
permission request. In order to identify which landowners needed to be contacted a GIS query
was performed to identify properties 100 metres upstream and downstream of each sampling
point. This query identified 165 properties. Of these, Conservation Halton staff were able to
determine addresses for 98. Letters were sent out to all 98, of which 40 were returned due to an
incorrect address in the database. However, there was some degree of success through this
landowner contact initiative. In all, nine letters returned with seven granting permission (four in
Bronte Creek, three in Sixteen Mile Creek) while two landowners denied access to Conservation
Halton staff (one in each watershed).
Efforts subsequently focused on gaining permission by means of door-to-door contact. This
method proved far more successful with eighteen permissions granted (eight in Bronte Creek and
ten in Sixteen Mile Creek). One additional grant of permission was obtained through telephone
contact. An additional six sites (one in Bronte Creek, five in Sixteen Mile Creek) were located
on Conservation Halton or municipal properties, thereby forgoing the necessity of permission.
Three landowners denied access (one in Bronte Creek, two in Sixteen Mile Creek).
Sampling was conducted through the use of backpack electrofishing units and seine nets in order
to determine species presence and absence. The backpack unit was the primary tool for sampling
while the seine nets were employed only twice. In the one instance when Redside Dace were
captured, electrofishing was ceased and sampling continued using the seine net as per a
requirement of the MNR sampling permit.
Twenty-two of the 32 permitted sites were successfully sampled (seven in Bronte Creek, 15 in
Sixteen Mile Creek). The remaining sites (five in Bronte Creek, five in Sixteen Mile Creek)
were dry at time of survey. It is recommended that sampling occur earlier in the season in order
to avoid sampling during periods of drought. Only one site in Sixteen Mile Creek gave
confirmation of Redside Dace presence where 11 individuals were captured. One mature and ten
juvenile fish were caught and released.
Observations made by the sampling crew
found that landowners provided a great deal
of information regarding historical site
information. Several landowners had
inhabited their properties for almost half a
century and offered an invaluable source of
firsthand information. It is important to
continue interactive dialogue with
landowners who can provide useful
historical information and/or possess
One of the eleven Redside Dace captured in 2011
suitable property for restoration and
stewardship programs focused on Redside
Dace habitat. Further sampling of these sites should be completed to determine the presence of
Redside Dace and address variations associated with seasonal and annual fluctuations.
Conservation Halton
124
Redside Dace Stewardship
During 2011, Conservation Halton staff identified several opportunities for rehabilitation of
Redside Dace habitat on private landowner property. Landowner contact was conducted with
appreciatory letters delivered in person. Personal delivery was carried out to build ties between
landowners and the conservation authority. Two documents were provided in each letter sent.
The first was an appreciatory letter which included gratitude for their support, notice of potential
surveying opportunities for the future, and an invitation to take part in the Hamilton-Halton
Watershed Stewardship Program. The second document was a Field Collection Record of the
sampling event.
Door to door requests for sampling permission proved to be much more successful than through
mailing. Priority in the future should rely on personal contact with landowners, which allows for
Conservation Halton staff to engage with property owners. Site information can be obtained as
well as effectively answering any questions landowners may have.
Nine properties were identified as having naturalization or rehabilitation potential. Opportunities
included disconnecting on-line ponds, restoring the natural stream channel, removing barriers,
planting riparian buffers and fencing out cattle from the stream. Implementation of some of
these opportunities would likely provide immediate benefit to Redside Dace.
Conservation Halton’s stewardship program was able to negotiate a project with one of the
landowners in the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed. The project aims to enhance the riparian
habitat adjacent to a currently occupied Redside Dace reach. The project was negotiated during
the latter part of 2011 and therefore the decision was made to purchase nursery stock with
Conservation Halton’s forestry bulk order to receive better pricing, and to plant the shrubs and
trees during the spring of 2012. Spring planting is ideal as they have a higher rate of success. The
planting will take place in early May 2012 and will be implemented by volunteers from the Field
and Stream Rescue Team.
Downy Yellow False Foxglove (Aureolaria virginica)
Downy Yellow False Foxglove (Aureolaria virginica) is ranked as Critically Imperilled (S1) in
Ontario. An inventory of the Downy Yellow False Foxglove population at the Clappison Woods
Resource Management Area amounted to 33 stems (22 plants) for 2010 (see Figure 57). This
occurrence, one of only six extant populations in Ontario, has witnessed steady declines
(McLeod 1990). In 1988 it was noted to consist of 303 stems (125 plants), while in 2001 this
had been reduced to 150 stems. Now, in 2011, only 44 stems (17 plants) remain.
This species is very local in distribution and prefers dry open woods and savannas. The root of
the species is a hemiparasite with the white oak group. Localized decline in mature White Oaks
and oak woodland encroachment by ash and maple species may be impacting the successful
growth and germination of Downy Yellow False Foxglove. It is suggested that a vegetation
management plan be developed and implemented to encourage the recruitment and maintenance
of White Oaks within the ELC vegetation community.
Conservation Halton
125
Figure 56: Downy Yellow False Foxglove Clappison Woods Population Summary
West Virginia White
In 2011 targeted visits were performed at Crawford Lake Conservation Area, Crawford Lake
Tract II Resource Management Area and Kelso Conservation Area to survey for West Virginia
White (Pieris virginiensis). This butterfly occurs in specific habitat locations and has a short
flight period. Individuals were observed at both the known populations in Crawford Lake and
Crawford Lake Tract II. No West Virginia Whites were observed in Kelso Conservation Area,
but this was not unexpected as none have been observed in over 20 years. Background
inventories for the Kelso Conservation Area Master Plan were performed in 2011. The food
plant, Broad-leaved toothwort (Cardamine diphylla), was observed however no West Virginia
White were present at this time. Return visits will be needed to confirm this species is absent
from the park.
Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) poses a threat to West Virigina White as it acts as an
oviposition site (females lay eggs on it thinking it is a suitable food plant) but no larva can
survive on it due to its toxins, or possibly other differences from its true food plant. Both
Crawford Lake sites have Garlic Mustard present, with an extensive population at Crawford
Lake Conservation Area. A West Virginia White was observed to have oviposited on a Garlic
Mustard plant in this location. West Virginia Whites at Crawford Lake Tract II were observed
nectaring on Garlic Mustard, but none were observed ovipositing on it in 2011.
Conservation Halton
126
Other Species
In addition to targeted SAR surveys, Conservation Halton staff documented element occurrences
for additional SAR and provincially tracked (rare) species. Tables 21 and 22 summarizes the
occurrences.
Table 21: Additional Species at Risk Observations
Status
Species
Endangered
American
Columbo
Threatened
6 stems
6 stems
Location
Waterdown Woods Resource
Management Area
The Sisters of St. Joseph of
Hamilton
Notes
New EO
New EO
American
Ginseng
11 plants
Sensitive Information
Update to EO
(new plants)
Butternut
46 trees
The majority of which were
documented at Kelso Conservation
Area
Update to EO
(new trees)
1 tree
Little Resource Management Area
(Clappison Corners)
1 tree
Grindstone Creek ANSI
Red Mulberry
Special Concern
Number
American
Chestnut
Eastern
Meadowlark
7 records
Milton, Burlington
Silver Shiner
20
sampling
locations
Sixteen Mile Creek and Bronte
Creek
Common
Snapping Turtle
48
locations
Various
Milton, Burlington, Oakville, Mount
Nemo and Kelso Conservation Area,
and Clappison Woods Resource
Management Area
Kelso Conservation Area and
Yaremko Resource Management
Area
Eastern
Milksnake
7 records
Hooded Warbler
3 records
Northern Map
Turtle
1 basking
Sixteen Mile Creek (Forster and
Burt Floodplain property)
West Virginia
White
7 records
Crawford Lake Conservation Area
Conservation Halton
Updated
UTM location
and DBH
Update to EO
(new tree)
New EOs
New and
Updated EO
(In
collaboration
with the DFO)
New and
Update to
EOs
New and
Update to
EOs
Update (1)
and New (1)
EO
Update to EO
(Last reported
in 1990)
Update to EO
127
Table 22: Additional Provincially Tracked Species Observations
SRank
S2
S2S3
Species
Puttyroot
2
Tawny Emperor
1
Unicorn Clubtail
3
Clamp-tipped Emerald
2
Black-crowned Nightheron
Dion Skipper
Double-striped Bluet
S3
1
4
1
Giant Swallowtail
5
Pignut Hickory
Pronghorn Clubtail
3
1
Rue-anemone
4
Virginia Bluebells
3.3
Number of
Population
Centroids
177
Location
Hilton Falls Conservation Area and
Robertson Tract (Update to EO)
Rattlesnake Point Conservation Area
Kelso Conservation Area, Royal
Botanical Gardens
Rattlesnake Point and Kelso
Conservation Area
Burlington (Stormwater management
pond)
Grindstone ANSI, Kelso and
Rattlesnake Point Conservation Areas
Grindstone ANSI, Dundas
Glenorchy Conservation Area
Bridgeview Valley, Sassafras Woods
(Addition to EO)
Glenorchy Conservation Area, Sixteen
Mile Creek (Update to EO)
Odonata and Butterfly Surveys
As part of our ongoing inventory work, staff perform surveys of dragonflies and damselflies
(Odonata), butterflies and skippers (Lepidoptera: Superfamilies Papilionoidea and
Hesperioidea) within Conservation Halton landholdings. While incidental sightings are recorded
during other fieldwork activities, target surveys are also used to gather more information.
Odonate and butterfly activity is weather dependent with high activity during warm sunny days.
Habitat preference is also dependent on seasonal timing and flight periods. As a result, species
target surveys must be conducted at appropriate locations during ideal conditions. General
inventory of an area’s species can be performed in appropriate weather provided all habitat types
are visited. Multiple visits to a site are recommended to capture the range of species as the
season progresses.
Kelso Conservation Area Master Plans Background work: Odonate and Butterfly surveys
The master plan background inventory work at Kelso Conservation Area included both
incidental sightings and targeted surveys for butterflies and odonates. This park has a large
Conservation Halton
128
variety of habitats with a large component of successional or anthropogenically influenced
communities that provide habitat to a wide variety of species.
Past surveys for the park included visits for the 1998 Master Plan, the 2003-2004 Natural Areas
Inventory (NAI) and personal staff visits to the park. The first known list for the park is the 1998
master plan which lists 16 butterfly species (no odonate surveys were performed). The NAI
visits recorded both odonates and butterflies bringing the list to 22 butterflies and 8 odonates.
Other visits from 2004 to 2010 increased the list total to 38 butterflies and 49 odonate species.
The 2011 surveys also produced new species bringing the total for Kelso Conservation Area to
47 butterfly and 61 odonate species.
Odonata Surveys
New species for the park included the following:
• Beaverpond Baskettail (Epitheca canis)
• Belted Whiteface (Leucorrhinia proxima)
• Blue-fronted Dancer (Argia apicalis)
• Boreal Bluet (Enallagma boreale)
• Brush-tipped Emerald (Somatochlora walshii)
• Canada Darner (Aeshna canadensis)
• Clamp-tipped Emerald (Somatochlora tenebrosa)
• Fawn Darner (Boyeria vinosa)
• Stream Bluet (Enallagma exsulans)
• Taiga Bluet (Coenagrion resolutum)
• Williamson’s Emerald (Somatochlora
williamsoni)
A number of species recorded were of special
note. One was a female Williamson’s Emerald
who was caught and released. This is the first
record of this rare emerald in the park and this
species is regionally rare and seldom seen in
Southern Ontario. A breeding site was confirmed
for the Brush-tipped Emerald. A potential
breeding site was located for the regionally rare
Clamp-tipped Emerald with a male seen
territorially guarding a spring fed stream through
Williamson's Emerald (Somatochlora williamsoni)
(female) captured ovipositing in suitable breeding
a meadow marsh. No females or exuvia of Clamphabitat in Kelso Conservation Area.
tipped Emerald were observed and as a result
breeding at this site has not been confirmed.
Delta-spotted Spiketails (Somatochlora williamsoni) were observed at two suitable breeding sites
in the park. Males were observed actively guarding both locations, and females were seen
ovipositing at one of the two sites thus confirming that one is an active breeding site while the
other remains a potential breeding site. The only previous record of the Delta-spotted Spiketail in
the park was an incidental sighting on May 29, 2006 on the talus below the escarpment. The
Conservation Halton
129
individual from 2006 was likely foraging for food on the talus while the individuals from 2011
were displaying behaviour indicating breeding activity.
The known breeding site for Eastern Red Damsels (Amphiagrion saucium) was visited again in
2011. Populations of this species tend to be small, and numbers recorded are rarely over 20
individuals per visit. Previous surveys have recorded 7 and 15 individuals at this breeding site.
Individuals were confirmed breeding in 2011 with a record number of 174 adults present.
Recent mowing of nearby areas reduced the amount of long grass habitat preferred by Eastern
Red Damsels, thereby allowing the area surveyed to be counted more efficiently.
An Eastern Red Damsel (amphiagrion saucium)
near breeding area at Kelso Conservation Area
Eastern Red Damsels were observed away from
the known breeding habitat during the 2006
surveys and individuals were again seen in this
location in 2011. As this species has a small
home range, these individuals were originally
suspected to be from a separate breeding colony
due to the distance from the known breeding
colony. A possible breeding seep was observed
nearby, however the absence of breeding
individuals led to the conclusion that this seep
was not a breeding site. The breeding site for
these individuals may be lower on the slope by
the CN railway track which has not been surveyed
due to safety and access limitations.
Other regionally rare Odonata species seen in Kelso Conservation Area in 2011 included the
following:
• Double-striped Bluet (Enallagma basidens)
• Fragile Forktail (Ischnura posita)
• Northern Bluet (Enallagma cyathigerum)
• Orange Bluet (Enallagma signatum)
• Prince Baskettail (Epitheca princeps)
• Spiny Baskettail (Epitheca spinigera)
• Sweetflag Spreadwing (Lestes forcipatus)
• Tule Bluet (Enallagma carunculatum)
• Variable Darner (Aeshna interrupta)
• Wandering Glider (Pantala flavescens)
Conservation Halton
130
Unicorn Clubtail (Arigomphus villosipes) Surveys
The small pond in front of the Halton Region Museum in Kelso Conservation Area is a
productive breeding area for Unicorn Clubtails and was surveyed for exuviae in early June.
Low numbers of clubtails emerged from the pond in 2011 and it was difficult to locate exuviae
this year. A mass emergence typically occurs on one day each year; however surveys in 2011
indicated that emergence was gradual throughout early June. Despite increased search effort
only 71 exuviae were collected, a large decrease from 2010 where 288 were found. A total of 6
visits were conducted to thoroughly inspect the shore for exuviae and each visit yielded only a
small number of exuviae. 2011 was the lowest year for emergence numbers recorded since
monitoring began. The only year with a similar number of exuviae collected was 2007, the first
year of monitoring. At that time only a fraction of the effort was put in, with only two visits
made, but similar number of exuviae were retrieved. In addition, exuviae were likely missed in
2007 due to surveys focusing on the algae mats and not the shoreline. The 2011 season did not
have ideal weather around the normal emergence dates. There were a large number of rainy days
with rainfall generally being heavy, as a result the increase in both cloudy and rainy days may
have had an effect on the emergence. Although the rain events may have contributed to low
exuviae count by washing exuviae into the pond, the water was also searched with few exuviae
found. Table 23 details survey efforts and results between 2007 and 2011
Table 23: Unicorn Clubtails Observed at the Halton Region Museum Pond (2007-2011)
Date
12-Jun-07
14-Jun-07
14-Jun-08
12-Jun-09
15-Jun-09
1-Jun-10
10-Jun-11
13-Jun-11
14-Jun-11
15-Jun-11
16-Jun-11
17-Jun-11
27-Jun-11
Adults Exuviae
5
4
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
30
166
28
48
235
6
8
3
1
22
22
15
The five years of monitoring shows a trend to higher numbers emerging biennially, as seen in
Figure 58. It is uncertain if this trend is a biological diapause, similar to the two-year periodicity
seen in other species, or if there are other environmental factors affecting emergence. Further
monitoring of this pond is necessary to see if this trend continues.
Conservation Halton
131
Figure 57: Unicorn Clubtail Exuviae Collected from the Halton Region Museum Pond (20072011)
Unicorn Clubtail Exuvia Collected from the Museum Pond Each
Year
250
Number of Exuvia
200
150
100
50
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Butterfly Surveys
New species recorded for the park in 2011 include the following:
• Appalachian Eyed Brown (Satyrodes appalachia)
• Columbine Duskywing (Erynnis lucilius)
• Common Buckeye (Junonia coenia)
• Dion Skipper (Euphyes dion)
• Dun Skipper (Euphyes vestris)
• Little Wood Satyr (Megisto cymela)
• Peck’s Skipper (Polites peckius)
• Silver-spot Skipper (Epargyreus clarus)
• Tawny-edged Skipper (Polites themistocles)
Bronze Coppers (Lycaena hyllus) were observed in Kelso in 2011 for the first time in over 12
years. Two males and one female were observed in a disturbed meadow area with their food
plant, Curly Dock (Rumex crispus), present in fair numbers. The female was seen only once
during surveys. One of the two males could be found in the same location over a 2 week period.
The second male was more wide ranging and was only observed sporadically. This species was
not found in the areas where it had been previously reported within the park. Changes to land
use, including the movement from disturbed areas to successional forest, have resulted in
perennial plants and trees out competing the food plant of this butterfly. Curly Dock appears to
Conservation Halton
132
do well in disturbed areas and, while still
present at the previous locations, it may now
occur in numbers too low to support the
butterflies. A small portion of the new
location where the Bronze Coppers have
been recorded has been recently disturbed
with the effect of increasing the population
of Curly Dock and providing a food source
that can sustain the Bronze Copper
population in this area.
American Copper (Lycaena phlaeas) and
Coral Hairstreak (Satyrium titus) were both
reported in the 1998 Master Plan surveys.
Targeted surveys of suitable habitat for both
species were completed in 2011, however no individuals were found
Bronze Copper (Lycaena hyllus) (male) at Kelso
Conservation Area (first recorded sighting in over 12
years)
Other regionally rare or uncommon butterfly species seen in Kelso Conservation Area in 2011
included Silvery Blue (Glaucopsyche lygdamus), and Wild Indigo Duskywing (Erynnis
baptisiae).
Sightings of Significance from other
Conservation Halton Properties
While visiting Rattlesnake Point Conservation
Area for Ecological Monitoring and
Assessment Network surveys, both Deltaspotted Spiketail (a mail and a female) and
Clamp-tipped Emerald (two males) were
observed in suitable breeding habitats. Neither
species have been recorded at this location
before.
Delta-spotted Spiketail (Cordulegaster diastatops)
Male observed patrolling suitable breeding habitat in
Conservation Halton
133
4.0
Conclusion and Recommendations
In 2011, Conservation Halton staff and volunteers were successful in monitoring numerous
environmental indicators as part of the Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program as well
as other supplemental monitoring programs. With the LEMP program in its seventh year, the
information collected plays an important role in documenting baseline conditions and developing
trends in health for the Sixteen Mile Creek and Grindstone Creek watersheds, as well as the
entire Conservation Halton watershed. The information gathered will assist staff in assessing the
long term health of the watershed.
Highlights of the 2011 Field Season
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fisheries sampling took place at 25 stations within the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed.
Thirty different species were captured consisting of a total of 1,859 individuals.
In total, 9 stations on Sixteen Mile Creek were considered to be in poor health, 9 in fair
health and 6 in good health. 2011 was the first time a single station was considered to be
in very good biotic health.
Fisheries sampling also took place on Grindstone Creek at 12 stations. Eighteen different
species were captured consisting of a total of 876 individuals. Three stations were
considered to be in poor biotic health, 7 in fair health and 2 in good health. No stations
were considered to be in very good biotic health.
Benthic sampling was completed at 27 stations on Sixteen Mile Creek resulting in the
collection of 71 different taxa. Seven of these stations were considered to be impaired,
11 potentially impaired and 9 unimpaired.
Benthic sampling was also completed at 14 stations within the Grindstone Creek
watershed resulting in the collection of 47 different taxa. Overall 2 stations were
considered to be impaired and 9 potentially impaired and 3 unimpaired.
Channel morphology monitoring took place at 22 stations on Sixteen Mile Creek and 8
stations on Grindstone Creek. Despite strong flows and high water levels obvious
physical changes were only noted at 2 stations in Grindstone Creek and 2 stations on
Sixteen Mile Creek.
Based on Conservation Halton’s data collected for the PWQMN, trend analysis indicates
a continued increase of chloride concentrations over time.
Total phosphorous remains elevated throughout the watershed.
Groundwater monitoring results indicate that all groundwater wells meet the provincial
water quality objectives, however Sodium was elevated in 5 wells.
Temperature loggers were deployed in both Sixteen Mile Creek and Grindstone Creek.
The upper reaches of Sixteen Mile Creek were classified as cool-warm although some
stations classified as cool were present. Majority of the watershed was classified as
warm water. Limited temperature information was obtained for Grindstone Creek
however some results showed that the watershed was largely classified as cool-warm
although two coolwater stations were identified in the headwaters. One station in the
lower reaches of the watershed was considered to be warm.
Ecological Land Classification was continued at Kelso Conservation Area.
Tree health was assessed at 10 plots at Waterdown Woods with 218 trees that were larger
than 10 cm dbh. Salamander monitoring resulted in 601 salamanders recorded.
Conservation Halton
134
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rattlesnake Point saw 241 trees assessed through tree health monitoring. One-hundred
and thirty-nine salamanders were also observed in the plots.
Groundcover biodiversity monitoring was completed at the six new EMAN plots with a
range in species richness from 6 species to 23 species.
Salamander boards at Glenorchy Conservation Area yielded 137 individuals.
Marsh monitoring resulted in the observation of four amphibian species and nine bird
species at Hilton Falls, five amphibian species and 15 bird species at Mountsberg and six
amphibian species and 21 bird species at Fuciarelli Resource Management Area.
Twenty-two forest bird monitoring sites were visited across Hilton Falls, Waterdown
Woods, Glenorchy, Kelso and Bronte-Burloak Woods. Five of these sites supported areasensitive species in 2011.
Continued supplemental monitoring saw staff involved with numerous additional projects
including Species at Risk Monitoring, inventories for Park Master Planning, odonate and
butterfly surveys, and vernal pool inventories.
Through the Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program, numerous recommendations have
been identified to ensure the continued protection and enhancement of the natural environment.
These recommendations include:
Caring for Water:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The removal of on-line ponds should take place in order to reduce stream temperatures
throughout the watershed.
Water temperature monitoring should be expanded to monitor all watersheds on an
annual basis to better understand temperature changes with climate change.
Water conservation, appropriate water taking and best management practices should be
encouraged, especially in areas of dense agriculture.
Better control of phosphorous and phosphate reductions should be implemented.
Alternatives to road salting should be explored to reduce chloride concentrations in our
streams.
Improved stormwater management to help reduce peak flows, erosion and stream
degradation.
Efforts to improve in-stream habitat should be undertaken for present species and to
increase the fish species diversity.
Stream clean-ups should be encouraged at degraded sites.
Increased and improved riparian habitats to shade the creek and intercept nutrients
entering the watercourses.
Caring for Nature:
•
•
Butternut health assessments should be completed for all trees on Conservation Halton
properties.
Ecological Land Classification should be completed to community series for the entire
watershed to establish baseline conditions to which future conditions can be compared.
Conservation Halton
135
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Classification to vegetation type should be completed for all Conservation Halton
landholdings and elsewhere where site-specific information is required.
Detailed statistical analysis of Conservation Halton’s Marsh Monitoring Program data
should be undertaken.
Additional Forest Bird Monitoring Program stations are required for statistical robustness
at sites which currently only contain a single station.
Further education is needed about the importance of preserving and restoring meadow
and wildflower habitat for species which use and need meadow habitat.
Steps should be taken to preserve and maintain meadow habitat in appropriate areas of
Conservation Halton landholdings in a way that benefits meadow wildlife species.
Further species at risk inventories should be completed to better understand the
distribution of SAR in the watershed and assist with their protection.
Where possible, species at risk recovery actions should be implemented on Conservation
Halton landholdings in a manner that is consistent with available recovery strategies.
Utilize appropriate management activities within Conservation Halton landholdings to
ensure the protection of SAR and to minimize reduction in populations.
Increase trail maintenance and promote wise use of public natural areas.
Monitoring for new or spreading invasive species within Conservation Halton parks
should continue.
Control of invasive species should be funded and implemented in a targeted and effective
manner in order to protect the biological integrity of our natural areas.
Given the large numbers of species at risk that occur within Conservation Halton
landholdings, visitor impact monitoring should be established to balance the provision of
recreational opportunities with the protection of the environment.
Further education is required to reduce pesticide use across the watershed, with the
provincial pesticide ban this should now focus on ways to reduce ‘industrial’ use.
Results of Conservation Halton’s LEMP should be widely distributed and publicized
using traditional and social media.
Caring for Community:
•
•
•
•
•
Conservation Halton and its staff should continue to play an important role in the
planning process to ensure the further protection of natural and hazard lands.
Environmental stewardship, education and outreach should be increased in order to
protect natural areas and reduce environmental degradation throughout the watershed.
Efforts to increase awareness of the health of the Conservation Halton Watershed through
communication publications (i.e. Watershed Report Cards) and social media outlets (i.e.
Focus, Twitter, and Facebook)
Public education about invasive species, their spread and control should continue.
Long term environmental monitoring should continue in the future in order to document
further changes throughout the Conservation Halton watershed.
Conservation Halton
136
Conservation Halton
137
5.0
Glossary of Terms
Anthropogenic - Processes or materials are those that are derived from human activities, as opposed to
those occurring in natural environments without human influence.
Benthic- The bottom substrate in a body of water
Benthic Macroinvertebrates – Animals without backbones that live on the bottom substrate of a
watercourse or waterbody and are visible to the naked eye.
Benthos – Benthic macroinvertebrates.
Centroid coordinates - Element concurrences of biodiversity that are represented by bounded, mapped
areas of land and/or water and given a geographic coordinate based on this feature.
Coefficient of conservatism - A score assigned to native vegetation based on species tolerance to
disturbance and habitat fidelity
COSEWIC - Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada is a committee of experts that
assesses and designates which wildlife species are in some danger of disappearing from Canada.
Crossover – The location in a stream where the thalweg is in the centre of the channel during bankfull
discharge.
Diurnal – Active chiefly in the daytime
Dogwood anthracnose fungus (Discula destructiva) - is a fungus in the family Valsaceae which causes
dogwood anthracnose, affecting populations of dogwood trees native to North America
Erosion - The wearing away of the earths surface through any natural process.
Exuvia (singular) exuviae (plural) - is a term used in biology to describe the remains of an exoskeleton
an insect (or crustacean or arachnid) have moulted and left behind. In the LEMP it is used to refer to the
dragonflies empty larval skin that is left behind after the adult molts it and flies away.
Floristic Quality Assessment - A system for assessing natural areas using coefficient of conservatism
scores and species richness
HFI - Hilsenhoff Family Index.
Median – The middle data point.
Parameter - An index or metric to measure the biological condition. It can be an abundance measure, a
percentage, or multivariate index.
Polygon - A multi-sided figure representing an area on a map. Each polygon (area) usually is described
by attribute data linked to the polygon's location in GIS.
Pool - A deep or still place within a stream.
Conservation Halton
138
Quartile - Any of the three values which divide the sorted data set into four equal parts.
Riffle - A rocky shoal or sandbar lying just below the surface of a water way.
Riparian - Of, on or relating to the banks of a natural watercourse.
SARO - A "species at risk" is any naturally-occurring plant or animal in danger of extinction or of
disappearing from the province. Once classified as "at risk", they are added to the Species at Risk in
Ontario (SARO) List.
SDI – Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index.
Species at risk (SAR) - Species listed or categorized as such by the Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources’ Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List or on the COSEWIC list, as updated and amended
periodically. The SARO list definitions include:
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
endangered or threatened
become
SRank – Provincial ranks are used by the Natural Heritage Information Centre to set protection priorities
for rare species and natural communities. These ranks are not legal designations. Provincial ranks are
assigned in a manner similar to that described for global ranks, but consider only those factors within the
political boundaries of Ontario. By comparing the global and provincial ranks, the status, rarity, and the
urgency of conservation, needs can be ascertained. The NHIC evaluates provincial ranks on a continual
basis and produces updated lists at least annually.
Substrate- The material that rests at the bottom of a stream.
Taxa – A name designating an organism or a group of organisms.
Thalweg - Main concentration of flow, normally the deepest part of the channel.
Tracked species - Species which are actively tracked (ie occurrence data is actively gathered) by the
Nature Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). Species actively tracked generally have fewer than 100
recent occurrences in Ontario and are highly ranked globally.
Ubiquitous- Something that exists or is occurring everywhere.
Watershed – A drainage basin which has water flowing into one body of water.
Conservation Halton
139
6.0
References
Bailey, R.G., R.D. Pfister and J.A. Henderson. 1978. Nature of land and resource classification:
A review. Journal of Forestry 76: 650-655.
Bickerton, H. and M. Thompson-Black. 2010. Recovery Strategy for the Eastern Flowering
Dogwood (Cornus florida) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. vi + 21 pp.
Bird Studies Canada (BSC). 2006a. Marsh Monitoring Program Guide to Amphibian
Monitoring.
Bird Studies Canada (BSC). 2006b. Marsh Monitoring Program Guide to Bird Monitoring.
Bird Studies Canada. 2011. Ontario SwiftWatch Protocol. Bird Studies Canada, Port Rowan,
Ontario. 26 pp.
Borisko, J. 2002. Water Quality Monitoring with Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Citizen’s
Environment Watch. Toronto.
Chu, C., N.E. Jones, A. R. Piggot and J.M. Buttle. 2009. Evaluation of a Simple Method to
Classify the Thermal Characteristics of Streams Using a Nomogram of Daily Maximum Air and
Water Temperatures. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29: 1605-1619.
Conservation Halton 2006. Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program. March 2006.
Conservation Halton. 2009. Towards a Healthy Watershed Conservation Halton 2009-2013
Strategic Plan. Burlington, On.
Conservation Halton. 2013. Conservation Halton Fisheries Database.
Credit Valley Conservation. 2010. Monitoring Forest Integrity within the Credit River
Watershed. Chapter 3: Forest Vegetation 2005-2009, Credit Valley Conservation. vi + 104 pp.
DeLuca, W. V., C. E. Studds, L.L. Rockwood and P.P.Marra. 2004. Influence of Land Use on
the Integrity of Marsh Bird Communities of Chesapeake Bay, USA. Wetlands 24(4)
Dunn, A. 2006. Sixteen Mile Creek Monitoring Project. Unpublished report.
Dwyer, J. 2006. Halton Natural Areas Inventory. Volume 1 Site Summary.
Dwyer, J. 2006. Halton Natural Areas Inventory. Volume 2 Species Checklists.
Environment Canada. 1991. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines. Ottawa.
Conservation Halton
140
Environment Canada. 2006. Ontario Forest Bird Monitoring Program (FBMP). Ontario Region
of the Canadian Wildlife Service. http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/newsletters/fbmp06-e.html
[Accessed October 1, 2006]
Halton Region Conservation Authority (HRCA). 1998. Grindstone Creek Watershed Study,
Our Legacy to Value: The Grindstone Creek.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1988. Rapid field assessment of organic pollution with a family-level biotic
index. Journal of North American Benthological Society 7:65-68.
Jefferson Salamander Recovery Team. 2010. Recovery Strategy for the Jefferson Salamander
(Ambystoma jeffersonianum) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategies Series. Prepared for the
Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. vi + 29 pp.
Jones, C., K. Somers, B. Craig and T. Reynoldson, 2005. Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring
Network Protocol Manual v. 1.0. Ontario Ministry of Environment, Environmental Monitoring
and Reporting Branch, Dorset, Ontario.
Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray. 1998.
Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its Application.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section Field Guide FG-02. 225 pp.
McLeod, D. 1990. Status Report on Downy False-Foxglove Aureolaria virginica (L.) Pennell in
Canada. Prepared for the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. London,
Ontario. iii + 39 pp.
McNeely, R.N., V.P Neimanis, and L. Dwyer, 1979 Environment Canada Water Quality
Sourcebook: A Guide to Water Quality Parameters.
Ministry of the Environment. 1984. Water Management: Goals, Policies, Objectives and
Implementation Procedures of the Ministry of the Environment.
North-South Environmental Inc. and Halton Region. 2005. Halton Region Environmentally
Sensitive Areas Consolidation Repot. Unpublished report by Halton Region Planning and Public
Works Department in conjunction with North-South Environmental Inc. 222pp. + app.
Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowsky, and D.A. Sutherland. 1995. Floristic Quality Assessment
System for Southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 29 pp.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and the Royal Botanical Gardens (RBG). 2006.
Hamilton Harbour Fisheries Management Plan. Hamilton, Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) and the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA). 2005. Humber River Fisheries Management Plan. Published by the Ontario
Conservation Halton
141
Ministry of Natural Resources and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Queens
Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). 2001. A Sampling Protocol for Red-backed
Salamander (Plethodon cinereus) Populations in Ontario: 2nd Pilot Study. Queens Printer for
Ontario
Stanfield, L. (Editor) 2005. Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol. Version 7, Fish and Wildlife
Branch. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 256 pp.
Steedman, R.J. 1988. Modification and Assessment of an Index of Biotic Integrity to Quantify
Stream Quality in Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
45:492-495.
Stoneman, C.L. and M.L. Jones. 1996. A Simple Method to Classify Stream Thermal Stability
with Single Observations of Daily Maximum Water and Air Temperature. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 16:728-737.
Roberts-Pichette, P. and L. Gillespie. 1999. Terrestrial Vegetation Biodiversity Monitoring
Protocols. EMAN Occasional Paper Series Report No 9. EMAN Coordinating Office.
Burlington, Canada.
Sajan, R. 2006. EMAN Recommended Tree Health Protocol – Data Analysis. Natural Resources
Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre, Sault Ste.
Marie, Ontario. 19 pp.
Voshell, J. Reese. 2002. A guide to common freshwater invertebrates of North America. The
McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, VA.
Conservation Halton
142
Conservation Halton
143
Appendices
Conservation Halton
144
Conservation Halton
145
Appendix 1: Aquatic Sampling - Site Selection Process and Attributes
Aquatic monitoring sites were selected in order to gain coverage across the watersheds (or
subwatersheds) and from the headwaters to the major confluences and ultimately to the creeks
confluence with Lake Ontario. Site selection was completed in GIS using the following
methodology:
•
•
•
•
Random “dots” (representing sampling stations) were placed within the subwatershed
boundary to represent sampling sites with coverage from the headwaters to the major
subwatershed confluences.
Conservation Halton’s waterflow (stream layer) was then turned on within the GIS to
illustrate stream locations.
Stations were then moved to the closest tributary regardless of location. In instances
where stations landed on the stream layer, that was determined to be the station location.
When sites were visited if access was denied or the site was unsuitable (according to
sampling protocol) the station was moved to the closest appropriate station along the
same reach.
Site physical attributes were then summarized as seen below to ensure equal representation
across the watershed.
STATION EASTING
APB-19
601857.3272
APB-5
598815.2337
BRO-10
586454.0279
BRO-115
587418.7964
BRO-118
588937.7991
BRO-119
603224.0010
BRO-135
582734.5442
BRO-142
589803.0783
BRO-145
587244.5531
BRO-149
591718.8517
BRO-151
590627.0348
BRO-152
588828.7811
BRO-154
581414.4060
BRO-16
593288.8352
BRO-171
590618.9644
BRO-172
584517.6382
BRO-193
579637.5608
BRO-196
580475.7837
BRO-2
574956.1148
BRO-209
575232.9894
BRO-21
597156.8763
BRO-219
587942.6798
NORTHING
4801791.4010
4804620.1572
4808161.6033
4807977.3071
4809729.3863
4805588.5491
4810731.7702
4809856.5473
4807020.0448
4812188.5478
4815026.1926
4811073.0780
4804517.5962
4809738.7981
4810956.5806
4811105.8525
4804135.0054
4807991.9422
4813329.4652
4812979.3334
4807588.6493
4806079.3015
Permeability
High
Low
High
High
Variable
Low
Variable
Low
High
Low
Low
Variable
High
Variable
Variable
Variable
High
Variable
Low-Medium
Low-Medium
Variable
High
Slope
1.2458
0.6865
2.6303
0.6409
0.3317
0.0620
0.3566
0.6580
0.0000
0.0739
0.0000
0.4493
0.0000
0.1992
0.5455
1.3729
0.1023
0.4297
0.0000
0.0000
1.8489
0.0000
Conservation Halton
Slope Range
High
Mod
High
Mod
Mod
Low
Mod
Mod
Low
Low
Low
Mod
Low
Low
Mod
High
Low
Mod
Low
Low
High
Low
Stream
Order
4
4
4
5
5
6
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
5
3
4
4
4
4
6
4
146
STATION EASTING
BRO-221
588410.8601
BRO-230
588069.9961
BRO-232
589729.4376
BRO-233
590366.3866
BRO-234
588882.4002
BRO-240
584327.4258
BRO-241
586357.3963
BRO-242
586078.9697
BRO-243
587237.6315
BRO-244
579495.8302
BRO-245
584463.3120
BRO-246
594340.0771
BRO-250
579518.4705
BRO-251
581407.7815
BRO-252
581585.9853
BRO-271
586693.6025
BRO-272
586756.9320
BRO-284
591990.9197
BRO-297
593459.5479
BRO-408
587783.7070
BRO-42
587415.5485
BRO-57
574196.6652
BRO-66
587038.3692
BRO-8
582083.3137
FAL-6
594908.5858
FOR-12
600213.4080
FOR-2
602958.5453
FOR-7
601015.0000
FOR-71
605087.4876
GRN-101
592000.9737
GRN-20
587310.6900
GRN-22
581477.2208
GRN-27
587898.0590
GRN-28
590339.2822
GRN-47
592472.3989
GRN-60
581583.1168
GRN-65
588134.0744
GRN-66
589442.5336
GRN-7
585304.6951
GRN-73
591053.2235
JOS-1
610893.4002
JOS-25
605041.8184
NORTHING
4809411.1241
4809048.4588
4810157.9583
4810294.4395
4810952.3579
4805697.5564
4807352.6869
4808530.0334
4811643.8827
4804532.1099
4806014.0272
4808587.6536
4804012.1310
4805830.2206
4805912.0162
4807547.3581
4807353.5901
4809958.6271
4808841.7083
4808544.9875
4806597.7885
4809505.7642
4807214.9131
4804547.7419
4795705.6134
4808632.8664
4808517.6010
4809342.5000
4808367.1765
4795058.2437
4800489.9005
4800603.9144
4800544.6133
4797545.9610
4796271.5604
4797971.4100
4802111.0240
4800892.0478
4798707.4855
4800548.1464
4815312.2439
4817834.0310
Permeability
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Low
High
High
High
Variable
High
High
Variable
High
High
High
High
High
Variable
Variable
High
High
Low-Medium
High
High
High
Low
Variable
Low
Variable
Variable
High
High
High
Variable
Variable
Variable
High
High
High
Low
Low
Variable
Slope
0.6857
0.0000
0.8730
0.8730
0.0000
1.0448
0.0000
0.9785
0.5047
0.4202
0.0000
0.0000
0.1023
0.2503
0.2503
2.3174
2.2376
0.3110
0.0000
0.5594
2.8700
0.8560
0.0000
0.0000
0.3037
0.0000
0.0000
0.7645
0.6482
0.4440
0.0524
0.0487
0.0524
0.0000
1.2490
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1004
0.4133
0.0000
0.0000
Conservation Halton
Slope Range
Mod
Low
Mod
Mod
Low
High
Low
Mod
Mod
Mod
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
High
Mod
Low
Mod
High
Mod
Low
Low
Mod
Low
Low
Mod
Mod
Mod
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Mod
Low
Low
Stream
Order
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
4
2
6
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
5
4
3
4
5
4
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
4
5
3
4
1
5
4
3
5
5
147
STATION EASTING
JOS-34
608838.8102
MCR-13
606089.9307
MCR-14
605106.1044
NDN-3
595955.4003
NDN-32
595109.5256
NDN-33
594746.7154
SHL-48
603802.5257
SHL-49
599117.0245
SHL-50
600990.0372
SHR-19
598985.4452
SHR-20
601035.2736
SXM-103
594583.5537
SXM-105
589513.0040
SXM-107
605757.4050
SXM-108
606239.0335
SXM-113
584898.3045
SXM-131
589529.7475
SXM-144
592653.9291
SXM-151
602917.6434
SXM-152
593394.9346
SXM-205
599008.4138
SXM-216
597179.8048
SXM-255
593590.5944
SXM-281
591948.1890
SXM-30
585895.0871
SXM-314
585473.4235
SXM-347
588810.6305
SXM-349
591202.9933
SXM-38
596177.6914
SXM-381
605826.7523
SXM-40
593140.5457
SXM-431
592293.0236
SXM-433
582283.1344
SXM-434
599854.7997
SXM-435
598447.4355
SXM-436
594767.5361
SXM-437
581162.4123
SXM-63
584110.2309
TUK-3
596075.1150
TUK-5
600176.6512
WDG-2
608643.6626
NORTHING
4815087.1849
4808918.3151
4809906.3310
4796929.1743
4798306.0846
4797633.6073
4803995.1499
4805143.0167
4804226.7820
4802378.3350
4800968.6352
4816058.6051
4818388.1080
4814173.1300
4811708.2868
4823897.3524
4819543.0433
4828439.9670
4812068.4936
4824089.2930
4817093.3559
4814196.4568
4819761.5875
4827538.8266
4818125.7541
4826828.9152
4823483.4587
4823059.2990
4821164.6342
4813390.9549
4825468.0543
4817841.4106
4820560.6299
4823264.2958
4820835.6451
4824528.3695
4823870.2449
4815505.4277
4803335.0612
4799857.7624
4813947.8386
Permeability
Variable
Variable
Variable
High
High
High
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Low
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Low
Variable
Variable
Variable
High
Low
Variable
Variable
Variable
Variable
Low
Variable
High
Slope
0.5686
0.3570
0.0000
1.0300
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.6614
0.8615
0.0000
0.7494
0.3369
0.0000
0.9229
0.0000
3.6733
0.6408
0.2013
0.0000
0.0000
0.3392
0.0000
0.2315
1.1873
0.9587
0.2538
0.0000
1.1873
0.2386
0.4473
0.4005
0.6704
0.4121
0.0944
0.0000
0.2396
0.6820
0.7458
0.2354
0.0000
0.5474
Conservation Halton
Slope Range
Mod
Mod
Low
High
Low
Low
Low
Mod
Mod
Low
Mod
Mod
Low
Mod
Low
High
Mod
Low
Low
Low
Mod
Low
Low
High
Mod
Low
Low
High
Low
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Low
Low
Low
Mod
Mod
Low
Low
Mod
Stream
Order
5
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
6
5
3
3
6
5
6
5
4
3
5
4
3
5
4
1
4
3
4
1
6
4
3
5
4
4
4
148
Watershed Summary:
Watershed
Sixteen Mile Creek
Permeability
High
Low-Medium
Low
Variable
# of
Sites
1
0
3
23
Bronte Creek
High
Low-Medium
Low
Variable
20
3
5
16
Grindstone Creek
High
Low-Medium
Low
Variable
6
0
1
4
Urban Creeks
High
Low-Medium
Low
Variable
6
0
5
12
Stream
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
# of
Sites
2
0
6
7
8
4
0
1
2
24
13
5
1
0
2
5
3
0
0
0
0
10
13
0
Slope
# of Sites
High
3
Moderate
11
Low
13
High
Moderate
Low
7
16
21
High
Moderate
Low
1
2
8
High
Moderate
Low
2
10
11
Equal distribution of all attributes is not applicable within all watersheds. Generally 1st and 2nd
order streams are under represented as they have a tendency to dry up before sampling is
permitted. Within the Urban Creeks watersheds, many of the 1st to 4th order streams have been
placed in pipes underground, which eliminates aquatic habitat and prevents sampling from
occurring. 6th order streams are not present in Grindstone Creek or within the Urban Creeks
watersheds. With respect to permeability, Low-Medium permeability does not occur along the
creeks within the Grindstone and Urban Creeks watersheds. High soil permeability mainly
occurs in wetland areas above the Niagara Escarpment that may not fit sampling protocols. The
high number of variable permeability sites is reflective of valley channels and riparian areas
where soil permeability varies.
Conservation Halton
149
Phoxinus eos
Lepomis gibbosus
Etheostoma caeruleum
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Nocomis micropogon
Ambloplites rupestris
Notropis photogensis
Micropterus dolomieu
Noturus flavus
1
11
39
1
17
14
1
6
7
7
3
1
8
1
9
4
1
9
2
6
7
1
111
2
1
5
9
5
9
13
4
3
4
14
4
1
0
9
14
28
1
4
1
4
10
6
2
26
5
64
10
3
2
24
2
5
4
1
15
4
10
1
7
2
34
4
5
6
15
14
9
11
30
13
10
4
2
19
16
2
8
4
13
1
58
6
17
62
1
134
5
1
1
1
33
15
1
36
17
57
14
1
25
56
29
2
2
161
1
30
2
37
1
10
Conservation Halton
7
2
1
2
106
20
1
12
7
8
6
1
2
6
14
16
71
111
151
1
2
1
3
1
2
27
1
10
1
4
1
24
3
9
31
1
3
4
1
1
13
13
1
5
1
49
13
2
3
36
13
5
6
204
1
1
1
1
4
6
2
25
1
2
6
0
10
130
4
3
1
103
10
34
10
4
48
3
14
7
80
1
2
30
1
6
89
1
29
2
156
12
60
47
3
2
1
129
15
31
60
Total
SXM-63
SXM-437
SXM-436
SXM-435
SXM-434
SXM-433
SXM-431
SXM-40
SXM-381
SXM-38
SXM-349
SXM-347
SXM-314
SXM-30
SXM-281
SXM-255
SXM-216
SXM-215
SXM-152
SXM-151
SXM-144
SXM-131
SXM-113
Semotilus atromaculatus
Notropis atherinoides
Etheostoma flabellare
Pimephales promelas
Nocomis biguttatus
Etheostoma nigrum
Percina caproides
Cottus bairdi
Hypentelium nigricans
Esox lucius
SXM-108
Creek Chub
Emerald Shiner
Fantail Darter
Fathead Minnow
Hornyhead Chub
Johnny Darter
Largemouth Bass
Logperch
Longnose Dace
Mottled Sculpin
Northern Hog Sucker
Northern Pike
Northern Redbelly
Dace
Pumpkinseed
Rainbow Darter
Rainbow Trout
River Chub
Rock Bass
Silver Shiner
Smallmouth Bass
Stonecat
White Sucker
Grand Total
SXM-107
Scientific Name
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Rhinichthys atratulus
Pimephales notatus
Culaea inconstans
Ameiurus nebulosus
Cyprinidae
Umbra limi
Campostoma anomalum
Luxilus cornutus
SXM-105
Common Name
Black Crappie
Blacknose Dace
Bluntnose Minnow
Brook Stickleback
Brown Bullhead
Carps and Minnows
Central Mudminnow
Central Stoneroller
Common Shiner
SXM-103
Appendix 2: Fish Species observed in the Sixteen Mile Creek Watershed 2011
3
268
40
7
4
70
1
10
27
258
2
122
12
1
201
4
1
302
19
21
1
4
67
203
7
56
40
1
3
24
79
1859
5
31
1
18
2
9
1
1
1
3
1
10
4
26
12
5
14
45
2
3
3
8
4
16
40
13
10
2
1
1
1
1
1
14
112
28
61
17
1
19
29
55
3
1
65
1
3
74
1
1
8
212
26
1
1
33
10
109
35
Conservation Halton
6
43
64
1
11
1
1
62
8
31
4
1
4
152
2
121
76
50
1
36
Total
GRN-7
GRN-66
GRN-65
GRN-60
GRN-50
1
1
8
GRN-49
GRN-28
1
3
GRN-47
GRN-27
Lepomis cyanellus
Etheostoma nigrum
Esox lucius
Lepomis gibbosus
Etheostoma caeruleum
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Salmonidae
Noturus flavus
GRN-22
Green Sunfish
Johnny Darter
Largemouth Bass
Longnose Dace
Northern Pike
Pumpkinseed
Rainbow Darter
Rainbow Trout
Salmonid sp.
Stonecat
White Sucker
Grand Total
Umbra limi
Cyprinus carpio
Semotilus atromaculatus
Notemigonus crysoleucas
GRN-20
Scientific Name
Rhinichthys atratulus
Pimephales notatus
Culaea inconstans
Ameiurus nebulosus
Cyprinidae
GRN-16
Common Name
Blacknose Dace
Bluntnose Minnow
Brook Stickleback
Brown Bullhead
Carps and Minnows
Central
Mudminnow
Common Carp
Creek Chub
Golden Shiner
GRN-101
Appendix 3: Fish Species Observed in the Grindstone Creek Watershed
28
43
10
1
1
132
3
86
2
1
56
1
350
2
16
104
3
1
1
35
876
Appendix 4: Index of Biotic Integrity Scores and Associated Classifications for Sampling
Events From 2005-2011
STATION
GRN-16
GRN-20
GRN-22
GRN-27
GRN-28
GRN-47
GRN-50
GRN-60
GRN-65
GRN-66
GRN-7
GRN-73
GRN-101
SXM-30
SXM-38
SXM-40
SXM-63
SXM-103
SXM-105
SXM-107
SXM-108
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
2005
-
2006
13.5
Poor
29.25
Good
22.50
Fair
24.75
Fair
20.25
Poor
-
2007
-
2008
-
-
-
-
-
22.50
Fair
-
27.00
Fair
-
2009
-
2011
13.5
Poor
-
-
20.25
Poor
24.75
Fair
22.50
Fair
16.00
Poor
-
20.25
Poor
22.5
Fair
22.5
Fair
22.5
Fair
23
Fair
-
25.00
Fair
16.00
Poor
32.00
Good
29.00
Good
18.00
Poor
24.00
Fair
16.00
Poor
23.00
22.5
Fair
27.00
Fair
27.00
Fair
31.50
Good
No
Catch
NA
-
-
-
-
20.25
Poor
-
-
18.00
Poor
31.50
Good
20.25
Poor
-
23
Fair
31.5
Good
22.5
Fair
20.00
Poor
-
-
16.00
Poor
-
24.75
Fair
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.00
Poor
-
22.00
Fair
-
23.00
Fair
-
20.00
Poor
-
22.00
Fair
-
18.00
Poor
-
-
-
-
Conservation Halton
20.25
Poor
19.00
Poor
27.00
Fair
29.25
Good
33.75
Good
15.75
Poor
16.00
Poor
20.25
Poor
22.50
Dry
NA
29.25
Good
22.50
Fair
25.00
Fair
38.00
Very Good
27.00
Fair
18.00
Poor
24.75
Fair
20.00
Poor
22.50
153
STATION
SXM-113
SXM-131
SXM-144
SXM-151
SXM-152
SXM-205
SXM-216
SXM-255
SXM-281
SXM-314
SXM-347
SXM-349
SXM-381
SXM-431
SXM-433
SXM-434
SXM-435
SXM-436
SXM-437
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
Score
Class
2005
Fair
13.00
Poor
25.00
Poor
27.00
Fair
20.00
Poor
27.00
Fair
-
2006
2007
2008
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24.75
Fair
20.25
Poor
-
22.50
Fair
-
-
-
-
-
-
29.25
Good
24.75
Fair
29.25
Good
22.50
Fair
-
-
-
-
-
30.00
Good
-
26.00
Fair
-
23.00
Fair
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25.00
Fair
18.00
Poor
18.00
Poor
23.00
Fair
20.25
Poor
22.50
Fair
22.50
Fair
24.75
Fair
23.00
Fair
-
22.50
Fair
20.25
Poor
-
32.00
Good
32.00
Good
29.00
Good
18.00
Poor
-
-
2009
Fair
20.00
Poor
20.25
Poor
27.00
Fair
22.50
Fair
23.00
Fair
Conservation Halton
2011
Fair
14.00
Poor
29.25
Good
25.00
Fair
20.00
Poor
29.00
Good
Not
Sampled
NA
15.75
Poor
27.00
Fair
18.00
Poor
25.00
Fair
34.00
Good
29.00
Good
18.00
Poor
29.25
Good
23.00
Fair
No Catch
NA
29.00
Good
18.00
Poor
20.00
Poor
154
Chrysomelidae
Dryopidae
Dytiscidae
Elmidae
Haliplidae
Psephenidae
Psephenidae
Psephenidae
Chironomidae
Ceratopogonidae
Empididae
Psychodidae
Simuliidae
Stratiomyidae
Tabanidae
Tipulidae
Tipulidae
Tipulidae
Tipulidae
Baetidae
Caenidae
Ephemerellidae
Ephemeridae
Heptageniidae
Isonychiidae
Leptohyphidae
Nemouridae
Perlidae
Perlodidae
Taeniopterygidae
Ectopria
Psephenus
Antocha
Pidicea
Pilaria
Caenis
SXM-108
SXM-113
SXM-131
SXM-144
SXM-151
SXM-152
SXM-216
SXM-255
SXM-281
SXM-30
SXM-314
SXM-347
SXM-349
SXM-38
SXM-381
SXM-40
SXM-431
SXM-432
SXM-433
SXM-434
SXM-435
SXM-436
SXM-437
SXM-63
TOTAL
GENUS
SXM-107
FAMILY
SXM-105
ORDER
Nemata
(Phylum)
Oligochaeta
(class)
Coleoptera
Coleoptera
Coleoptera
Coleoptera
Coleoptera
Coleoptera
Coleoptera
Coleoptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Plecoptera
Plecoptera
Plecoptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
SXM-103
Appendix 5: Benthic Invertebrates Observed in the Sixteen Mile Creek Watershed
0
1
0
1
4
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
1
6
0
3
0
2
0
0
2
3
34
29
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29 28 29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
84 150 223
1
0
0
1 11
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
6
12
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Conservation Halton
3 31 16 13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27 16 18 45
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
1
1
84 320 269 206
2
3
2
4
2
0
3
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
3
0
62
4
5
2
11
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
155
8 10 10 18
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
94 52 67 13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
28 158 110 134 240
23
1 15
3
7
7
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
5 12
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
8
3
0
4
68
6
3
6
0
7
1 12
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 11
9
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2 30
5 12 11
2 190
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
12 14 63 174 150
5 62
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
99 257 202 96 112 266 208 102
0
6
3
5
0
1
0
6
2
0
0 14
9
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
0
30
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
13
3
0
4
0 11
1
0
0
0
1
0
4
0 32
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 18 14
7
9
5
1 457
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
20 82
0 148 105 28 27 1308
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
16 110 323 139 122 123 203 4384
4
2
1
3
2
6
1 101
1 26
0
1
2 10
6 111
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
24
3
1
0
7
5 19
95
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
2
0
0
0
5
4
58
0
0
0
0
0
0 12
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
15
4
0
9
0
0
0 107
0 29 42
7 15
6
0 306
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
50
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
8
2 11
0
0
6
3
5
63
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
6
0
1
0
0
2
1
0
9
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
17
7
1
0
1 10
0
2
43
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Crangonyctidae
Gammaridae
Hyalellidae
Corixidae
Ancylidae
Lymnaeidae
Physidae
Planorbidae
Asellidae
Sphaeriidae
Cambaridae
Crambidae
(Sp) Helobdella
stagnalis
Hyalella
Caecidotea
Total
SXM-434
SXM-435
SXM-436
SXM-437
SXM-63
TOTAL
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SXM-433
0
0
3
7
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SXM-432
0
0
0
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
SXM-431
0
0
7
5
0
11
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
SXM-40
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
SXM-381
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
SXM-38
SXM-255
0
0
0
4
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SXM-349
SXM-216
0
0
1
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SXM-347
SXM-152
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SXM-314
SXM-151
0
0
3
90
1
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
SXM-30
SXM-144
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
2
6 129
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
15
1
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
2
1
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
3
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
10
2
1
0
0
11
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
27
309
38
41
4
1
20
8
6
3
3
14
6
1
3
4
1
SXM-281
SXM-131
Sialis
SXM-113
Chimarra
SXM-108
Glossiphoniidae
Hirudinidea
Helicopsyche
SXM-107
Hirudinea
Hirudinea
Amphipoda
Amphipoda
Amphipoda
Amphipoda
Heteroptera
Bosommatophora
Bosommatophora
Bosommatophora
Bosommatophora
Isopoda
Veneroida
Decapoda
Lepidoptera
GENUS
SXM-105
FAMILY
Brachycentridae
Glossosomatidae
Helicopsychidae
Hydropsychidae
Hydroptilidae
Leptoceridae
Limnephilidae
Molannidae
Philopotamidae
Philopotamidae
Polycentropodidae
Rhyacophilidae
Uenoidae
Corydalidae
Sialidae
Aeshnidae
Calopterygidae
Coenagrionidae
Erpobdellidae
SXM-103
ORDER
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Megaloptera
Megaloptera
Odonata
Odonata
Odonata
Hirudinea
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0 15
0
0
0
0 18
0
0
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
0
0 12
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
242 14
1
0 15
0
5
1
7 37 13
5
0
0
1
0
0 20
1
0
2
2 16
6
1
0
0 389
7
0
0
5
1
6
4
3
8 27
0
0
0
0 16 10 31
1
7
0
4
6
0
3 18
9
0 166
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
414 330 267 244 416 343 304 293 275 316 205 298 320 294 328 352 344 331 343 318 125 328 401 338 321 212 332 8392
Conservation Halton
156
Water Quality Index
EPT
Richness(# of Taxa)
% Oligochaeta
% Chironomidae
% Isopoda
% Gastropoda
% Diptera
% Insects
Hilsenhoff (MFBI)
SDI per site
Unimpaired
Possibly Impaired
Impaired
OVERALL
SXM-63
SXM-437
SXM-436
SXM-435
SXM-434
SXM-433
SXM-432
SXM-431
SXM-40
SXM-381
SXM-38
SXM-349
SXM-347
SXM-314
SXM-30
SXM-281
SXM-255
SXM-216
SXM-152
SXM-151
SXM-144
SXM-131
SXM-113
SXM-108
SXM-107
SXM-105
INDEX 2011
EPT
Richness(# of Taxa)
% Oligochaeta
% Chironomidae
% Isopoda
% Gastropoda
% Diptera
% Insects
Hilsenhoff (MFBI)
SDI per sample
SDI per site
SXM-103
Appendix 6: Benthic Water Quality Results for Sixteen Mile Creek
6
11
2
11
4
5
2
11
7
9
0
7
11
4
5
10
9
3
8
15
22
9
22
13
20
21
25
21
21
12
16
22
12
16
24
18
15
19
7.0 0.6 0.4 1.2 7.5 4.7 4.3 2.7 3.6 3.2 8.8 1.3 0.9 0.7 9.1 1.4 3.5 3.3 0.6
20.3 45.5 83.5 34.4 76.9 78.4 67.8 10.0 57.5 34.8 65.4 80.5 30.9 87.4 61.6 27.3 32.6 80.4 60.6
58.5 4.2 0.4 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.6 0.3 2.5 11.7 6.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.9
20.8 50.0 84.3 36.1 77.9 81.3 72.4 20.1 59.6 43.4 73.7 85.6 41.3 90.1 64.0 34.7 35.5 81.3 62.7
32.4 94.2 98.5 95.1 84.9 92.4 89.5 95.6 89.8 76.3 83.9 96.6 98.1 98.0 85.1 95.5 87.2 89.4 94.5
7.2 5.1 5.7 5.2 6.1 5.9 5.7 4.9 5.5 5.5 6.2 5.7 4.5 5.8 5.8 4.7 5.1 6.0 5.4
1.2 1.6 0.6 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 2.0 1.4 1.8 1.2 0.8 1.6 0.5 1.1 1.5 1.4 0.8 1.3
2.2 2.7 1.7 2.9 1.9 2.0 2.3 3.2 2.5 2.9 1.9 1.9 2.8 1.6 2.2 2.6 2.5 1.9 2.4
0
7
13
2
9
6
6
13
7
20
28
8
18
16
20
23
59.7 2.4 5.5 3.5 2.1 2.8 2.4 0.3
32.1 12.8 33.5 80.5 41.1 38.0 58.0 61.1
0.0 1.6 0.6 4.0 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
34.9 36.8 43.6 81.0 42.3 41.4 70.3 73.8
34.9 88.0 91.2 92.0 94.1 85.0 92.0 98.8
7.2 4.0 5.3 6.1 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.1
0.9 1.8 1.9 0.7 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.6
2.0 2.7 3.0 1.7 2.4 2.7 2.6 2.7
P
U
U
P
I
P
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
U
P
U
I
I
I
U
U
U
I
P
P
P
I
U
I
3
3
4
P
I
I
U
I
U
P
I
I
U
I
4
3
3
P
U
U
U
P
U
P
U
I
U
I
3
1
6
I
I
I
U
I
P
P
I
P
P
I
6
2
2
U
P
U
U
I
U
U
I
I
U
I
1
4
5
I
I
U
U
I
P
U
I
U
I
5
1
4
P
U
U
U
P
U
P
U
I
U
P
4
2
4
P
P
U
U
I
P
P
I
P
U
I
6
3
1
U
P
U
U
P
I
P
U
U
U
I
3
4
3
P
I
I
U
I
I
P
I
P
P
I
5
3
2
U
1
2
6
I
U =Unimpaired, P =Potentially Impaired, I =Impaired
Conservation Halton
P
U
U
I
P
P
I
I
U
I
157
U
U
U
P
U
P
U
I
U
I
3
3
4
P
I
I
U
I
U
P
I
I
U
I
6
2
2
U
P
U
U
I
U
U
I
P
U
I
3
1
6
I
P
U
U
P
U
P
U
I
U
I
5
2
3
U
P
U
U
P
U
U
U
P
U
I
5
3
2
U
I
U
U
I
I
P
I
P
P
I
6
3
1
U
P
U
U
I
U
U
I
I
U
I
2
3
5
I
5
1
4
P
P
U
U
P
P
P
U
P
U
I
2
2
6
I
U
U
U
P
U
U
U
I
U
P
4
5
1
P
I
I
U
I
P
P
I
I
P
I
7
2
1
U
P
U
U
4
3
3
P
P
U
U
I
U
P
I
I
U
I
U
P
U
P
U
P
U
I
P
P
U
I
U
I
1
3
6
I
P
5
4
1
U
U
U
U
I
U
P
I
I
U
I
4
2
4
P
5
1
4
P
Hirudinea
Amphipoda
Amphipoda
Amphipoda
Heteroptera
Bosommatophora
Bosommatophora
Bosommatophora
Isopoda
Veneroida
Circulionidae
Dytiscidae
Elmidae
Haliplidae
Psephenidae
Chironomidae
Ceratopogonidae
Empididae
Simuliidae
Stratiomyidae
Tabanidae
Tipulidae
Baetidae
Caenidae
Heptageniidae
Leptophlebiidae
Siphlonuridae
Nemouridae
Perlodidae
Hydropsychidae
Hydroptilidae
Leptoceridae
Limnephilidae
Philopotamidae
Uenoidae
Corydalidae
Sialidae
Coenagrionidae
Corduliidae
Erpobdellidae
Glossiphoniidae
Glossiphoniidae
Crangonyctidae
Gammaridae
Hyalellidae
Gerridae
Lymnaeidae
Physidae
Planorbidae
Asellidae
Sphaeriidae
Sialis
Helobdella
stagnalis
Hyalella
Caecidotea
Total
GRN-20
GRN-22
GRN-60
GRN-7
GRN-73
GRN-47
GRN-28
GRN-49
GRN-101
GRN-50
GRN-16
TOTAL
Genus/Species
GRN-27
Family
GRN-66
Order
Nemata (Phylum)
Oligochaeta
(class)
Turbellaria(Class)
Coleoptera
Coleoptera
Coleoptera
Coleoptera
Coleoptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Diptera
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeroptera
Ephemeroptera
Plecoptera
Plecoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Trichoptera
Megaloptera
Megaloptera
Odonata
Odonata
Hirudinea
Hirudinea
GRN-65
Appendix 7: Benthic Invertebrates Observed in the Grindstone Creek Watershed
11
7
3
10
0
0
7
6
0
0
2
1
33
0
80
40 91 108 112 90 33 75 23
4
9 27 47 27
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 12
0 15
0
0
0
0
0
36
6
7 16
0
1
0
0
0
2 34 19 24
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
138 149 197 143 159 72 228 129 197 110 131 155 146
4
1
0
2
9
1
3 30
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
7 22
8 36
2
5
0
0
1 13
2
6
4
1
8
1
0
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0
2
7
2
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
3
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 11
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5 64
3 25 62
0
1
0
0
0 169
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0 16 11
3
7
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 10 16
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0 64
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
3 19
0
0
8
0
1
9 22
4 12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1 20 15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 11
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6 692
0
5
1
1
0
27
10 155
0
2
0
1
0
3
52 2006
0
52
9
59
14 100
0
9
0
11
0
25
0
13
52 212
0 177
29
71
0
2
0
1
0
26
0
69
14
96
4
42
0
1
0
11
0
6
0
8
1
4
0
2
0
14
0
2
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
13
1
0
0
5
1
0
0 37
8
3 14
0
7
89
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0 32
0
0
1
0
0
44
0
0
0
0 26
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
6
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
19
7
0
4 12
3
6
0 14 52 40
6
4 127 294
3
1
1
0
1
6
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
18
300 325 335 322 336 315 329 308 315 295 303 311 368 327 4489
Conservation Halton
158
GRN-27
GRN-20
GRN-22
GRN-60
GRN-7
GRN-73
GRN-47
GRN-28
GRN-49
GRN-101
GRN-50
GRN-16
EPT
Richness(# of Taxa)
% Oligochaeta
% Chironomidae
% Isopoda
% Gastropoda
% Diptera
% Insects
Hilsenhoff (MFBI)
SDI per site
Unimpaired
Possibly Impaired
Impaired
OVERALL
GRN-66
Grindstone 2011
EPT
Richness(# of Taxa)
% Oligochaeta
% Chironomidae
% Isopoda
% Gastropoda
% Diptera
% Insects
Hilsenhoff (MFBI)
SDI per sample
SDI per site
GRN-65
Appendix 8: Benthic Water Quality Results for Grindstone Creek
4
20
13
46
6.3
0.3
52.0
67.7
5.82
1.77
2.87
4
17
28
46
2.2
0.0
60.6
65.2
6.30
1.50
2.59
2
11
32
59
0.0
0.0
62.1
66.6
6.44
0.98
2.05
2
14
35
44
1.2
0.3
48.1
60.2
6.27
1.30
2.39
2
17
27
47
3.6
3.3
52.1
56.0
6.89
1.49
2.59
1
16
10
23
1.0
0.0
23.5
83.2
6.14
1.36
2.44
1
8
23
69
1.8
0.0
70.5
72.9
6.31
0.86
1.96
7
18
7
42
0.0
0.3
58.4
89.6
4.93
1.64
2.73
4
14
1
63
4.4
0.0
64.1
72.1
5.84
1.26
2.36
5
16
3
37
17.6
0.0
40.0
75.6
5.71
1.72
2.82
6
17
9
43
13.2
0.3
47.9
75.6
5.80
1.72
2.81
4
16
15
50
1.9
0.0
53.7
77.5
5.85
1.63
2.73
5
15
7
40
1.1
0.0
49.2
82.6
5.06
1.79
2.90
4
14
2
16
38.8
0.0
22.9
56.9
6.24
1.78
2.88
I
U
P
I
P
U
I
U
U
I
I
U
P
I
P
P
I
U
P
I
I
I
I
I
U
P
I
U
P
I
I
U
I
I
P
U
P
U
P
I
I
U
P
I
P
U
I
U
P
I
I
U
P
P
P
P
U
P
P
I
I
I
P
I
P
P
I
U
P
I
P
U
U
I
U
U
I
P
U
I
I
U
U
I
P
P
I
U
U
I
P
U
U
P
I
P
U
U
U
I
P
U
U
I
I
U
P
U
U
I
I
U
P
I
P
P
I
U
U
I
P
U
U
P
P
P
P
P
U
I
P
U
U
P
I
P
U
U
P
I
4
2
4
P
2
4
4
P
2
2
6
I
3
3
4
P
3
3
4
P
2
6
2
P
1
4
5
I
5
2
3
U
4
2
4
P
5
3
2
U
5
2
3
U
3
3
4
P
U =Unimpaired, P =Potentially Impaired, I =Impaired
Conservation Halton
159
3
6
1
P
4
4
2
P
Appendix 9: Water Temperature Graphs
Conservation Halton
160
Conservation Halton
161
Conservation Halton
162
Conservation Halton
163
Conservation Halton
164
Appendix 10: Bird Species Recorded within 100 m Fixed Distance at Marsh Monitoring
Program Stations A, B and C, Hilton Falls Conservation Area
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Station A
Station B
Station C
Survey 1
Survey 2
Survey 1
Survey 2
Survey 1
Survey 2
American
Robin
Turdus
migratorius
---
---
1
---
---
---
Cedar
Waxwing
Bombycilla
cedrorum
---
---
---
1
---
---
Common
Yellowthroat
Geothlypis
trichas
1
---
2
---
---
---
Great Crested
Flycatcher
Myiarchus
crinitus
1
---
1
---
---
---
Red-winged
Blackbird
Agelaius
phoeniceus
1
1
4
1
---
---
Ring-billed
Gull
Larus
delawarensis
---
---
---
---
---
1
Song Sparrow
Melospiza
melodia
---
---
3
----
---
---
Tree Swallow
Tachycineta
bicolor
---
---
3
3
---
---
Yellow
Warbler
Dendroica
petechia
---
1
1
1
---
---
Survey 1: June 2, 2011
Conservation Halton
165
Program Stations A, B and C Mountsberg Conservation Area
Common Name
Scientific Name
Station A
Station B
American
Goldfinch
Spinus tristis
American Robin
Turdus migratorius
---
---
---
Cedar Waxwing
Bombycilla
cedrorum
---
4
Common Grackle
Quiscalus quiscula
---
American
Coot/Common
Moorhen
Fulica americana
/Gallinula
chloropus
Common
Yellowthroat
Eastern Kingbird
Station C
Survey 1 Survey 2
--2
Survey 1 Survey 2
--1
Survey 1
---
Survey 2
---
---
---
1
---
---
---
1
---
---
---
---
1
---
1
---
---
---
---
Geothlypis trichas
---
---
1
5
1
---
Tyrannus tyrannus
---
---
1
---
---
---
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris
---
1
---
---
---
---
House Wren
Troglodytes aedon
1
---
---
---
---
---
Mallard
Anas platyrhynchos
---
1
---
---
---
---
Red-winged
Blackbird
Agelaius
phoeniceus
6
---
2
6
1
4
Song Sparrow
Melospiza melodia
---
1
---
---
---
1
Tree Swallow
Tachycineta bicolor
5
3
---
---
---
---
Virginia Rail
Rallus limicola
---
1
---
1
---
---
Yellow Warbler
Dendroica petechia
2
1
---
---
1
---
Species in bold indicate a Marsh Obligate species
Survey 2: July 25, 2011
Conservation Halton
166
Appendix 12: Bird Species Recorded with the 100 m Fixed Distance at Marsh Monitoring Program Stations A, B, C and D Fuciarelli
Common Name
Scientific Name
American Coot
Fulica americana
American Robin
Station A
Station B
Station C
Station D
Survey 1
1
Survey 2
---
Survey 1
---
Survey 2
---
Survey 1
---
Survey 2
---
Survey 1
---
Survey 2
---
Turdus
migratorius
---
---
---
2
---
---
---
1
Black-capped
Chickadee
Poecile
atricapillus
3
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Blue Jay
Cyanocitta
cristata
---
---
---
---
---
---
1
---
Cedar Waxwing
Bombycilla
cedrorum
1
---
---
---
---
1
---
---
Chipping
Sparrow
Spizella passerina
---
1
2
2
3
2
---
---
Cliff Swallow
Petrochelidon
pyrrhonota
---
---
---
---
1
---
---
---
Common Grackle Quiscalus
quiscula
1
4
---
---
---
---
---
---
Common
Yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas
---
---
---
1
1
1
---
---
Downy
Woodpecker
Picoides
pubescens
---
---
---
1
---
---
---
---
Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias
---
---
---
---
---
1
---
---
Green Heron
---
1
---
---
---
---
---
---
Butorides
virescens
Conservation Halton
167
Common Name
Scientific Name
Station A
Station B
Station C
Station D
Survey 1
1
Survey 2
---
Survey 1
---
Survey 2
---
Survey 1
---
Survey 2
---
Survey 1
1
Survey 2
---
House Wren
Troglodytes
aedon
Ruby- Throated
Hummingbird
Archilochus
colubris
1
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Marsh Wren
Cistothorus
palustris
---
---
1
1
---
1
---
---
Song Sparrow
Melospiza
melodia
1
---
---
1
---
1
---
Swamp Sparrow Melospiza
georgiana
---
1
1
---
---
---
---
---
Tree Swallow
Tachycineta
bicolor
2
---
4
1
8
---
2
---
Virginia Rail
Rallus limicola
---
---
---
---
---
---
1
---
Yellow Warbler
Dendroica
petechia
1
1
2
---
2
---
1
---
Species in bold indicate a Marsh Obligate species
Survey 1: June 15, 2011 or June 21, 2011
Survey 2: July 7, 2011
Conservation Halton
168
---
Appendix 13: Frog Species Recorded with the 100 m Fixed Distance at Marsh Monitoring Program Stations A, B, C Fucarelli Conservation Area
Station A
Common Scientific
Name
Name
Station B
Station C
Station D
Survey 1
Survey 2
Survey 3
Survey 1
Survey 2
Survey 3
Survey 1
Survey 2
Survey 3
Survey1
Survey 2
Survey 3
CC
CC
Ab.
CC
Ab.
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
2 ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
10 ---
---
---
---
---
---
Ab.
Spring
Peeper
Pseudacris
crucifer
1
Wood
Frog
Rana
sylvatica
---
---
Grey
Tree
Frog
Hyla
versicolor
---
---
Pickerel
Frog
Rana
palustris
---
---
---
---
---
---
Northern
Leopard
Frog
Rana
pipiens
---
---
---
---
---
---
Green
Frog
Rana
clamitans
---
---
2
1
8
1
3 ---
1
5 ---
CC – Call code, Ab. - Abundance
Survey 1: April 13, 2011
Survey 2: May 23, 2011
Conservation Halton
Ab.
169
---
2
---
Ab.
12 ---
Ab.
---
3 ---
---
---
2
5 ---
---
---
---
---
2
Ab.
Ab.
2
20 ---
2
Ab
Ab.
5 ---
---
---
---
---
---
20 ---
---
---
---
---
3 ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1 ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
22 ---
---
1 ---
---
---
---
1
8
2
1
1
Ab.
1
---
2
Ab
2 ---
---
---
---
---
10
1
1
6 ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1
7
1
6
Appendix 14: Frog Species Recorded with the 100 m Fixed Distance at Marsh Monitoring Program Stations A, B, C Mountsberg
Conservation Area
Mountsberg
Station A
Station B
Survey 1
Survey 2
Survey 3
Survey 1
Survey 2
Survey 3
Survey 1
Survey 2
Survey 3
CC
CC
CC
Ab
CC
CC
CC
Ab
CC
CC
CC
Ab
---
---
3 ---
---
---
3 ---
---
---
1
---
---
---
1
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
-
-
---
---
Ab
Ab
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Spring
Peeper
Pseudacris
crucifer
3 -
Wood Frog
Rana
sylvatica
1
1 ---
---
---
---
Northern
Leopard
Frog
Rana
pipiens
1
1 ---
---
---
---
American
Toad
Bufo
americanus
americanus
Rana
--clamitans
Green Frog
Station C
3 ---
2
---
-
---
Ab
3 ---
3 ---
---
---
3
-
Ab
1
1
5 ---
---
-
---
-
1
170
3 ---
---
Ab
3 ---
1 ---
2
CC – Call code, Ab. – Abundance
Conservation Halton
---
Ab
1
5
Appendix 15: Frog Species Recorded with the 100 m Fixed Distance at Marsh Monitoring Program Stations A, B Hilton Falls
Hilton
Falls
Station A
Common Scientific
Name
Name
Survey 1
CC
Ab.
Spring
Peeper
Pseudacris
crucifer
3 ---
Wood
Frog
Rana
sylvatica
1
Survey 2
CC
Ab.
Station B
Survey 3
CC
Ab.
Survey 1
CC
Ab.
3 ---
---
---
1 ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
18 ---
---
Survey 2
CC
Ab.
3 ---
Visit 3
CC
Ab.
3 ---
---
---
---
---
---
2 ---
---
---
American Bufo
--Toad
americanus
americanus
Green
Rana
--Frog
clamitans
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pickerel
Frog
Rana
palustris
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1
3 ---
---
Northern
Leopard
Frog
Rana
pipiens
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1
1 ---
---
2
CC – Call code, Ab. – Abundance
Conservation Halton
171
1
---
---
1
23
Appendix 16: Bird Species Observed through the Forest Bird Monitoring Program
Date
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
12/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
Site
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Station
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Visit
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Common Name
American Robin
Sharp-shinned Hawk
American Goldfinch
Red-eyed Vireo
Great Crested Flycatcher
House Wren
American Crow
American Crow
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Blue Jay
American Robin
Red-eyed Vireo
Black-capped Chickadee
American Goldfinch
American Goldfinch
Northern Cardinal
American Crow
Northern Flicker
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Eastern Wood-Pewee
American Goldfinch
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Nashville Warbler
Ovenbird
Red-eyed Vireo
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Pine Warbler
American Robin
American Goldfinch
Wood Thrush
American Redstart
Mourning Warbler
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Ovenbird
Red-eyed Vireo
American Robin
Red-eyed Vireo
Ovenbird
Scarlet Tanager
Nashville Warbler
Blue Jay
Blue Jay
Eastern Wood-Pewee
American Redstart
Red-eyed Vireo
Wood Thrush
American Goldfinch
American Crow
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Red-eyed Vireo
American Robin
Ovenbird
White-breasted Nuthatch
Brown Creeper
Red-winged Blackbird
American Robin
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Red-eyed Vireo
Pileated Woodpecker
American Redstart
Scarlet Tanager
Ovenbird
Conservation Halton
172
Scientific Name
Turdus migratorius
Accipiter striatus
Carduelis tristis
Vireo olivaceus
Myiarchus crinitus
Troglodytes aedon
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Contopus virens
Cyanocitta cristata
Turdus migratorius
Myiarchus crinitus
Vireo olivaceus
Poecile atricapillus
Carduelis tristis
Carduelis tristis
Cardinalis cardinalis
Colaptes auratus
Myiarchus crinitus
Contopus virens
Myiarchus crinitus
Contopus virens
Carduelis tristis
Contopus virens
Vermivora ruficapilla
Seiurus aurocapilla
Vireo olivaceus
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Dendroica pinus
Turdus migratorius
Carduelis tristis
Hylocichla mustelina
Setophaga ruticilla
Oporornis philadelphia
Contopus virens
Seiurus aurocapilla
Vireo olivaceus
Turdus migratorius
Vireo olivaceus
Seiurus aurocapilla
Piranga olivacea
Vermivora ruficapilla
Cyanocitta cristata
Cyanocitta cristata
Contopus virens
Setophaga ruticilla
Vireo olivaceus
Myiarchus crinitus
Carduelis tristis
Contopus virens
Vireo olivaceus
Turdus migratorius
Seiurus aurocapilla
Sitta carolinensis
Certhia americana
Agelaius phoeniceus
Turdus migratorius
Contopus virens
Vireo olivaceus
Dryocopus pileatus
Setophaga ruticilla
Piranga olivacea
Seiurus aurocapilla
Number
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
Date
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
30/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
Site
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Hilton Falls
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
Station
Visit
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
C
C
C
C
C
C
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Common Name
Wood Thrush
Pileated Woodpecker
American Robin
European Starling
Veery
Eastern Wood-Pewee
American Redstart
Ovenbird
Black-and-white Warbler
American Goldfinch
Red-eyed Vireo
Eastern Wood-Pewee
American Robin
American Redstart
unknown woodpecker
Wood Thrush
Red-eyed Vireo
Common Grackle
European Starling
American Redstart
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Red-winged Blackbird
American Robin
Scarlet Tanager
Red-eyed Vireo
Ovenbird
Eastern Wood-Pewee
American Robin
Blue Jay
Brown Creeper
American Goldfinch
Grey Catbird
American Crow
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Red-eyed Vireo
Red-eyed Vireo
American Crow
Warbler
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Red-eyed Vireo
Blue Jay
American Goldfinch
Red-eyed Vireo
American Goldfinch
American Crow
American Robin
Blue Jay
Common Yellowthroat
House Wren
Northern Cardinal
American Goldfinch
Red-eyed Vireo
Indigo Bunting
Downy Woodpecker
Song Sparrow
Red-eyed Vireo
Blue Jay
American Crow
Eastern Wood-Pewee
American Goldfinch
Red-eyed Vireo
Blue Jay
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Conservation Halton
173
Scientific Name
Dryocopus pileatus
Turdus migratorius
Sturnus vulgaris
Catharus fuscescens
Contopus virens
Setophaga ruticilla
Seiurus aurocapilla
Mniotilta varia
Carduelis tristis
Myiarchus crinitus
Vireo olivaceus
Contopus virens
Turdus migratorius
Setophaga ruticilla
Vireo olivaceus
Quiscalus quiscula
Sturnus vulgaris
Setophaga ruticilla
Contopus virens
Agelaius phoeniceus
Turdus migratorius
Piranga olivacea
Vireo olivaceus
Seiurus aurocapilla
Contopus virens
Turdus migratorius
Cyanocitta cristata
Certhia americana
Carduelis tristis
Dumetella carolinensis
Melanerpes carolinus
Vireo olivaceus
Vireo olivaceus
Dendroica virens
Contopus virens
Vireo olivaceus
Cyanocitta cristata
Carduelis tristis
Myiarchus crinitus
Vireo olivaceus
Myiarchus crinitus
Carduelis tristis
Turdus migratorius
Cyanocitta cristata
Geothlypis tricha
Troglodytes aedon
Carduelis tristis
Vireo olivaceus
Passerina cyanea
Picoides pubescens
Melospiza melodia
Vireo olivaceus
Cyanocitta cristata
Contopus virens
Carduelis tristis
Vireo olivaceus
Cyanocitta cristata
Contopus virens
Number
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
Date
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
17/06/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
Site
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Waterdown Woods
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Station
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
C (old A)
C (old A)
C (old A)
C (old A)
Visit
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
06/10/2011
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
C (old A)
C (old A)
C (old A)
C (old A)
A (new)
A (new)
A (new)
A (new)
A (new)
A (new)
A (new)
A (new)
A (new)
B (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
E (new)
F (new)
A (new)
A (new)
A (new)
A (new)
A (new)
A (new)
B (new)
C (old A)
C (old A)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
C (old A)
C (old A)
C (old A)
C (old A)
C (old A)
C (old A)
C (old A)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
05/07/2010
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Rattlesnake Point
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
E (new)
F (new)
A
A
A
A
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Common Name
American Goldfinch
American Robin
Red-tailed Hawk
American Goldfinch
Northern Cardinal
Brown Creeper
American Goldfinch
House Wren
Yellow-shafted Flicker
Warbler
Ovenbird
Red-eyed Vireo
American Crow
Red-eyed Vireo
American Robin
American Crow
House Wren
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Wood Thrush
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Scientific Name
Carduelis tristis
Turdus migratorius
Buteo jamaicensis
Myiarchus crinitus
Carduelis tristis
Certhia americana
Carduelis tristis
Troglodytes aedon
Colaptes auratus
Dendroica virens
Seiurus aurocapilla
Vireo olivaceus
Vireo olivaceus
Myiarchus crinitus
Turdus migratorius
Troglodytes aedon
Dendroica pensylvanica
Contopus virens
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
American Crow
Winter Wren
Eastern Wood-Pewee
European Starling
Blue Jay
Brown-headed Cowbird
American Robin
Red-eyed Vireo
Troglodytes troglodytes
Contopus virens
Sturnus vulgaris
Cyanocitta cristata
Molothrus ater
Turdus migratorius
Vireo olivaceus
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
American Crow
American Robin
Pileated Woodpecker
Red-eyed Vireo
House Wren
Turdus migratorius
Dryocopus pileatus
Vireo olivaceus
Troglodytes aedon
2
1
1
1
2
1
Red-eyed Vireo
Warbler
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Scarlet Tanager
Wood Thrush
American Robin
Warbler
Yellow-throated Vireo
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Common Grackle
Blue Jay
Red-eyed Vireo
Brown Creeper
Warbler
American Robin
Vireo olivaceus
2
1
Dendroica virens
Contopus virens
Piranga olivacea
Sitta carolinensis
Turdus migratorius
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Blue Jay
American Crow
Brown Creeper
American Goldfinch
Conservation Halton
174
Dendroica virens
Vireo flavifrons
Myiarchus crinitus
Contopus virens
Quiscalus quiscula
Number
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cyanocitta cristata
Sitta carolinensis
Vireo olivaceus
Certhia americana
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Dendroica virens
Turdus migratorius
2
1
1
Cyanocitta cristata
Certhia americana
Carduelis tristis
1
1
1
1
Date
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
06/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
27/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
09/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
10/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
Site
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Glenorchy
Wildflower Woods
Wildflower Woods
Wildflower Woods
Wildflower Woods
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Station
A
B (new)
B (new)
B (new)
B (new)
B (new)
B (new)
B (new)
C (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B (new)
B (new)
B (new)
B (new)
B (new)
B (new)
B (new)
B (new)
C (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
D (new)
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
D
D
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
Visit
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Common Name
American Robin
American Robin
American Goldfinch
House Wren
Pileated Woodpecker
Blue Jay
Scientific Name
Turdus migratorius
Turdus migratorius
Carduelis tristis
Sitta carolinensis
Troglodytes aedon
Dryocopus pileatus
Cyanocitta cristata
Chipping Sparrow
Blue Jay
Pileated Woodpecker
American Robin
American Goldfinch
Red-eyed Vireo
American Robin
Downy Woodpecker
Cedar Waxing
Song Sparrow
Blue Jay
American Goldfinch
Chimney Swift
Blue Jay
House Wren
Northern Cardinal
Yellow Warbler
Cedar Waxing
Spizella passerina
Cyanocitta cristata
Dryocopus pileatus
Turdus migratorius
Carduelis tristis
Vireo olivaceus
Turdus migratorius
Picoides pubescens
Bombycilla cedrorum
Melospiza melodia
Common Grackle
House Wren
American Robin
Pine Warbler
Pileated Woodpecker
Eastern Wood-Pewee
American Goldfinch
American Goldfinch
Red-eyed Vireo
Great Horned Owl
Chipping Sparrow
American Robin
Blue Jay
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Ovenbird
Pileated Woodpecker
Red-eyed Vireo
American Robin
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Hairy Woodpecker
Hooded Warbler
Ovenbird
Red-eyed Vireo
Wood Thrush
American Robin
Hairy Woodpecker
Hooded Warbler
Red-eyed Vireo
Hooded Warbler
Red-eyed Vireo
American Robin
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Ovenbird
Red-eyed Vireo
Wood Thrush
American Robin
Baltimore Oriole
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Ovenbird
Conservation Halton
175
Cyanocitta cristata
Carduelis tristis
Chaetura pelagica
Cyanocitta cristata
Troglodytes aedon
Dendroica petechia
Bombycilla cedrorum
Quiscalus quiscula
Troglodytes aedon
Turdus migratorius
Dendroica pinus
Dryocopus pileatus
Contopus virens
Carduelis tristis
Carduelis tristis
Vireo olivaceus
Bubo virginianus
Spizella passerina
Turdus migratorius
Cyanocitta cristata
Contopus virens
Seiurus aurocapilla
Dryocopus pileatus
Vireo olivaceus
Sitta carolinensis
Turdus migratorius
Contopus virens
Picoides villosus
Wilsonia citrina
Seiurus aurocapilla
Vireo olivaceus
Turdus migratorius
Picoides villosus
Wilsonia citrina
Vireo olivaceus
Wilsonia citrina
Vireo olivaceus
Turdus migratorius
Contopus virens
Seiurus aurocapilla
Vireo olivaceus
Turdus migratorius
Icterus galbula
Contopus virens
Seiurus aurocapilla
Number
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Date
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
20/06/2011
Site
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Kelso
Station
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
Visit
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Common Name
Scarlet Tanager
Wood Thrush
American Crow
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Hooded Warbler
Red-eyed Vireo
Blue Jay
Hooded Warbler
Scarlet Tanager
Conservation Halton
176
Scientific Name
Piranga olivacea
Contopus virens
Myiarchus crinitus
Wilsonia citrina
Vireo olivaceus
Cyanocitta cristata
Wilsonia citrina
Piranga olivacea
Number
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1

Sixteen Mile Creek, Grindstone Creek, and

Transcription

Similar documents

verde creek ranch kerr county, tx - 287 ac +

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

Glen Haffy Conservation Area Trail Map

Patio Party - DuPage Pads

U.S.A. - Raisin-South Nation Source Protection

Welcome To 7460 Bathrust St #614, Thornhill, L4J7K9 Batya Mishan

Grand Opening poster - the Town of Halton Hills

G tsinBarbo le G tsinBarbo le - The Herald

Lower Pen. - Great Mall 9-1-11.indd

Khiet Luong Pennsylvania Environmental Council 1315 W alnut