OFAH + Conservation Halton_urban-creeks-2008

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 2008 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.
Aquatics Staff Terrestrial Staff Volunteers Volunteers
Rachel Martens Lesley McDonell Kasper Kobluach Gael Morrison
Sarah Hogg Brenda Van Ryswyk Matt Champion Amanda Wren
Kent Rundle Nigel Finney Kelly Lucas Laura Macdonald
Jennifer Wilson Dasha Martchenko Nicholas Schwetz Kristy Buck
Sarah Matchett Jenn Sinasac Dan McDonell
Luke Stephenson Forestry Staff Shannon Holton Holly Warren
Mhat Briehl Bill Gaines Mike Robinson Quinn Cruise
Jennifer Roberts Laurel Finney Tara Bonin
Water Quality Staff Jinkun Wu Hemant Patel
David Gale
Scott Devito
Contributors/Writing Team
Brenda Axon ………………………… Manager Watershed Planning Services
Andrea Dunn ………………………….. Monitoring Ecologist
Nigel Finney …………………………… Natural Heritage Technician
David Gale …………………………….. Watershed Planner
Rachel Martens …....…………………… Aquatic Monitoring Technician
Samantha Mason ……………………… Senior Aquatic Ecologist
Lesley McDonell ……………………... Natural Heritage Ecologist
Brad Rennick …………………………... GIS Specialist
Jennifer Roberts………………………... Forestry Technician
Meghan Tydd-Hrynyk ………………… GIS Technician
Brenda Van Ryswyk ………..…………. Natural Heritage Ecologist
Photo contributions are from staff from the above list of people.

Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Conservation Halton Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program ......................... 1
1.2 Monitoring Urban Creeks in 2008.................................................................................. 2
1.3 Supplementary Monitoring............................................................................................. 3
2.0 Aquatic Monitoring.......................................................................................................................................5
2.1 Fish Community Monitoring .......................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Watershed Focus- Urban Creeks ................................................................................ 7
2.1.2 Results for Annual Stations ...................................................................................... 11
2.2 Benthic Community Monitoring................................................................................... 17
2.2.1 Results for Urban Creeks.......................................................................................... 18
2.2.2 Results for Annual Stations ...................................................................................... 20
2.3 Channel Morphology .................................................................................................... 23
2.4 Surface Water Quality Monitoring ............................................................................... 25
2.5 Groundwater Monitoring .............................................................................................. 34
2.6 Water Temperature Monitoring.................................................................................... 36
3.0 Terrestrial Monitoring................................................................................................................................38
3.1 Ecological Land Classification ..................................................................................... 38
3.2 Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN)......................................... 41
3.3 Marsh Monitoring (Amphibians and Marsh Birds) ...................................................... 44
3.4 Forest Bird Monitoring ................................................................................................. 48
3.5 Forest Pest Monitoring.................................................................................................. 51
4.0 Supplemental Monitoring...........................................................................................................................53
4.1 Bronte Creek Atlantic Salmon Program ....................................................................... 53
4.2 Check Your Watershed Day – Bronte Creek................................................................ 55
4.3 Headwater Monitoring.................................................................................................. 56
4.4 Waterdown Woods Jefferson Salamander Radio Telemetry........................................ 57
4.5 Species at Risk Monitoring for Parks Master Planning................................................ 58
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................................................59
6.0 Glossary of Terms .......................................................................................................................................61
7.0 References ....................................................................................................................................................63

List of Tables
Table 1: Ecological indicators for the Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program............... 2
Table 2: IBI ratings and associated scores using the Modified Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI). ... 6
Table 3: Inter-year comparison of IBI scores for Sixteen Mile Creek Annual Monitoring Sites.13
Table 4: Inter-year comparison of IBI scores for Bronte Creek Annual Monitoring Sites. ........ 13
Table 5: Inter-year comparison of IBI scores for Grindstone Creek Annual Monitoring Sites. . 14
Table 6: Inter-year comparison of IBI scores for Sheldon Creek Annual Monitoring Sites....... 14
Table 7: Distribution of IBI Scores for Stations Sampled in 2008.............................................. 15
Table 8: Benthic Invertebrate Indices and Associated Classifications. ....................................... 18
Table 9: Distribution of Water Quality Classifications at Stations Sampled in 2009 ................. 21
Table 10: Provincial Water Quality Objectives and/or desired objectives.................................. 25
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conservation Halton Watersheds................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Frequency of Fish Species Captured in the Urban Creeks.............................................. 8
Figure 3: Fisheries Sampling Stations and Associated Biotic Integrity Classifications.............. 10
Figure 4: Annual Fisheries Sampling Stations and Associated Biotic Integrity Classifications. 16
Figure 5: Benthic Sampling Stations and Associated Water Quality Classifications.................. 19
Figure 6: Annual Benthic Sampling Stations and Associated Water Quality Classifications..... 22
Figure 7: Sample “Box Plot” Chart. ............................................................................................. 26
Figure 8: Location of Surface Water Monitoring Stations. ......................................................... 27
Figure 9: Chloride concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN)
Monitoring Stations in 2008. ................................................................................................ 28
Figure 10: Nitrate + Nitrite concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN)
Monitoring Stations in 2008 ................................................................................................. 29
Figure 11: Total Phosphorous concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual
(PWQMN) Monitoring Stations in 2008 .............................................................................. 30
Figure 12: Copper concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN)
Monitoring Stations in 2008 ................................................................................................. 31
Figure 13: Lead concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN) Monitoring
Stations in 2008..................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 14: Zinc concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN) Monitoring
Stations in 2008..................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 15: Groundwater Quality Monitoring Stations................................................................. 35
Figure 16: Water Temperature Sampling Stations and Associated Classifications..................... 37
Figure 17: Ecological Land Classification Sites.......................................................................... 40
Figure 18: Terrestrial Monitoring Locations ............................................................................... 47
Figure 19: Types of Barriers Assessed in Bronte Creek.............................................................. 54

List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Fish Species Caught in Urban Creeks...................................................................... 67
Appendix 2: Fish found at Annual Stations.................................................................................. 68
Appendix 3: Urban Creek Benthic Invertebrates.......................................................................... 69
Appendix 4: Benthic Water Quality Results for Urban Creeks.................................................... 71
Appendix 5: Annual Station Benthic Invertebrates ...................................................................... 72
Appendix 6: Benthic Water Quality Results for Annual Stations ................................................ 73
Appendix 7: Channel Morphology Diagnostic Indicators............................................................ 74
Appendix 8: Thermal Classification for Urban Creeks ................................................................ 75
Appendix 9: EMAN Initial Analysis of Glenorchy Tree Canopy Composition.......................... 78
Appendix 10: Amphibian abundance Hilton Falls....................................................................... 79
Appendix 11: Bird species recorded within 100m fixed distance at Stations A and B, Hilton
Falls Conservation Area, 2008.............................................................................................. 79
Appendix 12: Amphibian abundance at Mountsberg Conservation Area .................................... 80
Appendix 13: Bird species recorded with the 100m fixed distance at Stations A, B and C
Mountsberg Conservation Area............................................................................................ 80
Appendix 14: Amphibian abundance Fuciarelli Conservation Area........................................... 81
Appendix 15: Bird species recorded with the 100m fixed distance at Stations A, B, C and D,
Fuciarelli Conservation Area................................................................................................ 81
Appendix 16 Birds Observed through the Forest Bird Monitoring Program, 2008 ..................... 82
Appendix 17: Species at Risk Updates for Parks Master Planning .............................................. 85
Appendix 18: Provincially Rare Species Updates from Parks Master Panning ........................... 85
Appendix 19: Master Plan Parks Fish Species Caught................................................................. 86

Conservation Halton: Long Term Environmental Monitoring
2008 Urban Creeks and Supplemental Monitoring
1
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 assist with verifying whether Conservation Halton’s mission to “help protect the
natural environment from lake to escarpment for the benefit and enjoyment of future
generations” is being fulfilled (HRCA 2005).
Objectives of the program include the following:
• Monitor indicators of watershed health over a number of years to determine change (if
any) in the health of the watershed.
• Incorporate established and scientifically based monitoring protocols that are compatible
with agencies throughout the province.
• Partner with individuals and agencies monitoring throughout the Conservation Halton
watershed 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
(HRCA 2006).
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 the other
fourteen smaller watersheds. It focuses on both the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems using
biological indicators of watershed health. These site specific biological indicators/monitoring
programs include the fish community, benthic community, channel morphology, surface water
quality, groundwater, vegetation and forest health, marsh monitoring, forest bird monitoring and
forest pest monitoring.
The Long Term Monitoring Program has been designed to focus on one specific watershed or
watershed grouping (i.e. urban creeks) annually on a five-year cycle. In addition, annual stations
spread throughout multiple watersheds, have been incorporated into the program to determine
yearly fluctuations at existing stations. This schedule has been adjusted to coincide with
Conservation Ontario’s Watershed Report Card schedule. This will allow results of the Long
Term Environmental Monitoring Program to be incorporated into a reporting structure that is
consistent with Conservation Authorities across Ontario. It will also provide the general public
with a generalized assessment of the watershed they live in. After the first cycle of monitoring,
the program will be simplified to follow a five-year schedule consistent with Conservation
Ontario’s reporting schedule. The first ten years of the monitoring program is as follows:
Year 1 - Sixteen Mile Creek (2005)
Year 2 - Grindstone Creek (2006)
Year 3 - Bronte Creek (2007)
Year 4 - Urban Creeks (2008)

2
Year 5 - Sixteen Mile Creek (2009)
Year 6 - Grindstone Creek (2010)
Year 7- Bronte Creek (2011)
Year 8 - Conservation Halton owned properties and reservoirs (2012)
Year 9 – Sixteen Mile Creek (2013)
Year 10 – Grindstone Creek (2014)
1.2 Monitoring Urban Creeks in 2008
In 2008, the Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program began its fourth year of monitoring
with a focus on the Urban Creek watersheds. The Urban Creek watersheds (delineated further
into the North Shore watershed, Burlington Urban Creeks, Oakville West Urban Creeks and
Oakville East Urban Creeks) consist of fourteen small watersheds located along the north shore
of Lake Ontario. These watersheds are located primarily within Burlington and Oakville with
small portions occurring within Hamilton and Mississauga. Monitoring was focused on 12 of
these watersheds in 2008. The Urban Creek watersheds all originate at or below the Niagara
Escarpment and flow either into the North Shore of Burlington Bay/Hamilton Harbour or
directly to Lake Ontario. Road and transportation networks, as well as several hydro utility
corridors cross the majority of these watersheds.
The southern reaches of the watersheds are heavily developed with commercial, industrial and
residential development. The northern landscape tends to be rural residential, however large
portions of these lands have been slated for urban development in the coming years. The
majority of the remaining natural areas are associated with the south slope of the Niagara
Escarpment along with gullies and ravines (HRCA 2006b). Several provincially and/or globally
significant communities are present, including Carolinian forests, tallgrass prairies, oak
savannahs and talus slopes (HRCA 2006b). These and other communities support a number of
provincially significant plant and wildlife species.
Monitoring in 2008 focused on the Urban Creek watersheds however additional monitoring at
annual sites (sites that are monitored every year) across the Conservation Halton jurisdiction was
also completed in support of the LEMP. Figure 1 illustrates the Conservation Halton jurisdiction
and the watersheds within its boundaries. Ecological indicators used in support of the LEMP
include:
Table 1: Ecological indicators for the Long Term Environmental Monitoring Program
Parameter: Protocol:
Fish Community Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP)
Benthic Community Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Protocol (OBBN)
Channel Morphology Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP)
Surface Water Quality Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN)
Ground Water Quality Provincial Ground Water Quality Network (PGMN)
Forest Community Ecological Land Classification (ELC)
Forest Community Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN)
Marsh Monitoring Bird Studies Canada Marsh Monitoring Protocol
Bird Monitoring Canadian Wildlife Service Forest Bird Monitoring
Forest Pest Monitoring Modified Kaladar Plot and Pheromone Trapping

3
1.3 Supplementary Monitoring
In addition to monitoring completed as part of the Long Term Environmental Monitoring
Program, Conservation Halton staff also complete additional monitoring in support of
rehabilitation projects, planning initiatives and other studies and/or research programs. In the
2008 field season, staff were involved with the following initiatives:
• Bronte Creek Atlantic Salmon Program
• Check Your Watershed Day
• Headwater Drainage Monitoring
• Waterdown Woods Jefferson Salamander Radio Telemetry
• Parks Master Planning Species at Risk
Results of these additional monitoring initiatives can be found in section 4.0.

4
Figure 1: Conservation Halton Watersheds

5
2.0 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 completed through the LEMP was broken into
watershed focused sampling (Urban Creeks in 2008) and annual station sampling (jurisdiction
wide), both of which followed the same sampling protocols.
2.1 Fish Community Monitoring
Sampling Methodology
Conservation Halton’s fish community
monitoring uses module 3 of the Ontario Stream
Assessment Protocol (OSAP) (Stanfield 2005) to
sample the fish community. The Ontario Stream
Assessment Protocol requires that fisheries
sampling stations are sampled using a
standardized and repeatable collection technique.
Stations are a minimum of 40 metres in length
with both a downstream and upstream crossover
and comprised of at least one riffle/pool sequence.
Once identified, the sampling station is sampled
by using a Smithroot 12B 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, which is calculated in metres squared. This
is then multiplied by two and five, to find the
minimum and maximum number of electrofishing seconds respectively. This ensures that
Conservation Halton’s protocol is consistent with the OSAP screening level assessments
(Stanfield 2005). All fish captured are then bulk weighed and measured with the exception of
any sportfish, 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.
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
Electrofishing Sampling

6
indicators of stream health all indices may not be suited to all streams. In order to use the IBI
analysis for warmwater and coldwater tributaries throughout the watershed, two sub-indices were
modified to better reflect stream conditions. The first parameter 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 parameter 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 sub-
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 catch that by chance
fluctuated by darter, sucker or trout species could shift the IBI scores significantly. 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 2 provides a summary of IBI ratings and associated scores.
Table 2: IBI ratings and associated scores using the Modified Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI).
IBI Rating Modified IBI Scores
Poor 9-20
Fair 21-27
Good 28-37
Very Good 38-45

7
2.1.1 Watershed Focus- Urban Creeks
The fish community within the Urban Creeks is varied with approximately 40 different species
of fish recorded since the early 1900’s. This diverse assemblage of fish species inhabit a wide
variety of habitats including intermediate riverine coldwater, intermediate riverine warmwater,
rivermouth and nearshore habitats. It should be noted that only riverine habitats within the
Urban Creek watersheds 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).
In the 2008 sampling season, extensive monitoring was completed throughout the Urban
watersheds. As a result of the sampling completed throughout the watershed a total of 18
different species were observed and over 1,416 fish (Appendix 1) were captured within the
Urban Creeks. Species ranged from warmwater forage fish to coldwater sportfish indicating the
wide variety of species and habitat diversity throughout the watershed. Of the species captured,
Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) was by far the most abundant species with 613
individuals captured. This was followed by Blacknose Dace (Rhinichthys atratulus) with 369
individuals captured. As seen in Figure 2, Creek Chub was also the most widely distributed
species and was encountered at 20 of the 24 stations sampled. White Sucker (Catostomus
commersoni), Blacknose Dace and Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) were the only other
species that were found at approximately half of the stations sampled. The remaining species
were randomly distributed throughout the watershed (Figure 2). Invasive species were also
found in relatively low numbers. Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio), and a single Goldfish
(Carassius auratus) were found at one station near the mouth of Joshua’s Creek (JOS-1).
As illustrated in Figure 3 and Table 7, the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) analysis of the fish
community showed a range of biotic health from “poor” to “good” across the watershed,
however no stations were considered to be in “very good” condition. Stations considered to be
in poor biotic health generally had low species diversity based on their stream habitat and
location within the watershed. The stations found to be in good health contained higher numbers
of fish and associated biomass, indicating higher stream productivity. Figure 3 illustrates the
distribution of sampling stations within the watershed and the associated IBI rankings for each
station.
Creek Chub found in Sheldon Creek

8
Figure 2: Frequency of Fish Species Captured in the Urban Creeks
Frequency of Fish Species Captured in the Urban Creeks
0
5
10
15
20
25
BlacknoseDace
BluntnoseM
innow
Brook
Stickleback
Com
m
on
Carp
Com
m
on
Shiner
Creek
Chub
Fathead
M
innow
G
oldfish
Johnny
D
arter
Largem
outh
Bass
LongnoseD
ace
Pum
pkinseed
Rainbow
Darter
Rainbow
Trout
RiverChubRock
Bass
W
hiteSucker
yoy
Cyprinid
Numberofstations

9
IBI analysis takes into consideration the upstream drainage basin and predicts the number of
species expected at a sampling station. The drainage basin size for the Urban Creeks ranged
from 2.7-20.9 km2
, which is small in comparison to other watersheds within Conservation
Halton’s jurisdiction. Of the Urban Creeks, Joshua’s Creek has the largest watershed area. As a
result, a larger number of species and a diverse species composition is predicted through the IBI.
A poor species composition in relation to where the station is situated in the watershed may have
caused the lower IBI score for JOS-1. The invasive Common Carp and Goldfish were also
captured at JOS-1 which further reflects poor habitat conditions.
Stations TUK-3, APB-5 and MCR-13, located on Tuck, Appleby and McCraney Creeks
respectively, were all in good condition according to the IBI index. TUK-3 had the highest
number of fish caught. This station consists of approximately seventy-five percent bedrock with
some gravel and large boulders and is located in a small forest in the middle of a subdivision.
Creek Chub were the most abundant fish caught with 110 individuals caught, followed by
Blacknose Dace with 61 individual fish captured. APB-5 contained a long pool with
approximately fifty percent of substrate being bedrock. The channel morphology measurements
taken at this station indicated the presence of undercut banks and some large rocks providing
refuge for fish. MCR-13 consisted of some deep undercut banks and a sizable deep pool with
debris build up for easy refuge for fish. Despite having shale bedrock substrate there was still
considerable rock cover that was accessible to fish. For the small size of the creek it still had one
of the highest levels of species diversity found within the Urban Creeks.
All of the Indian Creek and Shoreacres Creek stations, MCR-14 on McCraney Creek and SHL-
49 on Sheldon Creek were found to be in poor health. All these sites had an extremely low
diversity of species with only one to two fish species. The majority caught were generalist
species such as Creek Chub or Blacknose Dace. All seven of these stations had very little
protective habitat. MCR-14 and all the Indian Creek stations have significant fish barriers
downstream. Shoreacres and SHL-49 have shale bedrock bottoms with minimal instream cover
available. All the benthic water quality classifications at these stations were found too be
impaired.
Fish Barrier Downstream of MCR-14

10
Figure 3: Fisheries Sampling Stations and Associated Biotic Integrity Classifications.

11
2.1.2 Results for Annual Stations
Annual fisheries monitoring is completed at
the same stations as the PWQMN
monitoring in order to gain a more detailed
assessment of conditions at these stations on
an annual basis. Inter-year comparisons,
where available, provide insight into
changes in the fish community at each site
(see Tables 3-6). It should be noted that
sampling at these stations is site specific and
does not reflect overall watershed health.
Figure 4 displays the location of the annual
sampling stations and the associated Index
of Biotic Integrity Classification while table
7 lists the distribution of IBI scores across
the watershed. Lists of species captured at
the annual monitoring stations are found in Appendix 2. The sampling methodology used here is
identical to that presented in section 2.1.1. Results of the monitoring are presented below.
Sixteen Mile Creek (SXM)
Fisheries sampling along Sixteen Mile Creek resulted in numerous differences between the three
sampling stations within the watershed. The No. 3 Sideroad (SXM-63) station showed that the
stream health in this location was considered to be fair. With the exception of slight variations in
the actual scores, the biotic health rankings have remained consistent with those obtained over
the past four sampling seasons indicating that there is little variation in stream health at this
station.
The Lower Baseline West (SXM-216) station was also considered to be in the fair range with a
score of 23. This station is associated with the Milton Waste Water Treatment Plant which
releases its effluent upstream. The IBI rankings have consistently hovered in the same area,
around the threshold between the poor and fair ranges. The 2008 sampling pushed it back up
into the fair range. This is likely due to the presence of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss),
which was found for the first time at SXM-216.
The 5th Line and Steeles Avenue (SXM-349) station was also considered to be in fair health. In
2008, only 22 fish were caught consisting of 8 species. The previous two years had over 100 fish
caught each time and 11-12 species identified. An invasive Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) was
also caught at this location (Table 3).
Sampling at the Lower Baseline East (SXM-205) station was not possible in 2008 as site access
was denied due to the bridge being under construction for the whole summer.
Sorting Fish Species

12
Bronte Creek (BRO)
Fisheries sampling was completed on Bronte Creek at three annual stations (Table 4). Station
BRO-8 on the main branch of Bronte Creek at Carlisle Road has been sampled for four years in a
row. This station has fluctuated slightly over the years; however it consistently remains in fair
condition. In 2008, Northern Pike (Esox lucius) was the only new species captured.
The Indian Creek station at Appleby Line (BRO-16) was not sampled in 2007 due to dry stream
conditions. The high water levels in 2008 allowed Conservation Halton to again fish the station.
As a result of the higher number of fish caught and the increase in species diversity, this site was
ranked as good, much better than the poor ranking it received in 2006. A large contributing
factor to the increase in the IBI score was the removal of an instream barrier downstream of the
station. As a result, Rainbow Trout young of the year were caught for the first time at this
station.
Mountsberg Creek station (BRO-154) in Courtcliffe Park was sampled and remains in fair
condition. Species diversity is consistently high through this reach and sampling in 2008 saw an
increase in both the number of fish and the number of native fish caught. Despite the higher fish
catch, no Brown Trout (Salmo trutta) were captured here in 2008.
Fourteen Mile Creek (FOR)
A single annual station (FOR-2) was sampled on Fourteen Mile Creek upstream of the QEW
highway. This station has distinctly different habitat types throughout the reach thereby
providing suitable habitat for a variety of species. Shallow riffles provided excellent habitat for a
large number of darters while deep pools and woody debris provided ample refugia for an
abundance of species. This station had been intensively surveyed (triple pass electrofishing) in
2007 as part of a Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongatus) study. Due to new (as of June 2008)
Ministry of Natural Resources sampling restrictions on Redside Dace the station had to be seined
and dip netted to avoid stress on this species which is ranked as endangered by the Committee on
the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). All of the same species were caught at the
site as in 2007 with the exception of no Brown Trout. Of special note, two Rainbow Trout were
observed while sampling for benthic invertebrates on April 16, 2008. One parasitic Sea Lamprey
(Petromyzon marinus) was observed attached to one of the trout. A lamprey wound was
observed on the other trout. An IBI analysis could not be completed to compare with 2007 data
due to differences in sampling methodology.
Grindstone Creek (GRN)
Two stations are sampled annually on Grindstone Creek, one at 5th Concession East (GRN-27)
and one upstream of Unsworth Avenue within a naturalized channel within Hidden Valley Park
(GRN-101). The station at 5th Concession East was considered to be in fair condition, as in
previous years, despite numerous instream habitat alterations. The site upstream of Unsworth
Avenue within Hidden Valley Park was also considered to be in fair condition as seen in Table 5.
The IBI had increased from 2007 because of the number of native fish and the lower percentage
of Rhinichthys species (47%).

13
Table 3: Inter-year comparison of IBI scores for Sixteen Mile Creek Annual Monitoring Sites.
Category Metric SXM-63 SXM-216 SXM-349
2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008 2005 2006 2007 2008
Species Richness No. of Native Fish Species 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 5 5 3
No. of Darter/Sculpin Species 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3
No. of Sunfish/Trout Species 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1
No. of Sucker/Catfish Species 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 5 3
Local Indicator +/- Brook Trout 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
Species % Sample as Rhinichthys spp. 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Trophic Composition % Sample as Omnivores 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
% Sample as large Piscivores 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fish Abundance Catch Per Unit Effort 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 5 1 1
Fish Condition % Sample with Blackspot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IBI Score 21 21 23 23 20 18 18 20 27 31 27 23
(Warmwater) Adjusted Score 23 20 20 23
Table 4: Inter-year comparison of IBI scores for Bronte Creek Annual Monitoring Sites.
Category Metric BRO-8 BRO-16 BRO-154
2005 2006 2007 2008 2006 2008 2006 2007 2008
Species Richness No. of Native Fish Species 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 5
No. of Darter/Sculpin Species 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
No. of Sunfish/Trout Species 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1
No. of Sucker/Catfish Species 3 1 3 3 3 3 5 5 5
Local Indicator +/- Brook Trout 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1
Species % Sample as Rhinichthys spp. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Trophic Composition % Sample as Omnivores 5 5 3 5 3 5 5 3 3
% Sample as large Piscivores 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fish Abundance Catch Per Unit Effort 3 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 1
Fish Condition % Sample with Blackspot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IBI Score 23 19 23 21 18 26 27 23 25
(Warmwater) Adjusted Score 20 29

14
Table 5: Inter-year comparison of IBI scores for Grindstone Creek Annual Monitoring Sites.
Category Metric GRN-27 GRN-101
2005 2006 2007 2008 2007 2008
Species Richness No. of Native Fish Species 3 3 3 3 1 3
No. of Darter/Sculpin Species 1 1 1 1 1 1
No. of Sunfish/Trout Species 1 1 1 1 1 1
No. of Sucker/Catfish Species 3 3 3 3 1 1
Local Indicator +/- Brook Trout 0 0 0 0 0 0
Species % Sample as Rhinichthys spp. 5 5 5 5 1 5
Trophic Composition % Sample as Omnivores 3 3 5 5 5 5
% Sample as large Piscivores 1 1 1 1 1 1
Fish Abundance Catch Per Unit Effort 1 5 1 5 5 5
Fish Condition % Sample with Blackspot 3 0 0 0 0 0
IBI Score 21 22 20 24 16 22
(Warmwater) Adjusted Score 24 25 23 27
Sheldon Creek (SHL)
2008 marked the second year of annual sampling on Sheldon Creek. This station was added in
order to gain information on smaller urban creeks in the watershed and to complement water
quality sampling for additional chemicals typical of residential areas (e.g. pesticides etc.). The
station is located just upstream of Lakeshore Road in Oakville within the lower limits of Shell
Park, a relatively well used recreational park near the Lake Ontario waterfront. In 2007, this
station was considered to be in the fair range and in 2008, the score increased to the upper limit
of this range. This station has limited instream habitat and numerous alterations are found within
the site (garbage, cement blocks and debris were all observed). The most significant difference
from the previous sampling season was the increase in native species captured going from four
species in 2007 to nine in 2008 (Table 6). Two Brown Trout were also found in 2008 marking a
new record for Sheldon Creek.
Table 6: Inter-year comparison of IBI scores for Sheldon Creek Annual Monitoring Sites.
Category Metric SHL-48
2007 2008
Species Richness No. of Native Fish Species 3 5
No. of Darter/Sculpin Species 1 1
No. of Sunfish/Trout Species 3 3
No. of Sucker/Catfish Species 3 3
Local Indicator +/- Brook Trout 0 0
Species % Sample as Rhinichthys spp. 5 5
Trophic Composition % Sample as Omnivores 1 5
% Sample as large Piscivores 1 1
Fish Abundance Catch Per Unit Effort 1 1
Fish Condition % Sample with Blackspot 0 0
IBI Score 18 24
(Warmwater) Adjusted Score 23 27

15
Table 7: Distribution of IBI Scores for Stations Sampled in 2008.
Very GoodWatershed Poor (9-20) Fair (21-27) Good (28-37)
(38-45)
Joshua’s Creek 1 (33%) 2 (67%)
Wedgewood Creek 1 (100%)
McCraney Creek 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
Fourteen Mile Creek N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sheldon Creek* 1 (33%) 2 (67%)
Appleby Creek 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
Shoreacres Creek 2 (100%)
Tuck Creek 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
Indian Creek 3 (100%)
Falcon Creek 1 (100%)
Overall Urban Creeks 9 (47%) 7 (37%) 3 (16%) 0
Sixteen Mile Creek* 3 (100%)
Bronte Creek* 2 (67%) 1 (33%)
Grindstone Creek* 2 (100%)
Overall Watersheds 9 (33%) 14 (52%) 4 (15%) 0
* Indicates both watershed focused and annual stations incorporated.

16
Figure 4: Annual Fisheries Sampling Stations and Associated Biotic Integrity Classifications.

17
2.2 Benthic Community Monitoring
Sampling Methodology
Benthic community monitoring is based on the
Ontario Benthos Biomonitoring Network Protocol
(OBBN) (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). This
protocol uses the “reference condition” approach,
whereby stations are compared to previously
selected reference sites which typically define
normal biological conditions for a given habitat.
These stations are selected based on their minimal
influence from human activity such as, point-source
contamination, loss of riparian habitat and aquatic
habitat disruption (Jones et al. 2005). Samples
collected in 2008 were used to identify stream health
across a reach resulting in three transects sampled at
each station with:
• Two transects in stream crossovers (riffle
habitat) on the upstream and downstream
limits of the station,
• One transect across pool habitat, between the
two crossovers.
Samples were collected using the kick and sweep method, whereby the sampler stands upstream
of a 500μm D-net and excavates the top 10 centimetres of sediment with their feet. This allows
any attached and free moving benthic invertebrates to flow into the 500μm D-net and be
collected. The sampler continues this action across each stream transect thereby sampling all
available habitats. Once collected, live samples were then taken back to the lab and randomly
sub-sampled. A minimum of 100 organisms was collected per sub-sample (transect) with all
samples being identified to family or lowest possible level for analysis (Jones et al. 2005).
Analysis
The 2008 sampling followed the OBBN sampling methodology however at the time of analysis
the “reference condition” analytical tools were not yet available. As a result, analysis followed
traditional parametric indices. These EPT (ephemeroptera, trichoptera and plecoptera), taxa
richness, % oligochaeta, % chironomidae, % isopoda, % gastropoda, % diptera, % insect,
Hilsenhoff index (HFI) and the Shannon-Weiner diversity index (SDI). Each indice was
assessed separately against the target values as set out in Table 8. Final assessments 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).
Kick and sweep method for benthic
macroinvertebrate collection

18
Table 8: Benthic Invertebrate Indices and Associated Classifications.
Water Quality Index Unimpaired Possibly Impaired Impaired
EPT >10 5-10 <5
Taxa Richness >13 <13
% Oligochaeta <10 10-30 >30
% Chironomidae <10 10-40 >40
% Isopoda <1 1-5 >5
% Gastropoda 1-10 0 or >10 >10
% Diptera 20-45 15-20 or 45-50 <15 or >50
% Insect 50-80 40-50 or 80-90 <40 or >90
% Dominant taxa <40 40-45 >45
HFI <6 6-7 >7
SDI >4 3-4 <3
2.2.1 Results for Urban Creeks
Sampling of the 27 stations in 2008 resulted in the collection of 59 different taxa spread across
the watershed. Almost 10,000 benthic invertebrates were captured and identified for the 2008
benthic study. Individual taxa groups including oligochaeta, chironomidae and isopoda were by
far the most abundant taxa groups encountered and were collected at almost all of the stations
sampled. Sensitive taxa groups and families were still present but at a limited number of stations.
In total 21 stations were considered impaired, 5 potentially impaired and no stations were
considered to be unimpaired. Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of stations and their associated
water quality classifications across the watershed. A list of species captured at each station can
be found in Appendix 3.
Analysis of the benthic data illustrated some interesting findings. The healthiest of the urban
streams included both Joshua’s Creek and Fourteen Mile Creek (Appendix 5). Both creeks had a
high abundance of species richness and a variety of habitats suitable for benthic invertebrates.
The Hilsenhoff scores were also better than most other sites in the urban watershed, indicating a
lower level of nutrients within the streams.Some of the worst creeks were McCraney Creek and
Falcon Creek. The majority of benthic invertebrates found in these creeks were aquatic worms,
which are typically found in areas that contain organic pollution and anoxic conditions (Borisko
2002). The fish IBI scores were fair (Falcon) and good (McCraney), most likely due to the
proximity to the lake.
Overall the benthic community for the Urban Creeks watershed would be considered poor. The
majority of the streams flow through heavy development or intensive landuse, resulting in mostly
realigned streams. Additionally, surface runoff from the urban development and associated
flashiness in stream flow is detrimental to maintaining good habitat for benthic invertebrates to
thrive.

19
Figure 5: Benthic Sampling Stations and Associated Water Quality Classifications

20
2.2.2 Results for Annual Stations
Benthic monitoring is completed at the same stations as both the annual fisheries and PWQMN
sites in order to gain a more detailed assessment of conditions at these stations on an annual
basis. It should be noted that sampling at these stations is site specific and does not reflect
overall watershed health. Figure 6 displays the location of the annual sampling stations and
associated water quality classifications. Lists of species captured and the index ratings at the
annual monitoring stations are found in Appendix 4 and 6. The sampling methodology used here
is identical to that presented in section 2.2.1. Results of the monitoring are presented below.
Sixteen Mile Creek (SXM)
Four stations are monitored annually within the Sixteen Mile Creek watershed (Lower Baseline
East (SXM-205), Lower Baseline West (SXM-216), 5th Line and Steeles Avenue (SXM-349)
and No.3 Sideroad and Walkers Line (SXM-63). In 2008, all of the Sixteen Mile Creek stations
were found to be potentially impaired, except for SXM-63 which is now again unimpaired. The
Sixteen Mile sites had very high taxa richness and insects made up almost 100 percent of species
captured. Generally a high percentage of insects are an indicator of poor conditions depending
on the species found, however, most of the species found at SXM-63 were mayflies and
caddisflies which are indicators of good water quality.
Bronte Creek (BRO)
The Bronte Creek benthic community was monitored at three annual stations located in the
middle/upper and eastern branches of the watershed. Analysis of the benthic community
indicated that both stations in Carlisle (BRO-8 and BRO-154) were considered to be unimpaired.
In contrast, Indian Creek at Appleby Line (BRO-16) was considered to be in an impaired state as
it had low numbers of EPT and a high percentage of chironomidae, and diptera species. Water
quality and quantity issues upstream of this location are an issue resulting in excessive algal
growth and dry stream conditions during periods of the summer. In addition to this, intensive
agriculture and residential development is increasing in the upstream reaches. These landuse
stressors are likely having an adverse impact on the benthic communities downstream at BRO-
16. As residential construction is completed and the creek blocks become stabilized with
vegetation, it is anticipated that improvements in this watershed could occur.
Fourteen Mile Creek (FOR)
Benthic sampling took place for the third year on Fourteen Mile Creek; the last two years were
upstream of the QEW. This station was considered to be potentially impaired both years largely
due to a low EPT count and a high percentage of chironomidae. A large proportion of this
station was comprised solely of bedrock, which means there are fewer habitats for the benthos.
Grindstone Creek (GNR)
Two stations were sampled on Grindstone Creek, one upstream of 5th Concession East (GRN-
27) and the second, at the bottom of Hidden Valley Park downstream of Lemonville Road. Both

21
stations were found to be impaired, which is a decrease from the previous year. EPT scores were
extremely low in 2008 and approximately 75% of the insects found at both sites were dipterans
(flies). Dipterans are an important component of the benthic community but over 45 % is
considered to be unhealthy (Borisko 2002).
Sheldon Creek (SHL)
Annual benthic sampling began in 2007 on Sheldon Creek in order to add additional benthic
sampling stations in largely urbanized streams. The station is located at the lower end of the
creek, within Shell Park in Oakville and just upstream of Lakeshore Road. The benthic analysis
showed this station to be impaired both in 2007 and 2008. The EPT value was very low with
only three species found and the Hilsenhoff index was the poorest of all the annual stations at 6.7
indicating nutrient enrichment. This section of creek has been altered with concrete blocks and
has a large amount of garbage and debris throughout the creek. The station substrate is mostly
bedrock, which makes it difficult for benthic invertebrates to find suitable habitat.
Table 9: Distribution of Water Quality Classifications at Stations Sampled in 2009
Watershed Impaired Potentially
Impaired
Unimpaired
Joshua’s Creek 3 (100%)
Wedgewood Creek 1 (100%)
Morrison Creek 1 (100%)
McCraney Creek 2 (100%)
Fourteen Mile
Creek
2 (50%) 2 (50%)
Sheldon Creek* 3 (100%)
Appleby Creek 3 (100%)
Shoreacres Creek 2 (100%)
Tuck Creek 2 (100%)
Roseland Creek 1 (100%)
Indian Creek 4 (100%)
Falcon Creek 1 (100%)
Overall Urban
Creeks
22 (81%) 5 (19%) 0
Sixteen Mile Creek 3 (75%) 1 (25%)
Bronte Creek 1 (33%) 2 (67%)
Grindstone Creek 2 (100%)
Overall
watershed
25 (70%) 8 (22%) 3 (8%)
* Indicates both watershed focused and annual stations incorporated.

22
Figure 6: Annual Benthic Sampling Stations and Associated Water Quality Classifications.

23
2.3 Channel Morphology
Channel morphology measurements
were taken according to the Ontario
Stream Assessment Protocols (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, depth, velocity,
substrate type and size, cover types and
amount, vegetation, woody debris,
undercut banks and bank composition,
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 streams physical habitat (Stanfield 2005). This will enable Conservation Authority staff to
make predictions about what type of fish community the site would be able to support.
Urban Creek Stations
Channel morphology measurements were taken at 25 stations throughout the Urban Creek
watersheds. 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 were all developed.
In the 2008 field season, baseline
information to document existing habitat
conditions was collected for the Urban
Creeks. As a result, widespread inter-year
comparisons of the channel morphology
could not be made. Geomorphic indices
for the Urban Creek watersheds can be
seen in Appendix 7.
Measuring Instream Habitats
Measuring Bank Profiles

24
Annual Stations
Only two channel morphology stations were completed as part of the LEMP’s annual monitoring
due to high water levels. Annual monitoring stations illustrated few significant changes in
channel morphology at the stations in Bronte Creek. No significant changes in average
width/depth ratio, mean max particle size, D16, D50 and D84 points were observed. No other
annual stations were monitored for habitat in 2008. It is possible that comparisons from year to
year will not indicate change (unless there is a significant driving force), however continued long
term monitoring of these sites has the potential to document significant change as landuse in the
surrounding watershed continues to change.
Measuring Water Depth

25
2.4 Surface Water Quality Monitoring
Surface water quality was assessed in 2008 as
part of Conservation Halton’s Long Term
Environmental Monitoring Program.
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)
have been set or determined by the Ministry of
the Environment are used to assess surface
water quality parameters to ensure the
protection of the fresh water aquatic
environment. By meeting these objectives
(outlined in Table 10), all other objectives,
except the most stringent relating to drinking
water, are met. Federal guidelines may also be
considered, where applicable.
Table 10: Provincial Water Quality Objectives 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
Copper < 5 µg/L N/A
Lead <25 µg/L N/A
Zinc <30 µg/L N/A
In 2008, surface water samples covering 37 parameters were taken at 10 stations throughout the
watershed over an eight-month period between April and November. The PWQMN sampling
stations are shown in Figure 8. Results indicate that while most water quality parameters
measured meet MOE objectives most of the time, some are 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
2008 where there is an MOE objective for the protection of the fresh water aquatic environment,
about 18% exceeded the relevant objective, based on non-random subsampling. For the purpose
Measuring Water Quality with a YSI

26
of this report, detailed analysis of the 2008 results was conducted on six parameters: chloride,
nitrogen, total phosphorus, copper, lead and zinc. “Box plot” charts are provided that 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 7 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 7: Sample “Box Plot” Chart.
Sample "Box Plot" Chart
75.00
100.00
10.00
25.00
50.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Sampling Station
Concentration

27
Figure 8: Location of Surface Water Monitoring Stations.

28
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. Most chloride
concentrations at all stations in the Conservation Halton watershed were well below the MOE
objectives. In 2008 only one sample taken in Grindstone Creek exceeded the provincial
maximum desirable concentration of 250 mg/L (Figure 9). This exceedence represents one
percent of all samples collected in 2008. This is an improvement over the previous two years of
data. Based on Conservation Halton’s data collected for the PWQMN, trend analysis has
indicated a steady increase in chloride concentrations over time. This is likely due to road
salting, water softeners, wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and other human sources.
Figure 9: Chloride concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN)
Monitoring Stations in 2008.
Conservation Halton Watershed
Chloride Data
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
SXM-53 SXM-205 SXM-216 SXM-349 SXM-63 FOR-58 BRO-119 BRO-16 BRO-2 SHL-48 GRN-5
16 Mile 14 Mile Bro nte Sheldo n Grinds to ne
Watersheds - PWQMN Sampling Stations
Chloride(mg/L)
PWQO

29
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 and septic systems.
Nitrogen concentrations are highest in areas of intensive farming and downstream of municipal
wastewater discharges. While there is no PWQO for nitrogen, interim guidelines suggest
concentrations of less than 2.93 mg/L are considered desirable to prevent excessive plant growth
(MOE 1984).
Nitrate + Nitrite concentrations are rarely elevated with the exception of one station in each of
the Bronte Creek (BRO-16), Sheldon Creek (SHL-48) and Grindstone Creek (GRN-5)
watersheds. Three samples taken in these watersheds exceeded the maximum desirable
concentration of 2.93 mg/L (Figure 10). One of these stations (GRN-5) is located downstream of
the Waterdown wastewater treatment plant.
Figure 10: Nitrate + Nitrite concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN)
Monitoring Stations in 2008
Nitrate + Nitrite Data
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Nitrate+Nitrite(mg/L)
PWQO
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

30
plant and algae growth and ultimately, in eutrophication. As this over-abundance 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 PWQO for total phosphorus; however, an interim objective recommends
concentrations of less than 0.03 mg/L to be desirable in order to prevent excessive plant growth.
In the Conservation Halton watershed, excess growth of Cladophora or nuisance algae is a
problem in many reaches of the watershed. Conservation Halton 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 11: Total Phosphorous concentrations (mg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual
(PWQMN) Monitoring Stations in 2008
Total Phosphorus Data
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
T.P.(mg/L)
PWQO
Total phosphorus concentrations are elevated throughout the watershed. About 53% of all total
phosphorus samples exceeded the desired objective of 0.03 mg/L in 2008 (Figure 11). The
maximum concentration in Sheldon Creek at Lakeshore Road (SHL-48) was 0.507 mg/L, while
the median was calculated to be 0.231 mg/L. Fourteen Mile Creek (FOR-58) recorded a
maximum concentration of 0.365 mg/L and Grindstone Creek at Unsworth Avenue (GRN-5)
recorded a maximum of 0.210 mg/L. One hundred percent of the samples collected from Sheldon
Creek and Grindstone Creek exceeded the PWQO, while 88% in Fourteen Mile Creek, 55% in
Sixteen Mile Creek and 25% in Bronte Creek exceeded the desired objective.

31
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). 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 by-products, mine tailings, and building or construction
materials (McNeely et al. 1979). The MOE objective is 5.0 µg/L (MOE 1984).
Figure 12: Copper concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN)
Monitoring Stations in 2008
Copper Data
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Copper(µg/L)
PWQO
Copper concentrations are occasionally elevated throughout the watershed. Eight percent of all
samples collected exceeded the PWQO. The maximum concentration in Fourteen Mile Creek at
Lakeshore Road (FOR-58) was 25.8 µg/L. These exceedences occurred primarily following an
intense summer rain event and are believed to be a result of surface wash-off from roads, parking
areas and other man-made sources. However, due to the abundance of substances to bind the
copper ion, copper concentrations in the Conservation Halton watershed are probably not a
health concern.

32
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.
Human’s input of lead to the environment clearly outweighs all natural sources. Such 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
humans 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 13: Lead concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN) Monitoring
Stations in 2008
Lead Data
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Lead(µg/L)
PWQO
No lead samples collected during 2008 even approached the PWQO (Figure 13). However,
caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the lead data since many of the samples
approached the minimum detection limits.

33
Zinc
Zinc is commonly found in nature as zinc sulphide 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 adsorbs to suspended solids (i.e. clay particles). MOE guidelines suggest that
concentrations of zinc should not exceed 30 micrograms per litre (MOE 1984).
Zinc concentrations are occasionally elevated throughout the watershed. Seven percent of all
samples collected exceeded the PWQO (Figure 14). These exceedences occurred primarily
during the spring freshet and are believed to be a result of surface runoff from roads, parking
areas and other man-made sources. However, due to the abundance of substances to bind the zinc
ion, zinc concentrations in the Conservation Halton watershed are probably not a health concern.
Figure 14: Zinc concentrations (µg/L) at Conservation Halton’s annual (PWQMN) Monitoring
Stations in 2008
Zinc Data
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Zinc(µg/L)
PWQO

34
2.5 Groundwater Monitoring
Groundwater quantity and quality were assessed in 2008 at twelve wells 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 eight years. The location of the PGMN
wells in the Conservation Halton watershed is shown in Figure 15.
Groundwater levels are recorded hourly and the data are archived in an MOE central database.
MOE objectives (PWQO) related to groundwater are used for water quality parameters.
Groundwater samples covering 44 parameters were taken at 9 wells throughout the watershed
over several days in October 2008. 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 7 of the wells. Well
GA004 had a sodium concentration of 302 mg/L.
Downloading Groundwater Data

35
Figure 15: Groundwater Quality Monitoring Stations

36
2.6 Water Temperature Monitoring
The average water temperature of a stream is of vital importance to the survival and well being
of a variety of fish species (Stoneman and Jones 1996). Cold water is capable of holding more
oxygen than warm water. For this reason, it is important to properly characterize the instream
temperature conditions found within a studied reach and to maintain the reach’s naturally
occurring thermal regimes. Temperature data loggers were deployed at approximately 22
locations throughout the Burlington and Oakville Urban Creeks. Data were collected using
Hobo Water Temp Pro V2 dataloggers which were installed at each monitoring location in early
spring and left in place for the duration of the monitoring season and removed in the fall. Data
were 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. Thermally
stable streams are generally suitable for coldwater fishes while thermally unstable streams are
generally unsuitable for coldwater fishes as their average maximum daily summer water
temperatures often exceed 23o
C. Once the thermal stability of a stream is known, it can be
classified as a cold, cool or warmwater system.
Unfortunately six of the loggers were lost after a summer filled with major storms going through
the watershed dislodging the staked temperature loggers. Therefore there was not enough data
collected to accurately classify stream temperatures for all of the watersheds. Figure 16
illustrates the locations of the temperature loggers and associated temperature regimes. Fourteen
temperature loggers were recovered and analysis was carried out resulting in all warmwater
stations with the exception of one station which was found to be coolwater. MOR-2 in the
Morrison Creek was the only site in the Urban Creeks which was coolwater. Appendix 8
illustrates the thermal classification in relation to the cold and coolwater limits.

37
Figure 16: Water Temperature Sampling Stations and Associated Classifications

38
Terrestrial Ecologists Identifying Vegetation Types
within an ELC Site.
3.0 Terrestrial Monitoring
3.1 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 jurisdiction in 2001 and
continued in 2008 in order to document
vegetative communities directly to
vegetation type at various Conservation
Halton owned properties. Initially ELC
is done through air photo interpretation,
which identifies and groups vegetative
communities down to Community
Series. Community Series is a fairly broad descriptor 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). To get more
detailed information a site visit is required. Once a site visit is
performed the data collected are used to determine the Vegetation
Type (e.g. Dry-Fresh-Maple-Oak Deciduous Forest Type). Vegetation
Type is the finest level of resolution in the ELC and includes specific
species occurrence within the site.
ELC was completed in 2008 at the newly acquired Glenorchy
Conservation Area and Mount Nemo Conservation Area (Figure 17).
Glenorchy was recently transferred to Conservation Halton’s
management and it is a valuable ecological area. It was surveyed in
order to document vegetative communities directly to vegetation type
Brief descriptions of the properties surveyed are described below:
Glenorchy

39
Glenorchy Conservation Area
The Glenorchy Conservation Area is located along the Sixteen Mile Creek valley from Dundas
Street north to Lower Baseline Road and from Fourth Line west to Bronte Road. Fifty-seven
community types were classified within this 400 hectare property. Glenorchy is dominated by the
majestic Sixteen Mile Creek valley and contains a number of rare species and habitat types. Even
small and temporary streams on the property had deep valleys with steep banks associated with
them thus providing many micro habitats for a variety of species. The floodplain areas consist of
meadows and Black Maple forests. Along cool north or east facing slopes are Maple-Hemlock
communities, and above the valley walls are dryer Maple-Oak communities. Some of these dryer
areas above the valley contain remnants of prairie and savannah species. A large portion of the
lands associated with this new Conservation Area are in agricultural cultivation. The most
appropriate restoration opportunities for these areas are being explored.
Mount Nemo Conservation Area
Mount Nemo is one of Conservation Halton’s most popular conservation areas due to its
beautiful lookout opportunities. It is located on the outcropping of the Niagara Escarpment just
east of Guelph Line and north of No. 2 Sideroad. 36 community types were classified within this
168 hectare property. It has many significant and rare communities including; extensive cliff face
and talus communities as well as maple-oak dominated tablelands above the escarpment. Also
present on the property are caves and crevices popular with cavers but also important habitat for
bats.
Arial View of Mount Nemo

40
Figure 17: Ecological Land Classification Sites

41
3.2 Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN)
The Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN) is made up of linked
organizations and individuals involved in ecological monitoring in Canada to better detect,
describe, and report on ecosystem changes. The network is a cooperative partnership of federal,
provincial and municipal governments, academic institutions, aboriginal communities and
organizations, industry, environmental non-government organizations, volunteer community
groups, elementary and secondary schools and other groups/individuals involved in ecological
monitoring (EMAN 2006).
It was established in 1994 to provide an understanding and explanation of observed changes in
ecosystems. When formally established, the mandate was to coordinate integrated ecosystem
monitoring and research to provide an understanding and explanation of observed changes in
ecosystems (EMAN 2006).
EMAN was established with the following four objectives:
• to provide a national perspective on how Canadian ecosystems are being affected by a
multitude of stresses on the environment;
• to provide scientifically defensible rationales for pollution control and resource
management policies;
• to evaluate and report to Canadians on the effectiveness of resources management
policies; and,
• to identify new environmental issues at the earliest possible stage.
Conservation Halton is involved in this partnership and to date has set up three EMAN plots
(Figure 18). This first plot was set in 2006 and consists of a group of ten 20 x 20 m plots within
the Grindstone Creek watershed (Waterdown Woods). In 2007, Conservation Halton set up its
first one hectare plot in the Bronte Creek watershed at Rattlesnake Point Conservation Area. This
year, another one hectare plot has been set at Glenorchy Conservation Area. 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.
Waterdown Woods (Grindstone Creek)
In 2008, tree health/condition, understory biodiversity and plethodontid salamander abundance
components of the EMAN program were monitored. Tree health/condition includes 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-dominate, intermediate or suppressed) and crown
rating (fullness of the crown). Tree height and diameter at breast height are measurements
conducted every 5 years. Tree health and mortality for dominant, co dominant, intermediate and
suppressed trees did not change significantly between 2007 and 2008. Tree mortality for
dominant and co dominate trees was 4.4% in 2008, up from 3.6% in 2007. Tree mortality for
intermediate and suppressed trees was 9.9% in 2008 compared too 9.6% in 2007. Two Sugar
Maples and a Shagbark Hickory tree died in 2008, increasing the mortality rate. The mortality of
this class of tree within Waterdown Woods was not confined to a specific species.

42
Groundcover biodiversity monitoring was repeated for a second year. After this year a five year
rotation begins and these plots will be monitored again in 2011. Groundcover under the EMAN
program is comprised of mosses, lichens and fungi growing on the ground, together with small
trailing and rosette plants, all herbaceous vegetation regardless of height, and all woody plants
under 1 m in height. This type of monitoring was introduced because groundcover species are
finely tuned to their environment. Shifts in the concentration of airborne pollutants, increases in
UV-B radiation, and the variability of temperature and moisture regimes are among the
environmental changes that may impact these species. Long term monitoring of ground
vegetation species should help differentiate between short-term natural cyclic population
variation, and longer term vegetation shifts driven by environmental change. The quadrat size for
monitoring ground vegetation is 1 m x 1 m. Four 1m x 1m quadrats were monitored along the
inside edge of plots 2, plot 3, plot 4, plot 6, plot 7, plot 9 and plot 10, for a total of twenty-eight
quadrats. The majority of the small wooden markers placed the previous year could not be re-
located. Therefore the locations of the 1 x 1 m quadrats were approximated. Pictures were also
taken of each 1 x 1 m quadrat to replace the EMAN mapping protocol. Conservation Halton
decided that mapping selected 1 x 1 m quadrats by drawing them was time consuming and more
difficult than taking a picture of each one. Sampling was completed twice in the growing season,
between May 27 and June 4, 2008and again between July 15 and July 18, 2008 Twenty-one plant
species were recorded across all quadrats, down from thirty in 2007. Of those twenty-one species
the most common species were Garlic Mustard (Alliaria petiolata) and Maple (Acer sp.)
seedlings.
Conservation Halton’s Artificial Cover Boards (ACO) design comes from 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 supports. This creates a small space between the lower board
and the cover board. This double decker construction helps to mimic their natural habitat of
rotting logs and other woody debris found on the forest floor. It gives 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. Throughout an eight – twelve week period
beginning in the spring the ACOs are checked for salamanders every other week. 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 age class, and length of each individual was recorded.
Total number of salamanders and species composition under each board is also recorded.
Plethodontid salamanders are particularly easy to monitor with Artificial Cover Boards. These
salamanders have long life spans (10+ years), low birth rates, have 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 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 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.

43
The forty double-decker ACOs placed
around Plot 6 at Waterdown Woods were
monitored this spring for the second year
in a row. The boards were monitored on
April 18, May 7 and 21, June 6, 20 and
30 and July 15, 2008. A total of 702
salamanders were recorded, a 69%
increase over 2007. Of these 702
salamanders 641 were Eastern Red-
backed Salamander (RESA) (Plethodon
cinereus), 59 were Lead-backed
Salamander (LESA) (Plethodon
cinereus) and 1 Red-spotted Newt
(RENE) (Notophthalmus viridescens).
The average snout to vent length of the
RESA was 34.02 mm, 34.14 mm for the
LESA and 20.00 mm for the RENE. While the average vent to tail length for the RESA was
33.24 mm, 34.53 for the LESA and 18.00 for the RENE.
Rattlesnake Point (Bronte Creek)
In 2007, Conservation Halton’s first one hectare EMAN monitoring plot was installed within the
Bronte Creek watershed at Rattlesnake Point. In 2008, tree health/condition, understory
biodiversity and plethodontid salamander abundance components of the EMAN program were
monitored. The protocols for each are explained above.
Tree mortality in the intermediate and suppressed hardwood tree species rose 7%, while that for
softwoods rose 10%. This translates into two more softwood trees dying in 2008 and twelve
more hardwood trees dying in 2008, than in 2007. American Beech (50%) was the most
prevalent dead hardwood among the plots, while Eastern Hemlock was the most prevalent
softwood. Tree loss among the dominant and co dominant hardwood trees was 7.7% in 2008 up
from 4.8% in 2007.
Groundcover biodiversity monitoring was completed for the first time this year and will be
repeated next year as well. After this year a five year rotation begins and these plots will be
monitored again in 2012. Four 1 m x 1 m quadrats were monitored along the inside edge of plots
2, plot 3, plot 4, plot 6, plot 7, plot 9 and plot 10, for a total of twenty-eight quadrats. The
majority of the small wooden markers placed the previous year could not be re-located.
Therefore the locations of the 1 x 1 m quadrats were approximated. Pictures were also taken of
each 1 x 1 m quadrat to replace the EMAN mapping protocol. Sampling was completed twice in
the growing season, between May 28 and June 13, 2008 and again between July 11 and 14, 2008.
Twenty-three plant species were recoded across all quadrats. Of those, the most common species
were Maple seedlings (Acer sp.) and Trout Lily (Erythronium americanum).
Checking Salamander Boards

44
The twenty double-decker and
twenty single layer ACOs around
this one hectare EMAN plot were
monitored for the first time in 2008.
The boards were monitored on April
23, May 6, 21 and June 26, 2008. A
total of 106 salamanders were
recorded all of which were Eastern
Red-backed Salamanders. The
average snout to vent length of the
RESA was 33.87 mm. While the
average vent to tail length for the
RESA was 33.28 mm.
Glenorchy (Sixteen Mile Creek)
In 2008, Conservation Halton’s second one hectare EMAN plot was installed. This installation
included 25, 20 x 20 m plots in a square shape, covering an area 100 x 100 m. The plot is located
within a Sugar Maple forest and a Red Maple swamp. This location was chosen to act as a
project site to monitor the effects of restoration on overall forest health. In the future, the
agricultural fields that currently surround the EMAN forested plot will be restored.
Within the 25 monitoring plots all trees greater than 10 cm dbh have been tagged with a unique
identification. In addition, tree health/condition, size and canopy class information was collected
in 2008. This information was collected from 505 trees (of 21 different species). American
Beech (Fagus grandifolia) was the most abundant, had the highest relative density, relative
dominance, and importance value. A summary of these values for all species recorded is located
in Appendix 8
Forty double-decker Artificial Cover Boards (ACO) were constructed and deployed in October
in order to monitor plethodontid salamander populations. All ACOs were located around the
perimeter of the 1 hectare plot, 10 m from the edge and 5 m apart. These were placed in
accordance with the EMAN plethodontid salamander monitoring protocol (Zorn et al. 2004).
Monitoring of these boards will begin in the spring 2009.
3.3 Marsh Monitoring (Amphibians and Marsh Birds)
For amphibian monitoring the following protocol was used as per the Marsh Monitoring
Program (BSC 2006). Amphibian surveys used 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. The visits were dictated by ambient air temperature as follows:
• The first visit was with a minimum night-time air temperature of at least 5 0
C and after
the warm rains of spring had begun
• The second visit the night-time air temperature was at least 10 0
C and
• The third visit the night-time air temperature was at least 17 0
C.
Red-backed Salamander

45
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 are documented to provide a general index of abundance. This records
the number of individual frogs calling of each species. The call codes (CC) 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.
The marsh bird monitoring also followed the Marsh Monitoring Program (BSC 2006). This
program used a "fixed distance" semi-circular sampling area. Surveys were conducted from a
central point located on the edge of a 100 metre 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 are collected on some important, but shy marsh birds.
In addition to the collection of amphibian and marsh bird population information, habitat
information is also collected. The vegetation surrounding each station is recorded and general
map drawn of the station location and vegetation structure.
Marsh monitoring for both amphibians and marsh birds was conducted at three sites. Sites
generally contain more than one station. Figure 18 displays these three sites, found within the
Sixteen Mile Creek (Hilton Falls Conservation Area), Bronte Creek (Mountsberg Conservation
Area) and Grindstone Creek (Fuciarelli property) watersheds respectively. All data collected are
submitted yearly to Bird Studies Canada as part of their ongoing Marsh Monitoring Program. A
brief summary of monitoring efforts are provided below.
Green Frog

46
Hilton Falls Conservation Area (Sixteen Mile Creek)
This site contains two stations and has been monitored since 2001. Monitoring of amphibian
populations was completed on April 28 between a half hour after sunset and midnight, under
suitable weather conditions, due to the unpredictable spring weather in 2008 only one visit was
performed. Monitoring of marsh bird populations was conducted at these stations on May 28,
2008 and June 19, 2008. The visits were completed between 7:30 and 8:30 p.m. Two amphibian
and twenty-five bird species were recorded over the two stations. The number of bird species
observed was up significantly from the previous year. Notable additions include Great Blue
Heron, Least Bittern, Wood Duck and Hooded Merganser. A summary of the species seen and
heard at both the amphibian and bird marsh monitoring stations is available in Appendix 10 and
11.
Mountsberg Conservation Area (Bronte Creek)
This site contains three stations and has been monitored since 2004. Monitoring of amphibian
populations was completed April 28 between a half hour after sunset and midnight, under
suitable weather conditions. Due to the unpredictable spring weather in 2008 only one visit was
performed. Monitoring of the marsh birds was conducted on May 29 and June 24, 2008,
between 7:30 and 8:30 p.m. at each station. Three amphibian and twenty-two bird species were
recorded over the three stations. Due to the limited number of sampling visits, the number of
amphibian species heard was down nearly by half from the previous year. The number of bird
species was up slightly from the previous year, notable additions include: Pied-billed Grebe,
Sora, and Ovenbird.A summary of the species seen and heard at both the amphibian and bird
marsh monitoring stations is available in Appendix 12 and 13.
Fuciarelli (Grindstone Creek)
This site contains two stations and has been monitored since 2001. Monitoring of amphibian
populations was completed on April 28 and May 28 between a half hour after sunset and
midnight, under suitable weather conditions, due to the unpredictable spring weather in 2008
only two visits were performed. Monitoring of marsh bird populations was conducted at these
stations on June 11 and June 30, 2008. The visits were completed between 7:30 and 9:30 p.m.
Four amphibian and twenty-eight bird species were recorded over the two stations. This site was
surveyed by a volunteer in 2007; therefore a direct comparison cannot be made. A summary of
the species seen and heard at both the amphibian and bird marsh monitoring stations is available
in Appendix 14 and 15.

47
Figure 18: Terrestrial Monitoring Locations

48
3.4 Forest Bird Monitoring
The Forest Bird Monitoring Program (FBMP) is administered by the Ontario Region of the
Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada (Environment Canada 2006). 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 6 days between visits. The stations are visited in
the early morning between 5:00 and 10:00 a.m. and within a half an hour of the previous years
visit. Surveys are conducted in calm to light winds (<15 kph) 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 area. In 2008, Conservation
Halton staff surveyed three sites, Hilton Falls, Bronte-Burloak and Waterdown Woods, within
the Sixteen Mile Creek, Bronte Creek and Grindstone Creek watersheds respectively. In
addition, two new sites were added, Rattlesnake Point Conservation Area (Bronte Creek) and
Glenorchy Conservation Area (Sixteen Mile Creek). Between these five sites were a total of
twelve stations. The location of these stations is presented on Figure 18 and the list of birds
found is in Appendix 16.
Hilton Falls Central (Sixteen Mile Creek)
The Hilton Falls Central site (#362) was previously established through the FBMP program by
Bird Studies Canada. This site had been abandoned by the previous surveyor and therefore
Conservation Halton staff took over the monitoring of this site. All data collected are submitted
to Environment Canada under the FBMP program. There are five stations within this site all of
which are within the Robertson Tract owned by the Region of Halton.
The five stations were surveyed on June 16 and July 8 both between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m., in
appropriate weather conditions. Seventeen species were recorded at the five stations over the
survey dates. Of these nine are considered area sensitive according to the Significant Wildlife
Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000):
• Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus)
o Requires approximately 70 ha of contiguous forest
• American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla)
• Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea)
• Veery (Catharus fuscescens)
• Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus)
o Requires trees >25 cm dbh; requires approximately 4-8 ha of contiguous forest
• Brown Creeper (Certhia americana)
o Requires dead trees >25 cm dbh with loose bark for nesting; requires a minimum
of 30 ha of contiguous forest
• Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)

49
o Area sensitive species requiring 40-260 ha; requires trees >25 cm dbh for nesting
and trees 40+ cm dbh for roosting
• Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens)
o Prefers dense, mixed forest, requires about 30 ha of contiguous forest
• White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis)
o Mature, broad-leafed woodland; tolerates mixed forest; uses natural cavities in
trees with dbh> 30 cm; needs at least 10 ha or more of continuous forest
In addition to area sensitivity the Brown Creeper, Pileated Woodpecker and Black-throated
Green Warbler are considered uncommon in the Region of Halton (Dwyer 2006).
Bronte-Burloak Woods (Bronte Creek)
The Bronte-Burloak Woods stations are located on the former Shell property in Oakville, east of
Burloak Drive and south of Rebecca Street (Figure 18). The locations of the FBMP stations are
within two remnant woodlots. The size of Bronte and Burloak woods does not meet the
minimum size criterion for the FBMP at 25 ha. These two woodlots are 19 ha and 10.4 ha
respectively. Conservation Halton decided to establish breeding bird surveys in these woodlots
using the FBMP protocol. The purpose was to determine whether any changes were detectable
with the ongoing development of the area in relation to breeding bird composition. As of 2006, a
well-established, gravel walking trail was in use throughout Burloak Woods, whereas Bronte
Woods was limited to a few informal footpaths. A new gravel walking trail was in place in
Bronte Woods by spring 2008.
Construction is ongoing and noise from machinery was noted during both surveys. They took
place on May 29 and July 6 both between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m., in appropriate weather conditions.
Nineteen species were recorded between the two stations and the two survey dates. Of these, two
species are considered area sensitive according to the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical
Guide (OMNR 2000):
o Requires approximately 10 ha of contiguous forest to complete its lifecycle
• Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus)
o Requires trees >25 cm dbh; requires approximately 4-8 ha of contiguous forest
None of the species noted at Bronte-Burloak woods are considered regionally rare.
Waterdown Woods (Grindstone Creek)
The five stations were surveyed on June 6 and June 30 both between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m., in
appropriate weather conditions. Sixteen species were recorded at three stations over the survey
dates. Of these, three are considered area sensitive according to the Significant Wildlife Habitat
Technical Guide (OMNR 2000):
o Requires approximately 10 ha of contiguous forest to complete its lifecycle
• Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes)

OFAH + Conservation Halton_urban-creeks-2008

OFAH + Conservation Halton_urban-creeks-2008

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to OFAH + Conservation Halton_urban-creeks-2008

Similar to OFAH + Conservation Halton_urban-creeks-2008 (20)

OFAH + Conservation Halton_urban-creeks-2008