Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Introduced species wikipedia , lookup
Restoration ecology wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Wildlife crossing wikipedia , lookup
Biological Dynamics of Forest Fragments Project wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Mission blue butterfly habitat conservation wikipedia , lookup
Reconciliation ecology wikipedia , lookup
66 Eastview Road, Guelph, Ontario SCOPED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY Prepared for: Debrob Investments Ltd. c/o Polocorp Inc. May 2013 Prepared by: 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.0 Project Overview .......................................................................................................................... 3 Study Team and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 3 Description of the Proposed Development ................................................................................... 4 STUDY APPROACH ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.1 2.2 2.3 Background Data Review ............................................................................................................. 4 Agency Liaison ............................................................................................................................. 4 Field Surveys ................................................................................................................................ 5 3.0 CONTEXT AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK ................................................................................... 6 4.0 BIOPHYSICAL FEATURES ............................................................................................................. 6 4.1 Past and Present Land Use ............................................................................................................ 6 4.2 Physiography and Soils ................................................................................................................. 7 4.3 Hydrogeology ............................................................................................................................... 7 4.4 Environmental Designations ......................................................................................................... 8 4.5 Field Investigations ....................................................................................................................... 9 4.5.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................. 9 4.5.1.1 Vegetation - Methods ........................................................................................................ 9 4.5.1.2 Results - Flora ................................................................................................................. 10 4.5.1.3 Results - Vegetation Communities.................................................................................. 10 4.5.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 17 4.5.2.1 Avifauna – Methods ........................................................................................................ 17 4.5.3 Avifauna – Results .............................................................................................................. 17 4.5.3.1 Breeding Bird Surveys .................................................................................................... 17 4.5.4 Herpetofauna – Methodology ............................................................................................. 19 4.5.4.1 Calling Amphibian Survey Methodology ....................................................................... 19 4.5.4.2 Calling Amphibian Survey Results ................................................................................. 19 4.5.5 Other Wildlife – Methodology ............................................................................................ 20 4.5.6 Other Wildlife – Results ..................................................................................................... 21 4.5.7 Significant Wildlife Habitat ................................................................................................ 21 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT........................................................................ 23 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 6.0 Delineation of Wetland and Woodland Limits ........................................................................... 23 Development of Environmental Management / Setback Requirements ..................................... 23 Proposed Development Fabric .................................................................................................... 26 Stormwater Management ............................................................................................................ 26 POLICY REVIEW / ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................ 28 6.1 Provincial Policy Statement (MMAH 2005)............................................................................... 28 6.1.1 Assessment of PPS Natural Heritage Policies .................................................................... 28 6.2 City of Guelph Official Plan ....................................................................................................... 29 Our File No.: 3313009 Page i 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 6.3 Grand River Conservation Authority Regulation (Ont. Reg. 150/06) ........................................ 30 6.3.1 Wetland Policy .................................................................................................................... 30 7.0 IMPACT REVIEW AND EVALUATION .......................................................................................... 30 7.1 Impact Overview ......................................................................................................................... 30 7.2 Overview of Mitigation Measures .............................................................................................. 31 7.2.1 Development Setbacks and Buffers .................................................................................... 31 7.2.2 Environmental Enhancement Areas .................................................................................... 31 7.2.3 Erosion & Sediment (ESC) Control Plan ............................................................................ 32 7.2.4 SWM Strategy ..................................................................................................................... 32 7.2.5 Hydrogeology / Infiltration ................................................................................................. 32 7.2.6 Temporary and Permanent Fencing .................................................................................... 32 7.2.7 Trails ................................................................................................................................... 32 7.2.8 Spills Management and Best Management Practices (BMPs) ............................................ 32 7.2.9 Stewardship ......................................................................................................................... 33 7.2.9.1 Monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 33 7.2.9.2 Monitoring Program........................................................................................................ 36 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 38 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 40 List of Tables Table 1: Vegetation Community Descriptions............................................................................................ 12 Table 2: Amphibian Species – Maximum Calling Code by Station (2012) ............................................... 20 Table 3: Environmental Management Recommendations and Rationale ................................................... 24 Table 4: 66 Eastview OPA / Zone Change Potential Impacts to the Natural Environment ........................ 34 List of Appendices Appendix A: Figures – Figure 1: Ecological Land Classification and Provincially Significant Wetland Figure 2: Wildlife Survey Locations Figure 3: Conceptual Site Plan Appendix B: Terms of Reference Appendix C: Field Chronology Appendix D: Vascular Plant List Appendix E: Avifauna Observations Appendix F: Glossary of Species Ranks Our File No.: 3313009 Page ii 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview May 2013 Ecoplans, a member of MMM Group Limited, (Ecoplans) has been retained to complete a Scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) in support of a zone change application for a new townhouse condominium development at 66 Eastview Road, Guelph (the “subject property”; see Figure 1). A large portion of the subject property supports municipally and provincially significant natural heritage features, as identified in the City of Guelph Official Plan Amendment Number 42 (OPA 42). That portion, and all other natural features that meet the criteria for designation as natural heritage system (NHS) components will be retained and protected with setbacks and other buffer management measures determined through this Scoped EIS. The site is located within the Eramosa River Watershed. The subject property is dominated by bottomlands, with tableland and predominantly gently rolling topography on the southern half of the site. There is an abrupt grade change along a wetland at the southwest corner of the site and much of the property (including the treed areas) has been altered through fill, grading and other anthropogenic uses. One unnamed, poorly defined tributary to Hadati Creek is present in the northeast corner of the subject property. The southwest corner of the subject property previously had a residential property (since removed) with adjacent cleared areas which have succeeded to cultural meadow. The north end of the property supports natural vegetation cover (swamp and forest communities), and this area contains designated natural heritage features including a portion of the Guelph Northeast Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) complex and various City of Guelph Natural Heritage System (NHS) components (i.e. ‘Significant Woodlands’, ‘Locally Significant Wetland’, ‘Potential Habitat for Locally Significant Species’), together leading to designation as a ‘Significant Natural Area’. No ‘Significant Valleylands and Significant Landforms’ or ‘Surface Water and Fish Habitat’ are identified on the subject property (per OPA 42 NHS mapping). Surrounding land uses are predominantly urban residential (south and west), with future urban residential to the northeast on / adjacent to the former Eastview landfill site and some agricultural /natural areas further north and east. 1.2 Study Team and Objectives PoloCorp Inc. is coordinating all planning components of the work. MTE Consultants Inc. (MTE) is addressing the stormwater management, and servicing components of the work. LVM Inc. (LVM) is completing the hydrogeology and geotechnical components. Ecoplans is undertaking the natural environment component of the study. The proposed development envelope has been restricted to the portion of the subject property that Our File No.: 3313009 Page 3 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 supports cultural vegetation community types or was under previous residential land use. The portion of the site containing ‘Significant Natural Area’ (per OPA 42, which includes PSW, significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat) will be retained in full and protected with setbacks and buffer management measures. The primary objective of this EIS is to evaluate the sensitivity and significance of the Significant Natural Area and other natural features and functions that could be influenced by the development. 1.3 Description of the Proposed Development The Preliminary Site Plan identifies development on two portions of the property: one portion fronts Eastview Road, the second portion is adjacent to Carter Drive. The Eastview Road portion includes 26 townhouse units in 6 blocks. This portion of the site will have two separate common element roadways accessed off of Eastview Road. The Carter Drive portion is composed of a single detached house that will be accessed from the current limit of Carter Drive. 2.0 STUDY APPROACH The following section details the methods and primary sources of information used in the completion of the Scoped EIS. 2.1 Background Data Review Relevant agencies were contacted and background material was collected and reviewed. Specifically, the following sources of information were reviewed: • Topographic mapping (OBM, NTS) • Aerial photography • Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) database and mapping (Biodiversity Explorer) • Land Information Ontario (LIO) mapping • Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Evaluation Documents for Guelph Northeast Complex (MNR 2002) • City of Guelph Natural Heritage Strategy, Phase 2 Final Report (Dougan and Associates March 2009) • Relevant municipal and provincial policy documents and legislation Background and other data sources are listed in the References section of this report. 2.2 Agency Liaison As part of the natural environment review and assessment, the following agency consultation has occurred: Our File No.: 3313009 Page 4 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 • Pre-consultation Meetings. A meeting was held with the City of Guelph in September 2011 to discuss the development proposal and study approach for three adjacent properties including 66 Eastview Road. Since that meeting, adjacent landowners have decided not to proceed at this time; hence, this proposal is limited to 66 Eastview Road. A subsequent pre-consultation meeting was held on April 10, 2013 to discuss the development proposal for 66 Eastview Road alone. • Terms of Reference Circulation and Review. A Terms of Reference (TOR) was prepared by the project team and circulated to the City of Guelph, Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC), and GRCA for review and comment in October 2011. It outlined the planning context and detailed the scope of work (background data collection, agency liaison, field survey program, data review and EIS report structure). This TOR was completed for the three adjacent properties, however, it was followed for the completion of the Scoped EIS for the 66 Eastview parcel alone. The Terms of Reference is included in Appendix B. • Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) Meeting. Jeff Gross (Ecoplans) presented the draft Terms of Reference (previously circulated to EAC) in December 14, 2012. EAC approved the TOR at this meeting. • MNR Consultation. Guelph District MNR (Art Timmerman, Management Biologist) was contacted to review the surveyed wetland limit mapping and to comment on the status of wetlands identified by Ecoplans, but not mapped by the MNR. • Agency Site Walk. A Site walk with GRCA and the City of Guelph was held on October 25, 2011 to confirm wetland limits. 2.3 Field Surveys Field surveys completed as part of this study are listed below. Detailed descriptions of the field survey methodologies and results are provided in Section 4. • • Vegetation and flora o Ecological Land Classification (ELC) mapping and community description o Botanical inventory o Wetland and Natural Area boundary delineation Wildlife o Avifaunal surveys (breeding birds, migrant/supplemental) o Herpetofaunal surveys (spring calling amphibians) o Other incidental wildlife observations (mammals, reptiles etc.) Our File No.: 3313009 Page 5 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study 3.0 May 2013 CONTEXT AND PLANNING FRAMEWORK This section provides an overview of the relevant planning policy and legislation that was reviewed in the completion of this study. These policies are reviewed in detail in relation to the proposed development in Section 7. Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) The PPS was issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act and identifies natural heritage provisions that restrict development and site alteration in and / or adjacent to certain natural heritage features (i.e. significant woodlands, wetlands, valleylands, wildlife habitat, habitat of endangered or threatened species, and fish habitat). City of Guelph Official Plan (The Plan) and associated documents The Plan provides goals, objectives and policies to direct land use change and activity in the City. Of relevance to this Scoped EIS are the directions regarding consideration of the natural environment in the land development process. This includes Official Plan Amendment 42 (Natural Heritage System), and associated background documents (i.e. Guelph Natural Heritage Strategy Phase 2 Report (Dougan and Associates)). Also of note is the Trail Network Map (Schedule 7) which identifies a “proposed city trail” along the perimeter of the Natural Heritage System on the subject property. This conceptual trail alignment links westerly to Carter Drive and easterly to an existing city trail. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) Regulations and Policies The Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) regulates development and/or interference with wetlands in accordance with Ontario Regulation 150/06 made under the Conservation Authorities Act. The regulation applies to areas that are river or stream valleys, wetlands and other areas where development could interfere with the hydrologic function of a wetland. The “Policies for the Administration of the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation” (GRCA 2013) document provides further direction on the implementation of Ontario Regulation 150/06. This was also considered in the completion of this EIS. 4.0 BIOPHYSICAL FEATURES 4.1 Past and Present Land Use The subject property is approximately 11 ha with the majority of the land composed of forest and wetland. The southerly portion of the property, fronting Eastview Road, is primarily composed of early successional vegetation (i.e. cultural meadow) and previously had a residence that has since been removed. Most of the meadow area is on fill, as confirmed through the geotechnical investigation. It appears that this area of fill extends from Eastview Road and increases in thickness towards an abrupt Our File No.: 3313009 Page 6 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 topographical change adjacent to the wetland boundary. The fill contains a mix of topsoil, sand, and gravel, with traces of silt, some cobbles, and occasional boulders. Pieces of asphalt, brick, concrete, wood, metal, pipe, plastic and cables were also encountered at various depths (Geotechnical Investigation Report LVM 2013). 4.2 Physiography and Soils The subject property is located within the Guelph Drumlin Field Physiographic Region, which consists of a series of broad oval drumlins oriented on a north-west axis at the foot of the Paris Moraine. A series of valleys, which run at right angles to the trend of the drumlins themselves, formed by glacial meltwaters, typically contain broad sand and gravel terraces along their edges with wetlands often present within the central portion of the valleys (Chapman & Putnam, 1984). Soils on the subject property consist of Guelph Loam on the moderately sloped upland portions of the site, with Granby Sandy Loams occupying the low-lying areas (Hoffman and Matthews, 1963). Guelph Loams consist of weathered glacial till material derived from the underlying limestone bedrock, and are well drained and slightly stony. The Granby Sandy Loams are poorly drained stone free soils derived from medium sand parent material associated with glacial outwash zones. As noted in section 4.1 above, the southern portion of the site also has fill deposits. 4.3 Hydrogeology A hydrogeological study has been completed for the subject property: Scoped Hydrogeology Study, Debrob Investments Ltd. Proposed Development 66 Eastview Road Guelph, Ontario (LVM 2013). Key results of the hydrogeology study are provided below, additional details and borehole information can be found in the LVM report. The proposed development area is underlain by silt till and fill of varying composition. The small wetland pocket directly north of the development area consists of silt deposits underlain by silty sand. In proximity to Eastview Road, in the upslope area, groundwater was encountered within the silt till deposit and underlying silty sand deposit at depths of 5 to 7 mBGS. Within the wetland north of the development area, ground water was encountered between 0.1 and 0.6 mBGS; and at depths of less than 0.15 mBGS within the larger wetland in the central and northern portions of the subject property. Groundwater is expected to flow towards the wetland areas and discharge to the wetlands on a seasonal basis (i.e. some discharge likely occurs during times of seasonally high groundwater levels). The water levels in the wetland are supported by on-site infiltration of precipitation; however, runoff draining towards the wetland likely provides more significant inputs. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 7 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study 4.4 May 2013 Environmental Designations Based on a review of background information and agency consultation, several designated features were identified on or adjacent to the Subject Property. They are associated with the forested and wetland portions of the property. Guelph Northeast Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complex A large portion of the subject property is located within the boundaries of the Guelph Northeast PSW Complex, as identified on the GRCA mapping presented in Appendix A, Figure 4. The wetland complex is composed of two wetland types; swamp (90%) and marsh (10%). For additional information please refer to the Wetland Data Record and Evaluation – Guelph Northeast Complex (Timmerman and Ross, 2002). City of Guelph Natural Heritage System (NHS) and Associated Designations A large portion of the property is identified on Schedule 10 of the City of Guelph Official Plan (OPA 42) Natural Heritage System (NHS). The NHS is comprised of two components; Significant Natural Areas and Natural Areas. Each of these components consists of several sub-components. Three of the sub-components that comprise the Significant Natural Areas designation are identified on Schedules 10A – 10E as being present on the subject property: Significant Woodlands (as identified on Schedule 10C), Significant Wetlands (i.e. PSW and City of Guelph Defined Locally Significant Wetlands, as identified on Schedule 10A) and Significant Wildlife Habitat (i.e. Potential Habitat for Locally Significant Species as identified on Schedule 10E). All three of these designations are associated with wooded portions of the subject property that will be retained and protected with setbacks and other mitigation measures. A brief description of these features is provided below. No Natural Areas as defined in the City of Guelph Official Plan (OPA 42) are identified as being present on the subject property. Significant Woodlands Approximate limits of Significant Woodlands present on the subject property as identified on Schedule 10C of OPA 42. Limits of Significant Woodlands on the subject property were confirmed, with minor refinements, based on detailed Ecological Land Classification completed for this EIS in consideration of the significant woodland designation criteria provided in OPA 42. The refined dripline of Significant Woodlands on the subject property was flagged in the field and total station surveyed. The refined limits of this feature are presented on Figure 3, and this limit has been incorporated into draft plans to inform development setbacks. Significant Wetlands (PSW and City of Guelph Defined Locally Significant Wetlands) Approximate limits of Significant Wetlands (PSW and LSW) are present on the subject property as identified on Schedule 10A of OPA 42. These approximate limits were confirmed/refined on the subject Our File No.: 3313009 Page 8 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 property according to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System protocols. This feature was field assessed by Ecoplans, confirmed by GRCA staff during a site walk on October 25, 2011 and total station surveyed. The confirmed limits of this feature are presented on Figure 3, and this limit has been incorporated into draft plans to inform development setbacks. Significant Wildlife Habitat (potential habitat for Locally Significant Species). Schedule 10E of the OPA 42 identifies Potential Habitat for Locally Significant Species on the subject property. This area generally corresponds to the Significant Woodlands area presented in OPA 42. Additional discussion and review of Significant Wildlife Habitat is provided in Section 4.5.7. GRCA Regulated Area In addition to the designated areas, a large portion of the subject property is located within GRCA regulated areas. This Regulated area is associated with the wetland features and associated buffers. 4.5 Field Investigations 4.5.1 Vegetation 4.5.1.1 Vegetation - Methods Vegetation surveys of the study area were completed in 2011 on September 15th, September 19th, October 12th, October 25th and in 2012 on May 16th, May 22nd, and June 26th, for a total vegetation survey field effort of approximately 43 hours. The scope of the field surveys included: • Delineating and classifying vegetation communities using the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) System for Southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998). Vegetation communities are described in Section 4.5.1.3 and delineated on Figure 1 (Appendix A). • Evaluating the sensitivity and significance of vegetation communities, with guidance from the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) biodiversity explorer website (updated periodically). • Completing a three season botanical inventory and compiling a vascular plant list, included in Appendix D. • Evaluating significance and sensitivity of flora recorded during the field review, using the Ontario Plant List (Newmaster, Harris, & Kershaw, 1998), the NHIC Biodiversity Explorer website (updated periodically), local significance based on the Significant Plant List for Wellington County (Dougan and Associates 2009). • Delineating the limits of wetland present on the subject property according to the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System protocols. Wetlands on the subject property were field assessed by Our File No.: 3313009 Page 9 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Ecoplans, confirmed by GRCA during a field walk on October 25, 2011, total station surveyed and plotted on base plans. • Delineating the woodland limits on the subject property according to the requirements identified in OPA 42. City of Guelph staff indicated that no field confirmation of the woodland limits was required by City staff. Woodland limits were field assessed by Ecoplans, total station surveyed and plotted on base plans. • Taking representative site photographs, which are on file at Ecoplans. 4.5.1.2 Results - Flora In total, 135 vascular plant species were recorded during the Ecoplans field review, with an additional 5 specimens identified to the genus level only. A list of all species recorded is provided in Appendix D. Summary statistics for these species are provided below. • Of the 135 species recorded, 42 (31%) are non-native species, many of which are typical of old field and disturbed areas. These species are generally widespread and abundant in the cultural habitats of the study area. • The 5 species identified to genus are Amelanchier, Carex, Hieracium, Ranunculus and Viola. • Of the 93 native species recorded, 89 (96%) are considered ‘secure, common and widespread’ in Ontario (ranked S5) and 3 (3%) are considered ‘apparently secure, uncommon but not rare’ in Ontario (S4, S4?). • One Species, Thimbleweed (Anemone virginiana var cylindroidea) has a provincial ranking of SU (Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially conflicting information about status or trends). • Three species are considered significant in Wellington County (Dougan and Assoc. 2009): Hop Sedge (Carex lupulina), Mountain Ash (Sorbus americana), Rough-leaved Goldenrod (Solidago patula). Locations of these observations are shown on Figure 1, Appendix A. 4.5.1.3 Results - Vegetation Communities Vegetation communities are shown on Figure 1 in Appendix A and described in Table 1. In total, 30 Vegetation Units have been delineated and described; some are relatively homogeneous, with or without habitat inclusions; and some are complexes / mosaics of different habitat types. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 10 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 A total of 12 Vegetation Community Types were classified within the subject property: • Forest o o • SWD4-1 SWD3-3 SWD7-1 SWT2-2 SWT2-8 Willow Mineral Deciduous Forest Type Swamp Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp Type White Birch-Poplar Organic Deciduous Swamp Type Willow Mineral Thicket Swamp Type Silky Dogwood Mineral Thicket Swamp MAM2-2 Reed-canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh Marsh o • Dry-Fresh Cedar Coniferous Forest Type Dry-Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest Type Swamp o o o o o • FOC2-2 FOD3-1 Cultural o o o o CUM1-1 CUT1 CUT1-4 CUW1 Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Type Mineral Cultural Thicket Ecosite Gray Dogwood Cultural Thicket Type Mineral Cultural Woodland Ecosite One of these communities is ranked as S3S4 (meaning that it falls between ‘rare to uncommon’ and ‘apparently secure’) (per Bakowsky 1996 / NHIC): o SWT2-8 Silky Dogwood Mineral Thicket Swamp. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 11 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Table 1: Vegetation Community Descriptions UNIT ELC VEGETATION TYPE COMPONENT (% COVER) Canopy (35-60%) 1, 4 2 CUW1, CUT1 SWD4-1 Inclusions: SWT2-2 MAM2-2 Sub-Canopy (25-35%) COMPONENT SPECIES PLANT SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN >75% coniferous: Northern White Cedar > Red Pine, Scotch Pine > White Ash, Black Cherry Understory (25-25%) Ground Layer (1-10%) Woodland Sedge, Field Hawkweed, Grass sp., New England Aster Canopy (35-60%) >75% deciduous: White Willow, Black Willow > Trembling Aspen, Balsam Poplar, Manitoba Maple Sub-Canopy (10-25%) Manitoba Maple, American Basswood, Balsam Poplar, Glossy Buckthorn Understory (60-75%) Silky Dogwood, Silky Buckthorn, Sandbar Willow, Buckthorn Ground Layer (60-75%) Variable cover; Treed areas generally have dense understory with limited ground layer dominated by Buckthorn regeneration. Inclusions support dense cover of Reed Canary Grass with Lakebank Sedge. ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS Unit 1 a young community; Unit 4 is a pioneer community. Relative health and sensitivity considered low-moderate. Unit 1: Overlaps with 30m wetland buffer. Northern White Cedar dominates Northern White Cedar > Buckthorn, White Ash DESIGNATIONS Unit 4: Overlaps with 30m wetland buffer and 10m woodland buffer. Regenerating young cultural woodland dominated by Eastern White Cedar with occasional Red Pine, Scots Pine, Black Cherry and White Ash associates. Trees are younger and sparser in Unit 4, but species composition is similar. A large series of bike jumps has been constructed in this area. A mid-aged, willow dominated deciduous swamp community surrounding an old constructed pond area. The constructed pond has two "cells" separated by an earthen berm. The south cell supports a willow mineral thicket swamp inclusion dominated by sandbar willow, the north cell supports a reed canary grass meadow math inclusion. Contained within PSW and NHS. A tree fort is actively being constructed east of the north cell in a large white willow. Frequent tires dumped in cells. Unit 3: Overlaps with 30m wetland buffer. 3, 7 5, 29 CUM1-1 SWD7 Ground Layer (75-100%) Turf grass sp. (dominated by Kentucky Bluegrass) Canopy (35-60%) >75% deciduous: Balsam Poplar > Trembling Aspen Pioneer community. Relative sensitivity considered low. Regionally Significant Species: Unit 7: Overlaps with 30m wetland buffer and 10m woodland buffer. Turf grass bands extending north from residential area. Occasionally mown. Units 5 & 29: Contained within PSW and NHS. Young community. Relative health considered moderate; Relative sensitivity considered high. Two similar poplar swamp units. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 12 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study UNIT ELC VEGETATION TYPE May 2013 COMPONENT (% COVER) COMPONENT SPECIES PLANT SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN Hop Sedge (recorded in Unit 29) DESIGNATIONS ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS Sub-Canopy (35-60%) Balsam Poplar, Trembling Aspen, Riverbank Grape Unit 5 is somewhat disturbed, occupying the narrow low-lying area between two rural residential lots. It has low canopy cover and very dense understory of Buckthorn (abundant and widespread). Grading within adjacent property (to east) has apparently altered drainage/soil moisture conditions within unit. Understory (75-100%) Buckthorn > Silky Dogwood > Silky Buckthorn > Northern White Cedar Ground Layer (25-35%) Spotted Jewel-weed, Rough Goldenrod, Sedge sp., Buckthorn (regeneration) Canopy (35-60%) >75% deciduous: Trembling Aspen > White Ash Sub-Canopy (10-25%) Trembling Aspen, White Ash Understory (35-60%) Buckthorn > Glossy Buckthorn, Tartarian Honeysuckle, White Ash Ground Layer (60-75%) Tall Goldenrod, Kentucky Bluegrass, Virginia Strawberry Unit 11 has a very dense Buckthorn understory. Canopy (1-10%) >75% deciduous: White Willow > Eastern Cottonwood Pioneer community. Relative health considered moderate; Relative sensitivity considered low. Understory (1-10%) Sandbar Willow > Manitoba Maple Ground Layer (75-100%) Grass sp. (including Kentucky Bluegrass and Smooth Brome) >> Leafy Spurge, Wild Parsnip, Canada Goldenrod Canopy (10-25%) >75% deciduous: Trembling Aspen > Manitoba Maple Unit 29 is similar, but the understory is less dense due to Buckthorn being more mature. 6, 11 10 12 CUW1 CUM1-1 CUT1 Understory (60-75%) Ground Layer (35-60%) 13, 14, 22 FOC2-2 Canopy (75-100%) Buckthorn > Tartarian Honeysuckle, Riverbank Grape, Thicket Creeper > Redosier Dogwood Tall Goldenrod >> Enchanter’s Nightshade, Yellow Avens; Ground layer cover varies inversely with understory cover. >75% coniferous: Northern White Cedar >> Trembling Aspen Young community. Relative health and sensitivity considered low - moderate. Units 6 & 11: Overlap with 30m wetland buffer. Disturbed deciduous cultural woodland with frequent gaps and a ground layer dominated by tolerant old field species. Frequent and widespread invasive species (i.e. Buckthorn, Glossy Buckthorn and Tartarian Honeysuckle). Unit 6 with frequent piles of old construction materials apparently associated with adjacent residential property - woodland has grown up around the piles. Overlaps with 30m wetland buffer. Overlaps with 30m wetland buffer. Units 13, 14 & 22: Contained within NHS; overlap with A grass dominated old-field associated with a vacant residential lot, occasionally mowed. Predominantly open with several clusters of young Eastern Cottonwood, White Willow and Manitoba Maple. Young community; Relative health considered moderate; Relative sensitivity considered low. A small cultural thicket dominated by invasive species (i.e. Buckthorn and Tartarian Honeysuckle). Occasional old garbage. Young to mid-aged community. Relative health and sensitivity considered moderate. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 13 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study UNIT ELC VEGETATION TYPE May 2013 COMPONENT (% COVER) COMPONENT SPECIES PLANT SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN DESIGNATIONS 30m wetland buffer. Sub-Canopy (1-10%) Buckthorn dominates ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS Northern White Cedar dominated forest lacking understory and ground layers. Low botanical diversity. Occasional invasive species (i.e. Buckthorn). Several tree are forts present in unit 14. 15 17, 26 Canopy (10-25%) >75% deciduous: Green Ash, Freeman’s Maple > Trembling Aspen Sub-Canopy (10-25%) Willow sp., Bebb’s Willow > Buckthorn, Glossy Buckthorn Regionally Significant Species: Rough-leaved Goldenrod, Hop Sedge A large silky dogwood thicket swamp with relatively low levels of disturbance and a diverse assemblage of hydrophilic ground layer species. Contained within PSW and NHS. Silky Dogwood >> Red-osier Dogwood > Willow sp. (including Sandbar Willow and Meadow Willow) > Glossy Buckthorn Ground Layer (60-75%) Tussock Sedge > Rice Cutgrass > other hydrophilic forbs and grasses Canopy (35-60%) >75% deciduous: Manitoba Maple, Eastern Cottonwood, Trembling Aspen > Black Locust Young to mid-aged community. Relative health and sensitivity considered low. Two similar cultural woodland units. Sub-Canopy (10-25%) Manitoba Maple dominates Understory (25-35%) Buckthorn > Manitoba Maple, Riverbank Grape >> Red-osier Dogwood Unit 17 is a fairly disturbed, narrow band of cultural woodland, dominated by Manitoba Maple, situated along a steep embankment. Abundant garbage dumped throughout unit. Frequent invasive species (i.e. Buckthorn in understory and Black Locust in canopy). Canopy gaps support typical old field species. Road noise prevalent. Overlaps with 30 m wetland buffer Unit 26 is similar, a disturbed, narrow band located along the west edge of the subject property. A late patch of Goutweed noted. Unit 26 is almost entirely dominated by Manitoba Maple. Frequent dumping of garden waste and other garbage from top of slope. Ground Layer Colt’s Foot > Virginia Strawberry, Yellow (35-60%) Avens, Enchanter’s Nightshade 19, 21, 23 20 FOD3-1 SWD3-3 Occasional Buckthorn and Glossy Buckthorn are widespread throughout unit but are not abundant. Well-defined, informal trail bisects unit. Understory (60-75%) SWT2-8 CUW1 Mid-aged community. Relative health and sensitivity considered high. Canopy (75-100%) >75% deciduous: Trembling Aspen >> White Ash Sub-Canopy (25-35%) Buckthorn >> White Ash Understory (25-35%) Buckthorn >> White Ash, Privet sp., Choke Cherry Ground Layer (60-75%) Buckthorn (regeneration) >>> Tall Buttercup Canopy (75-100%) >75% deciduous: Freeman’s Maple dominates Young to mid-aged community. Relative health considered low; Relative sensitivity considered moderate. Regionally Significant Species: Rough-leaved Goldenrod (recorded in Unit 19) Unit 19, 21 & 23: Contained within NHS; Overlaps with 30m wetland buffer. Regionally Significant Species: Contained within PSW. Disturbed deciduous forest on pit and mound topography. Some wetter species present in pits (e.g. Balsam Poplar, Nannyberry). Abundant mature and regenerating invasive species (i.e. Buckthorn). Low botanical diversity overall. Mid-aged community. Relative health and sensitivity considered high. Deciduous swamp with relatively low levels of disturbance and dense ground layer cover. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 14 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study UNIT 24 25 27 ELC VEGETATION TYPE CUT1-4 FOD3-1 May 2013 COMPONENT (% COVER) COMPONENT SPECIES Sub-Canopy (10-25%) Freeman’s Maple dominates Understory (10-25%) Green Ash, Glossy Buckthorn > Thicket Creeper Ground Layer (75-100%) Fowl Manna Grass > Sensitive Fern > Northern Bugleweed Canopy (10-25%) >75% deciduous: Trembling Aspen, Paper Birch, Northern White Cedar, White Ash Sub-Canopy (10-25%) Buckthorn > Paper Birch Understory (75-100%) Gray Dogwood > Paper Birch, Sandbar Willow, Buckthorn Ground Layer (35-60%) Buckthorn (regeneration) > Canada Goldenrod, Tall Goldenrod, Virginia Strawberry Canopy (60-75%) >75% deciduous: Trembling Aspen > Balsam Poplar Sub-Canopy (25-35%) White Ash, Buckthorn Understory (60-75%) Buckthorn >> White Ash Ground Layer (60-75%) Buckthorn (regeneration) dominates Canopy (10-25%) >75% deciduous: Trembling Aspen, White Ash, Manitoba Maple, American Basswood Sub-Canopy (10-25%) Scotch Pine, Trembling Aspen, White Ash Understory (75-100%) Buckthorn > Riverbank Grape > Red-osier Dogwood Ground Layer (25-35%) Buckthorn (regeneration), Canada Goldenrod, Tall Goldenrod, typical cultural CUT1 PLANT SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN Rough-leaved Goldenrod, Hop Sedge DESIGNATIONS ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS Mineral soils saturated but no standing water observed at time of survey. Invasive species (i.e. Buckthorn and Glossy Buckthorn) present in understory, but not abundant. Young community. Relative health and sensitivity considered moderate. Overlaps with 10m dripline buffer. A very dense Gray Dogwood cultural thicket. Invasive species include Buckthorn, which is frequent and widespread, particularly as regeneration in the ground layer. Regression of deciduous and coniferous trees. May have been planted as a buffer. Mid-aged community. Relative health considered low; Relative sensitivity considered moderate. Regionally Significant Species: Rough-leaved Goldenrod Contained within NHS; Overlaps with 30m wetland buffer. A disturbed deciduous forest, dominated by Trembling Aspen with invasive species, including abundant Buckthorn. Buckthorn dominates understory and ground layers. Relatively low botanical diversity. Similar to unit 23 with older/larger canopy trees. Young community. Relative health and sensitivity considered low. Overlaps with NHS and with 30 m wetland buffer. A band of Buckthorn dominated cultural thicket with occasional young deciduous and coniferous trees along the western edge of the subject property. Invasive species (i.e. Buckthorn) widespread and abundant throughout unit. Trash and dumping occasional throughout. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 15 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study UNIT ELC VEGETATION TYPE May 2013 COMPONENT (% COVER) COMPONENT SPECIES PLANT SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN DESIGNATIONS ADDITIONAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS meadow species 28 30 CUM1-1 Canopy (1-10%) Mixed deciduous and coniferous: White Pine, Hackberry, Sugar Maple Ground Layer (75-100%) Red Fescue, Orchard Grass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Spotted Knapweed, Bird’s-foot Trefoil, Canada Goldenrod, Large-leaved Aster Canopy (10-25%) Black Cherry, Northern White Cedar, Manitoba Maple, White Ash, Red Pine Understory (35-60%) Northern White Cedar > Red Pine > Buckthorn > Riverbank Grape Ground Layer (75-100%) Grasses (including Canada Bluegrass, Kentucky Bluegrass, Smooth Brome, Orchard Grass) > Mouse-ear > Canada Goldenrod, Field Goldenrod, English Plantain CUT1 Pioneer community. Relative health and sensitivity considered low. Overlaps with 10m dripline buffer A band of cultural meadow dominated by forbs and grasses with occasional planted young trees. Unit surrounds a two cell SWM pond near the west limit of the subject property. Informal trails through unit. Pioneer community. Relative health considered moderate; Relative sensitivity considered low. Regionally Significant Species: American Mountain-ash Overlaps with 30m wetland buffer. A regenerating old field area with approximately 50% cover of shrubs and young trees. Sandy loam soils. Occasional old piles of construction waste (bricks, scrap wood). Occasional informal trails through unit. Road noise prevalent. 31 Hedgerow Primarily composed of mid-aged Eastern White Cedar A single narrow, dense row of Eastern White Cedar. Approximately 6 m high. 32 Hedgerow Primarily composed of young-mid-aged Scotch Pine A single narrow row of Scotch Pine along Eastview Road. Approximately 4 m high. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 16 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 4.5.2 Wildlife 4.5.2.1 Avifauna – Methods Site visits were undertaken to determine breeding bird species composition and abundance with general faunal observations noted concurrently. The sites were surveyed on May 31, 2012 and June 13, 2012 by an experienced observer. Weather conditions were suitable for breeding bird surveys. Surveys were of the random transect type, with routes designed to cover the entire study area in a thorough manner. Surveys were partitioned into two Wildlife Survey Units (WSU) – open/scrubland habitat and woodland habitat, based on broad habitat characteristics and continuity. These areas were thoroughly covered by walking random transects and recording presence, abundance and level of breeding evidence (using Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas [OBBA] protocols). Additional evidence of breeding activity was recorded during other field surveys (e.g. dusk and nocturnal surveys during amphibian calling surveys and incidental observations during vegetation surveys) within and outside of the breeding window Avifaunal species status was evaluated using the following sources: • The COSEWIC list for national status designations (current list at time of report preparation); • The Species At Risk Act for federally listed species (current at time of report preparation); • The Species At Risk in Ontario list (O.Reg 230/08) for provincial status designations (current list at time of report preparation); • The NHIC / Biodiversity Explorer website for provincial rarity ranks (i.e. S-Ranks); and • The Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (OMNR 2000) – list of ‘Area Sensitive’ bird species. 4.5.3 Avifauna – Results Avifaunal survey results are summarized below; a full of list of species is provided in Appendix E, Table F.1. These tables provide composite ‘highest abundances’ and ‘highest level of breeding evidence1 for each species in each WSU. 4.5.3.1 Breeding Bird Surveys In total, 28 summer resident bird species were recorded in 2012 through breeding bird surveys and supplemental observations made during additional field visits. A full list of species is provided in Appendix E. 1 Highest abundances represent the highest number of birds recorded on a given date, not cumulative totals. Highest breeding evidence represents the highest breeding evidence observed for that species during all surveys. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 17 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 The majority of bird species (28 species) observed are considered potential breeders within the subject property, with the possible exception of Great Blue Heron, since no nests were noted and no colonies are known from the property. Species of Conservation Concern Of the total of 28 summer resident bird species recorded, the following are species of conservation concern: • Two species listed as Species at Risk (SAR) in Canada and / or listed as Species at Risk in Ontario. o Chimney Swift – Threatened Observed on May 8, 2012 flying overhead, possible migrant, not recorded during breeding bird surveys, no nesting habitat on subject property. o Barn Swallow – Threatened Recorded on adjacent lands, no nesting habitat on subject property. • Two species are designated SAR in Canada (by COSEWIC): o Eastern Wood-pewee – Special Concern Recorded in woodland habitat. No suitable habitat is present within the proposed development envelope. o Wood Thrush – Threatened Possible migrant recorded in woodland (suitable habitat), but not recorded during breeding bird surveys. No suitable habitat is present within the proposed development envelope. o As these two species have not yet been listed under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) or the Ontario Endangered Species Act (ESA), they do not currently receive protection under these Acts. • No provincially rare (i.e. Sranks S1-S3) species were recorded. • Three species considered Significant in the City of Guelph: o Eastern Wood-pewee Suitable habitat is present in the woodland portions of the property outside of the proposed development envelope. o Northern Flicker Suitable habitat is present in the woodland portions of the property and on adjacent lands outside of the development envelope. o Wood Thrush Suitable habitat is present in the woodland portions of the property outside of the Our File No.: 3313009 Page 18 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 proposed development envelope. • .One species is considered Area Sensitive by MNR (2000)2 o White-breasted Nuthatch Recorded in the woodland portions of the property outside the proposed development envelope. 4.5.4 Herpetofauna – Methodology 4.5.4.1 Calling Amphibian Survey Methodology Amphibian calling activity was assessed using the Marsh Monitoring Program (MMP) amphibian calling survey protocol (Bird Studies Canada 2003). Surveys were conducted by qualified experienced staff under appropriate conditions (i.e. dusk/evening survey with suitable air temperatures and wind strength). To ensure detection of all species present, surveys were completed three times during the spring and early summer, at least ten days apart. Following guidelines of the MMP, night time air temperatures were greater than 5°C for the first survey, 10°C for the second survey, and 17°C for the third survey. Each calling station was surveyed for three minutes between one half hour after sunset and midnight. Using the MMP, amphibian calling activity was rated using three levels: Level 1 (individual calls can be counted with no overlap), Level 2 (some calls can be counted or estimated, some overlap) or Level 3 (calls continuous and overlapping, individuals not distinguishable). Using air photo interpretation and field review, four stations were confirmed as suitable and surveyed in this study. Stations 1, 2 and 3 are located on the subject property. Station 4 is located just east of the subject property, associated with a constructed Storm Water Management Pond. Refer to Figure 2 in Appendix A for amphibian survey station locations. Three calling amphibian surveys were completed at these four stations on March 19, May 8 and June 11, 2012, with a total field effort of approximately 7.5 person hours. 4.5.4.2 Calling Amphibian Survey Results Four anuran species were recorded during calling amphibian surveys conducted in 2012. A summary of species and maximum calling code observed within the subject property is shown in Table 2 below, and monitoring station locations are shown on Figure 2 in Appendix A. 2 Area Sensitive bird species require a “substantial area of suitable habitat for successful breeding and their populations decline when habitat becomes fragmented”. This includes birds of various habitats such as grassland or forest birds. In the case of forest birds, the “minimum forest habitat for area sensitive species is at least 100 metres from any edge habitat” (MNR 2000; pp. 43). Our File No.: 3313009 Page 19 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Table 2: Amphibian Species – Maximum Calling Code by Station (2012) SPECIES STATION 1 2 3 Spring Peeper 3 3 3 Wood Frog American Toad 3 3 3 Northern Leopard Frog 4 1 1 Overall, the stations surveyed exhibit moderate anuran species richness, with two species in moderate to high abundances where suitable habitat was present. Distribution and relative abundance varied across the subject property, primarily based on availability of suitable habitat. • Spring Peeper and Wood Frog were the most widely distributed species, found at three of four calling survey stations, often calling in large numbers at each station; and • American Toad and Northern Leopard Frog were present at one of the stations, both species generally calling in low numbers. No turtles were observed in the ponds present on the subject property; these shallow ponds appeared to be ephemeral in nature and water levels dropped dramatically by June, therefore, potential for turtle habitat in these ponds is likely low. Potential habitat for Midland Painted Turtle and Snapping Turtle is present in the adjacent storm pond on the west side of the study limits, however none were observed on any of Ecoplans’ field investigations. No snakes were observed on the subject property during Ecoplans field investigations, however habitat potential for species such as Eastern Gartersnake, Eastern Milksnake, Dekay’s Brown Snake and Northern Red-bellied Snake is present in the open and woodland units of the subject property. These species can be found in variety of habitats such as wetlands, woodlands, swamps, wood edges, fields/meadows, and farmlands. 4.5.5 Other Wildlife – Methodology Supplemental wildlife observations were recorded during all field visits. All observations made during the field surveys were recorded, including sightings of species, as well as evidence of use (e.g. browse, tracks/trails, scat, burrows and vocalizations). Our File No.: 3313009 Page 20 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 4.5.6 Other Wildlife – Results Three mammal species were observed during field investigations: White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Grey Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). • The subject property provides habitat for a range of common wildlife typically found in urban and semi-natural areas, including large and small mammals. Key attributes are overall size, habitat diversity and presence of large woodland with continuity with offsite features. • Mammals recorded include common expected species based on habitat: urban-adapted and/or tolerant species. Other species expected that were not observed include Opossum, Coyote, Raccoon, and Striped Skunk. • No federally (SARA/COSEWIC) or provincially (MNR/COSSARO) designated mammal species of risk, or provincially rare mammal species (i.e. S1 to S3 ranked by NHIC) were recorded on the subject property during field surveys. • We are not aware of any records of mammal species of conservation concern on the subject property. • The presence of mud “chimneys” created by semi-terrestrial crayfish (species unknown) were observed during Ecoplans field investigations in the wetland portions of the subject property where soil was moist but not waterlogged (typically on the fringes of more saturated soils associated with the wetland habitats). 4.5.7 Significant Wildlife Habitat OPA 42 provides a set of criteria for the designation of Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) in the City of Guelph. The following provides a review of the criteria to determine presence of SWH on or adjacent to the subject property. The SWH criteria from OPA 42 are listed followed by comments on the presence of any features subject to the criteria. 1. Deer wintering and waterfowl overwintering areas identified by the OMNR a. Not mapped on the subject property by the OMNR 2. Identified habitat of species considered provincially significant by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (OMNR) (i.e. ranked as S1, S2 or S3) a. As noted above, terrestrial crayfish burrows were observed during Ecoplans field investigations. There are two species of terrestrial crayfish that are known from Ontario: Fallicambarus fodiens and Cambarus diogenes. Given that only the crayfish burrows were noted by Ecoplans and both of these two species are known to make burrows, it is not known which species may be present on the subject property. However, it should be noted that C. diogenes is listed as S3 by MNR. 3. Identified habitat of species designated as globally significant, nationally endangered or threatened by COSEWIC but not protected by regulation under Ontario’s Endangered Species Our File No.: 3313009 Page 21 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Act 2007 a. One species designated as Threatened by COSEWIC was observed on the subject property: Wood Thrush. Although no breeding evidence was recorded, potentially suitable breeding habitat for this species is associated with the woodland portion of the property, which overlaps with the Significant Woodland designation. 4. Identified habitat of species designated as Special Concern by COSEWIC or COSSARO at the federal or provincial level a. One species designated as Special Concern by COSEWIC was observed on the subject property: Eastern Wood-pewee. Suitable breeding habitat for this species is associated with the forested portion of the property that overlaps with the Significant Woodland designation. 5. Ecological linkages (i.e. areas that provide connectivity between natural heritage features and areas including surface water and ground water features). a. The woodland/wetland area in the north portion of the property provides ecological linkage with adjacent contiguous natural areas to the north (part of contiguous PSW / NHS). Adjacent lands to the south/west are developed and have a major barrier to wildlife movement at Eastview Road. The proposed development envelope is entirely outside of the NHS / linkage area. Conclusion: A portion of the subject property meets several of the criteria for designation as Significant Wildlife Habitat. This portion of the subject property is associated with the forested and /or wetland habitat that is already identified as significant woodland and / or significant woodland. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 22 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study 5.0 May 2013 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT As input to the development of the Preliminary Site Plan, wetland and woodland limits were delineated (Section 5.1). Environmental management and setback requirements were then determined (Section 5.2). The Conceptual Site Plan was then refined to implement these recommendations, in an iterative fashion (Section 5.3). A brief description of the proposed stormwater management strategy (per MTE 2013) is included in Section 5.4; the reader is referred to that report for additional details. The proposed plan layout forms the basis for the impact review and evaluation that is documented in Section 5.0. 5.1 Delineation of Wetland and Woodland Limits Wetland limits were delineated by Ecoplans and confirmed by GRCA staff during a site visit on October 25, 2011. Limits were subsequently total station surveyed by MTE. Surveyed wetland limits, as shown on Figure 3, were used in the preparation of the preliminary site plan. The Natural Area (woodland) limits have been delineated by Ecoplans and were subsequently total station surveyed. Surveyed limits, as shown on Figure 3, were used in the preparation of the conceptual site plan. 5.2 Development of Environmental Management / Setback Requirements Feature limits, setbacks and environmental management requirements were reviewed and refined through additional field visits, project team liaison, and consideration of grading and servicing requirements. The focal area was the development interface bordering the PSW and Natural Heritage System and mitigation / protection measures for natural environment features and functions of retained features. The collective review, including agency liaison and commentary, has considered the following objectives: • Maintenance of groundwater recharge and input to natural areas and receiving watercourses. • Protection of surface water quality conveyed to adjacent natural areas through Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) measures. • Setback requirements, based on a combination of: the nature and sensitivity of features to be protected; relevant policy; addressing buffer guidelines from published literature. • Tree protection measures, including fencing and signage. • Anticipated preliminary grading and servicing requirements. These management measures are discussed in Table 3. This review guided the development of the preliminary site plan shown in Figure 3, Appendix A. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 23 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Table 3: Environmental Management Recommendations and Rationale FEATURE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND RATIONALE Retained Natural Heritage Features Wetland delineation. A portion of the Guelph Northeast PSW on the subject lands has been delineated, confirmed by the GRCA and surveyed. Wetland limits are shown on Figure 3. Includes portions of: • Guelph Northeast PSW, • City of Guelph NHS lands (including Significant Woodland, Significant Wetland and Significant Wildlife Habitat) Woodland delineation. The woodland dripline associated with the Guelph Natural Heritage System has been delineated and surveyed. Dripline limits are shown on Figure 3. Setbacks. The PSW and NHS will be retained in full and protected with development setbacks of 30 m from the surveyed PSW limit, and 10 m from the surveyed woodland dripline (with some minor refinements). See Figure 3. With the exception of some minor encroachment into the buffer for grading (~ 210 sq.m. or less than 2 % of the buffer area) and SWM outlet construction, the buffer will be unaltered. Moreover, the minor grading encroachment will be re-vegetated per the future buffer planting / management plan. These setbacks are based on ecological quality and sensitivity of the wetland and woodland communities. Buffer Management and Stewardship. In addition to the proposed physical setback, a number of buffer management measures are proposed: • Permanent fencing. Recommended at lot / block limits to restrict access and reduce expansion and potential impacts to the woodland / wetland as the result of occupancy related activities. • Vegetation: A combination of natural succession with nodal native species plantings is proposed in the buffer zone along the edge of the woodland / wetland. These plantings will add habitat diversity, provide a nominal increase in NHS size, increase the effectiveness of the buffer, and provide a net benefit to the woodland. • Environmental Stewardship. Signage is recommended along the edges of the PSW and NHS. Additional stewardship measures include provision of environmental stewardship information brochures to homeowners. Groundwater. Groundwater contours generally flow towards the wetland areas and it is expected that there is some groundwater discharge to this feature during times of high seasonal groundwater levels. The LVM report (2013) includes general recommendations for maintenance of water balance (e.g. at-source infiltration) and use of cutoff collars in servicing trenches wherever the trenches are excavated below the groundwater table (detailed recommendations will be based on final plans). SWM Facilities. A dry pond will be provided for stormwater quantity control for the Eastview Road portion of the development. This SWM facility is proposed to be located where a cultural thicket currently exists, outside of the 30 m wetland buffer, with the exception of the outlet (refer to Figure 3, Appendix A and the Functional Servicing and Storm Water Management Report (MTE 2013) for location). The SWM facility will provide enhanced (Level 1) water quality treatment and discharge treated water toward the wetland. Trails. Conceptual trail locations are shown on Schedule 7 of the Official Plan; they abut the limits of the NHS on the subject property and adjacent lands. Based on steep slopes, proximity to sensitive wetland and required native vegetation removal (which currently buffers the wetland), we propose an alternate location with an east-west link from Carter Park to the approved stub on lands to the east (ideally associated with the existing informal trail to the extent possible), and a north-south link between ‘fingers’ of the NHS to the Our File No.: 3313009 Page 24 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study FEATURE May 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND RATIONALE proposed SWM on the subject property (outside of the buffer). See Figure 3. This is a conceptual location to be verified through future work and field fitting, but it avoids the potential slope issues and buffer vegetation removal. Note also that this avoids trail links on adjacent lands where development is currently not proposed (i.e. challenges with installing a complete trail link given development is not proceeding on those lands in the immediate future). Sediment / Erosion Control. An agency approved Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan will be developed as part of detailed design. ESC fencing will be installed at lot / grading limits abutting the wetland buffer prior to any site grading. The fence will be inspected regularly and remain in place until construction is complete. Biological Monitoring. An annual terrestrial biological monitoring program is recommended. An outline of the monitoring program is provided in Section 6.3 of this report. It includes fixed plot terrestrial and wetland vegetation monitoring in retained natural areas, as well as breeding bird surveys. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 25 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study 5.3 May 2013 Proposed Development Fabric The general characteristics of the Preliminary Site Plan are as follows: • Residential Units. The portion of the development fronting Eastview Drive consists of 26 townhouse units in 6 blocks. A single detached house is also proposed at the current limit of Carter Drive. • Roads. Two common element roadways are proposed off Eastview drive to access the 26 townhouse units. No road extension is proposed at Carter Drive. • Amenity Area. There are three amenity areas. They include: one behind units #8 and #22, a second behind unit #14, and a third adjacent to the SWM pond. • Trails. A conceptual trail is proposed to provide an east-west connection from Carter Park to the approved stub on lands to the east, and a north-south link between the ‘fingers’ of the NHS to the proposed SWM on the subject property (outside of the buffer). The feasibility of this conceptual alignment will be reviewed during subsequent design stages. • Servicing. The lots will be serviced by municipal water, sanitary and stormwater services. • Stormwater Management. A dry pond will be provided for stormwater quantity control for the Eastview Road portion of the development. This pond will provide enhanced (Level 1) water quality control and will outlet to the adjacent PSW. It is anticipated that stormwater quantity and quality control for the single detached unit proposed at Carter Drive can be accommodated within the existing Cheltonwood stormwater management facility. • Infiltration. Drainage from the roofs of Block 3 is recommended to be directed toward an infiltration gallery. A considerable amount of environmental work and project team review has been undertaken to evaluate natural features and to identify areas for protection, associated setbacks, and environmental enhancement opportunities. The plan development has been guided by this iterative process. The proposed development area is restricted to lands that are successional habitats on formerly residential lands. Adjacent natural features (i.e. Northeast Guelph PSW Complex and Natural Heritage System) will be retained in full and protected with development setbacks and buffer management / mitigation measures. The intent of this Scoped EIS is to evaluate the sensitivity and significance of these and any other natural features that could be influenced by the development and to identify mitigation and environmental management measures to protect and enhance those features. 5.4 Stormwater Management This section incorporates information from the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by MTE (2013) under separate cover and through discussions with the project team. For Our File No.: 3313009 Page 26 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 additional details, the reader is directed to the MTE report. SWM Implementation Strategy – Key Components • Water Quality – All water directed through the stormwater pond to the PSW will require Enhanced (Level 1) protection. This will be achieved through the use of a Stormceptor unit (Model STC 750) which is proposed upstream of the dry pond for ease of accessibility for maintenance. It is anticipated that stormwater quality control for the single detached unit proposed at Carter Drive can be accommodated within the existing Cheltonwood stormwater management facility. • Water Quantity – Runoff from the controlled areas of the Eastview portion of the site will be conveyed to the dry pond. The flows will be controlled with the installation of an on-line orifice at the outlet pipe and a weir at the west side of the pond. It is anticipated that stormwater quantity control for the unit proposed at Carter Drive can be accommodated within the existing Cheltonwood stormwater management facility. • Water Balance and Infiltration – To mitigate infiltration rates for the Eastview portion of the development, runoff from the roofs of Block 3 will be directed to an infiltration gallery. The gallery will be sized to accommodate the runoff from a 25 mm rainfall event and result in a total annual infiltration of approximately 433 m3/yr. Additional passive infiltration of pervious areas on-site will also contribute 977 m3/yr. This exceeds the pre-development annual infiltration condition of 1,304 m3/yr. On an annual basis, it is estimated that there will be 1,043 m3/yr net gain to surface runoff to the PSW from the development site. MTE completed a cursory event based analysis to analyze the impact of typical annual storm events on the wetland. Using the more conservative, 2 year storm event (35 mm rainfall) the pre-development runoff hydrograph volume was 60 m3 and the postdevelopment runoff hydrograph volume was 155 m3. These volumes roughly correspond to an increase in the wetland water elevation of approximately 1.5 cm in the pre-development condition to approximately 4 cm in the post-development condition. Fluctuations due to storm events will be marginally increased. For Carter Drive, there will be a net loss of infiltration (27 m3/yr) and a net gain of surface runoff to the PSW (13 m3/yr). • Erosion and Sediment Control – The preliminary Erosion and Sediment control measures are outlined in the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (MTE 2013) and include the following measures: • Erosion and sedimentation facilities are to be installed prior to any area grading operations; • All erosion control measures are to be inspected and monitored by the contractor and repairs are to be completed as required; • All materials and equipment used for the purpose of site preparation and project completion should be operated and stored in a manner that prevents any deleterious substance from leaving the site; Our File No.: 3313009 Page 27 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study 6.0 May 2013 • Construction of temporary swales to direct runoff to a sedimentation basin, with rock check dams as required to control velocities; • Stripping and strategic placement of topsoil stockpiles. Placement of sediment control fencing around all stockpile areas; • Re-vegetation of completed areas as soon as possible after construction, including those areas not slated for construction, within 60 days of rough grading; and, • To minimize the amount of mud being tracked onto the road way, a mud mat should be installed at the primary construction entrance. POLICY REVIEW / ASSESSMENT In this Section, we provide an overview of Natural heritage planning policy and relevance to the study area. 6.1 Provincial Policy Statement (MMAH 2005) The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) was issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act. The current PPS came into effect March 1 2005. According to the natural heritage provisions of the PPS (Section 2.1), development and site alterations shall not be permitted in: 1. Significant habitat of endangered species and threatened species 2. (Provincially) Significant Wetlands (PSW) 3. Significant woodlands 4. Significant valleylands 5. Significant wildlife habitat 6. (Provincially) Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) 7. Adjacent lands to the above-noted natural heritage features For features 3 through 6, development and site alteration may be permitted if it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. 6.1.1 Assessment of PPS Natural Heritage Policies Based on the field survey program, background information and in consideration of relevant guidance documents3, a brief assessment of each feature listed under section 2.1 of the PPS is provided below: 1. Endangered or Threatened Species. No Endangered or Threatened SAR were recorded on the subject property. We are aware of no published records of Endangered or Threatened SAR on the subject property. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 28 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 2. PSW. A portion of the Guelph Northeast Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) Complex is present on the Subject Property. The limit of the PSW has been verified by GRCA. 3. Significant Woodlands. Schedule 10C of the City of Guelph OP identifies Significant Woodlands on the Subject Lands. Woodland limits were confirmed / refined based on ELC surveys and in consideration of the significant woodland designation criteria provided in OPA 42. 4. Significant Valleylands. There are no significant valleylands on the subject property. 5. Significant Wildlife Habitat. Schedule 10E of OPA 42 identifies Potential Habitat for Locally Significant Species. Field investigations and a review of the OPA 42 SWH criteria confirms the approximate limits shown on Schedule 110E. See Section 4.5.7 for an analysis of Significant Wildlife Habitat potential on the subject property. 6. ANSI. No ANSIs are present on or adjacent to the subject property. 7. Fish Habitat. There is one poorly defined tributary to Hadati Creek in the northeast corner of the subject property that is assumed to convey nutrients and allochthanous material to fish habitat downstream. 6.2 City of Guelph Official Plan Schedule 10 of OPA 42 identifies the approximate limits of the City’s Natural Heritage System (NHS) on the subject property. The stated purpose of the NHS is to “protect natural heritage features and areas for the long term, and maintain, restore and where possible, improve the biodiversity and connectivity of natural heritage features and ecological function of the Natural Heritage System in the long term, while recognizing and maintaining linkages between and among natural heritage features and areas and surface water and groundwater features.” The NHS is comprised of two components; Significant Natural Areas and Natural Areas. As discussed in Section 4.4, three natural heritage features that comprise the Significant Natural Areas designation are present on the subject property (i.e. Significant Woodlands, Significant Wetlands, and Significant Wildlife Habitat). As noted in Section 5, these features have been mapped and retained in the Conceptual Site Plan. In addition, OPA 42 identifies minimum buffers for these features and these buffers have also been incorporated so that the footprint of the development remains outside of the buffer. Some minor grading will occur within the buffer. See Figure 3, Appendix A and discussion in Table 3. Trails. The Trail Network Map (Schedule 7) identifies a proposed city trail along the perimeter of the Natural Heritage System on the subject property. As discussed in Table 3 and shown on Figure 3, we recommend an alternate location to avoid sensitive wetlands and steep slopes and to reduce required vegetation removal. The primary east-west link in the north portion of the property would extend from Carter Park to the connection on lands to the east. The north-south link would extend between wetland / NHS ‘fingers’ to the SWM pond and be located outside of the NHS buffers. The feasibility of this Our File No.: 3313009 Page 29 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 conceptual trail link will be reviewed in subsequent design stages. 6.3 Grand River Conservation Authority Regulation (Ont. Reg. 150/06) Portions of the subject property are ‘Regulated’ by the GRCA under Ontario Regulation 150/06 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Within the subject property, this regulation is in relation to lands adjacent to PSW wetlands. 6.3.1 Wetland Policy GRCA’s “Policies for the Administration of the Regulation of Development Interference with Wetland and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses” (2013) and Wetlands Policy (2003) were reviewed to confirm compliance with Ontario Regulation 150/06. This will be achieved through the following: • PSW wetland will be retained in full with development setbacks of greater than 30 m. Note that some minor grading and construction of the SWM outlet will occur in the buffer, but these are small and, in the case of grading, temporary disturbances. • Hydrogeological inputs to the wetland are generally maintained through the implementation of the proposed SWM facility, infiltration gallery and passive infiltration. Although there will be an overall net gain to surface runoff to the PSW from the Eastview Road portion of the development (1043 m3/yr), this impact is deemed to be minor (i.e. Based on a cursory event based analysis, during a 2 year storm event this will correspond to an increase in post-development wetland water elevation of approximately 2-3 cm relative to the pre-development condition. See Section 5.4 for further discussion). • Additional mitigation and protection measures are recommended – fencing, buffer zone management, stewardship and signage (to be finalized at detailed design). 7.0 IMPACT REVIEW AND EVALUATION 7.1 Impact Overview This section reviews potential impacts or condition changes to natural environmental features on or bordering the subject property, on the basis of direct activities (e.g. construction activities such as clearing and grading) or indirect activities (e.g. occupancy activities such as dumping of waste material, creation of indiscriminate trails). As previously noted, the proposed development envelope is restricted to culturally modified communities, so direct impacts to natural environment features are negligible. The primary concerns relate to potential indirect impacts to retained natural environmental features on adjacent lands, including PSW and NHS features. Potential indirect impacts include, for example, construction related impacts to retained woodlands and wetlands, as well as post-development occupancy activities. Two primary natural environment factors are discussed: wildlife and vegetation. In Table 4, each factor is reviewed in terms of potential effects, proposed mitigation and residual effects. The identified Our File No.: 3313009 Page 30 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 mitigation measures will be refined, as required, at the Site Plan stage. 7.2 Overview of Mitigation Measures Specific mitigation measures are identified for each evaluation factor in Table 4. A number of mitigation measures are common to the two natural environment evaluation factors, including: ESC plan; fencing; stewardship; spills management / best management practices during construction; and monitoring. Other measures are specific to certain factors. An overview of the common mitigation measures is provided below. 7.2.1 Development Setbacks and Buffers Setbacks: The following development setbacks are recommended: • PSW wetland limit + 30 m • Woodland limit + 10 m These are described in Table 3 and Section 5.2 of this report. Buffer Management: In addition to the recommended setbacks, the following buffer management measures are proposed: • Permanent fencing and signage at rear lot / block limits • Ecological enhancement of the intervening buffer areas (within the development setback zones), as discussed in Section 5.2 • Maintenance of hydrogeological inputs to receiving areas (PSW wetland), and • Restricted access. In addition to permanent fencing at lot limits, no new trails are proposed within the wetland limits in recognition of the sensitive nature of the feature (i.e. the ‘east-west’ link is intended to follow the existing informal trail and the ‘north-south’ link is outside of the wetland and proposed buffer). 7.2.2 Environmental Enhancement Areas Buffer area management will provide a total of approximately 1 ha of ecological enhancement area within the subject lands. Subject to confirmation or refinement at detailed design, these enhancements are anticipated to include a combination of natural succession, supplemented with nodal native species plantings, with the following objectives: establishing native species in disturbed areas before non-native species can become established; strategic plantings of dense or thorny shrubs to discourage access; providing additional supplementary habitat for wildlife; and increasing woodland edge density to reduce impacts from development (i.e. increased sun / wind, potential for invasive species spread and indiscriminate trail creation). These areas may also incorporate vegetation compensation plantings for any tree removals, pending a future Tree Management study. Plans are to be prepared at final design. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 31 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 7.2.3 Erosion & Sediment (ESC) Control Plan This strategy will mitigate impacts on vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat and wetland resources by implementing ESC fencing at grading limits, preventing sedimentation in adjacent natural features. It is anticipated that the ESC Plan will be prepared as a condition of approval, and approved by the GRCA and City of Guelph. General comments on erosion and sediment control are included in the Functional Servicing and SWM report (MTE 2013). Key elements include: ESC facilities are to be installed prior to grading operations; regular site inspection and maintenance to ensure the controls are working properly; measures to prevent any deleterious substances from leaving the site; erosion control berms/swales in critical areas to divert flows to temporary storage locations; temporary rock check dams in swales; strategic placement of topsoil stockpiles and use of ESC fencing around all stockpiles; timely revegetation of exposed soils; and construction entrance features to minimize the off-site transport of sediment from construction vehicles. 7.2.4 SWM Strategy The proposed SWM strategy (MTE 2013) will mitigate impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat and aquatic resources by controlling post-development flows (to reduce sedimentation and erosion potential in the adjacent wetland and watercourse) and treating stormwater runoff (to reduce potential for degradation of water quality to Guelph Northeast PSW). Section 5.4 for further discussion. 7.2.5 Hydrogeology / Infiltration Maintenance of the existing hydrological regime (i.e. flow direction and volume) will protect the features and ecological functions of the receiving PSW. For the Eastview Road portion of the development, roof drainage from Block 3 will be conveyed to an infiltration gallery to achieve a net gain on the site of approximately 105 m3/yr. At the Carter Road portion, there will be a minor net loss of 27 m3/yr. 7.2.6 Temporary and Permanent Fencing Temporary vegetation protection fencing (which may be combined with ESC fencing) is recommended to prevent damage to retained natural areas. Permanent fencing at development limits abutting the NHS is recommended to prevent uncontrolled access and occupancy-related ‘spreading’ into these sensitive areas. 7.2.7 Trails The City of Guelph’s Trail Network Map (Schedule 7) identifies a “proposed city trail” along the perimeter of the Natural Heritage System on the subject property. As discussed above, an alternate location is recommended to avoid potential impacts to the NHS. These will be further reviewed at detailed design. 7.2.8 Spills Management and Best Management Practices (BMPs) These during-construction measures will reduce potential for contamination of groundwater, receiving Our File No.: 3313009 Page 32 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 wetlands and adjacent vegetation. Guidelines for heavy equipment use reduce potential for damage to natural areas (e.g. wetland disturbance, mechanical damage to trees, soils compaction etc.). 7.2.9 Stewardship Maintaining natural areas adjacent to residential development provides opportunities for passive recreation but also requires stewardship by the public. Public awareness of the need for such stewardship is important and environmental education is an important tool in achieving this objective. Homeowner Brochure. Provision of a brief environmental brochure to homeowners is recommended as an educational tool. Ecoplans has prepared homeowner brochures for many residential developments. The purpose of the brochure is to inform residents about the environmental features bordering the subject property and how they can be responsible stewards of these natural resources. The overall philosophy of living with nature would be highlighted, incorporating, as an example, the following: proper handling of landscape waste and composting; control and potential impacts of fertilizers and herbicides / pesticides, de-icing salts and automotive cleaning residues and disposal of toxic substances in the storm sewer system; protection of soil and vegetation in the natural areas; explanation of the importance of saplings and native ground flora; pet implications and control; and invasive plant spread from landscaped areas. It is recommended that the brochure be provided with the purchase documents, and made available at the sales trailer or at the City of Guelph. The brochure should be part of the property sale documentation as well, to ensure that next generation purchasers are informed about environmental stewardship. Signage. Signage identifying the presence of ‘sensitive natural areas’ is recommended at regular intervals along the edge of the natural heritage system. 7.2.9.1 Monitoring Typical during-construction monitoring is recommended (e.g. ESC fencing and SWM facility inspection). In addition, implementation of an annual Biological Monitoring program is proposed. This includes vegetation and wildlife monitoring, focusing on adjacent lands (e.g. PSW and NHS features). The Biological Monitoring program is outlined in Section 7.2.9.2 of this report. It is intended that the program would be finalized as a condition of approval. This integrated monitoring approach will help to identify issues of concern and recommend strategies to address problems in a timely manner. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 33 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Table 4: 66 Eastview OPA / Zone Change Potential Impacts to the Natural Environment FEATURE SIGNIFICANCE AND SENSITIVITY POTENTIAL NATURAL ENVIRONEMNT IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES RESIDUAL EFFECTS Direct Impacts. Removal of ~1 ha of culturally modified communities including meadow, thicket, woodland and hedgerows (Veg. Units 10, 17, 27,30 and HR 31and 32) and removal of 1 regionally rare species (American Mountain-ash). Indirect Impacts. There is potential for indirect impacts to vegetation as the result of construction, changes in adjacent land use, changes to hydrology and occupancy related activities. • Edge Effects. Vegetation dieback at the edge of retained woodlands can result in exposure of the less disturbed treed areas to additional sunlight and invasive plant species which can lead to trunk damage (sunscald), increased drying and localized changes in ground flora (e.g. increase in exotic / invasive species). • Construction-related Impacts (short-term), including: damage to vegetation outside the work zone; sedimentation; spills of contaminants; root pruning; damage to limbs; and soil compaction. • Hydrogeology. Retained vegetation might be impacted by changes to hydrogeology. For example, wetlands that receive surface / groundwater from the future developed area can be stressed if inputs are changed (e.g. surface water vol./flow direction; reduced infiltration; changed groundwater flow direction). • Occupancy-related Impacts. These may include: woodland and wetland edge effects (e.g. invasive species proliferation); trail creation; vandalism; refuse/vegetation dumping; effects of salt spray from road maintenance. Direct Impacts to be mitigated by: • Installing temporary Vegetation Protection Fencing prior to any site grading to delineate the work zone and prevent direct damage to adjacent retained vegetation (i.e. mechanical damage, root damage, soil compaction). This fencing will remain until construction is complete. • Transplanting or seed collection and planting of Mountain Ash into the wetland buffer to retain the regionally significant species (feasibility to be determined in subsequent design stages). Indirect Impacts to be mitigated by: • Permanent Fencing. To be installed along the NHS development interface. This prevents intrusion, uncontrolled dumping and ‘spreading’ into the retained natural area edge. • Buffer Management. The proposed buffer between the development footprint and the retained natural area (minimum PSW + 30 m, woodland + 10 m) will be managed to provide a more protective edge and reduce potential for occupancyrelated impacts such as uncontrolled access and ‘spread’ (e.g. managed natural succession and native species cluster / nodal plantings). • Sediment / Erosion Control Plan. To prevent sedimentation of off-site retained vegetation, ESC fencing will be installed prior to site grading and maintained throughout construction. • Hydrogeology. An effort has been made to maintain postdevelopment surface and groundwater water inputs to retained natural areas through a combination of passive infiltration of pervious areas, an infiltration gallery, passive runoff and surface runoff via the SWM facility (dry pond). • Stewardship. An integrated stewardship approach is proposed, with signage at the woodlot limits, brochures; and fencing at development limits. • Tree Protection. A tree inventory and Tree Compensation Plan will be completed in subsequent design stages. Trees identified for retention will be protected to ensure that they provide a viable long-term amenity to residents. • Monitoring. Potential long-term impacts to retained natural areas will be assessed using an annual biological monitoring program discussed in Section 7.2.9 of this report. Residual impacts to vegetation are anticipated to be minor, with proper implementation of mitigation, stewardship and monitoring measures, considering: • Provincially significant wetlands and Regionally significant woodlands will be retained in full and protected with development setbacks • Recommended woodland development setbacks will provide good dripline and root zone protection (well beyond the current state). These setbacks, coupled with buffer zone management, will improve edge integrity by establishing a thicker, more diverse edge. • There is potential for transplanting or seed collection and planting of Mountain Ash (regionally significant species) into the wetland buffer in order to retain the tree. • Edge effects are already present in the woodland due to the anthropogenic land use history and ongoing development/occupancy related effects. Given the increased development in the broader landscape, some increase in exotic and invasive species is likely. The intent is to reduce this to the extent possible. • The permanent fencing, and signage/stewardship brochure will help to reduce any secondary effects on woodland and PSW integrity following area development and occupancy. • With the implementation of the recommended SWM implementation strategy, no substantive changes in wetland vegetation diversity resulting from hydrogeological changes are anticipated in the adjacent PSW areas. • Residual impacts from construction are anticipated to be negligible, with implementation of recommended vegetation protection fencing, S/E fencing and spills management plan. Vegetation Vegetation resources. The subject property is composed of culturally modified communities, wetlands and woodlands. Designated Areas. On the subject property, there are several overlapping designations for the natural area: o PSW o Significant Woodland o Significant Wildlife Habitat Plant Species of Conservation Concern: o Three species considered significant in Wellington County (Hop Sedge (Carex lupulina), Mountain Ash (Sorbus americana), Rough-leaved Goldenrod (Solidago patula). The portions of NHS on the subject property and adjacent lands have a high ecological significance and sensitivity, as recognized by the various natural heritage designations. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 34 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study FEATURE SIGNIFICANCE AND SENSITIVITY May 2013 POTENTIAL NATURAL ENVIRONEMNT IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES RESIDUAL EFFECTS Potential impacts on wildlife habitat are similar to those discussed for vegetation (i.e. direct / indirect impacts to habitat – removals, occupancy related effects etc.). Some additional occupancy-related effects are specific to wildlife (e.g. pet predation, influence of increased pedestrian activity / house proximity to wildlife habitats). Direct impacts. Loss of wildlife habitat is restricted to culturally modified communities. o Movement opportunities. Negligible impact – no defined wildlife movement areas occur across the development envelope and there is no direct impact to movement within the NHS o Habitat for wildlife species of concern. No critical habitat for SAR or locally significant wildlife will be directly impacted. Indirect Impacts. There is potential for indirect impacts to wildlife habitats on adjacent lands as a result of construction, changes to hydrology and occupancy related activities. o Construction-related impacts. These are generally limited to temporary disturbances to edge habitats during construction. Potential for sedimentation and contamination are addressed by ESC controls and SWM measures. o Hydrology. As above, retained off-site habitats may be impacted by changes to hydrological inputs. This is particularly important for wetlands. o Occupancy-related impacts. These may include pet predation; woodland edge effects; and other degradation of wildlife habitat. Retention and protection of vegetation resources in adjacent natural areas (as discussed above) will also protect wildlife habitat. Specific mitigation measures are as follows: • Enhancement of NHS habitat. With the proposed protection and improved buffering (e.g. native species plantings, improved edge), the retained NHS habitat on the property will be enhanced relative to the current disturbed condition. This will provide benefit to all wildlife, and in particular, more sensitive species. • Movement opportunities. Based on field surveys, there is no evidence of defined movement areas for wildlife across the development envelope. Local wildlife movement opportunities within and between retained natural areas outside of the proposed development envelope will be maintained through the proposed protection and mitigation measures. • Habitat for wildlife species of concern. Measures are proposed to protect retained habitat, including ESC controls; maintenance of hydrological inputs; fencing / restricted access; and stewardship initiatives (e.g. signage, homeowner brochures). • Erosion & Sediment Controls and the SWM system are designed to reduce the potential for sedimentation or contamination of adjacent areas. • Maintenance of hydrology. Direction and volume of surface flows will be maintained / increased post-construction. • Occupancy-related impacts. Occupancy related impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat will be mitigated by a combination of measures: fencing at the development limit to restrict access and prevent ‘spreading’; and stewardship initiatives (signage, homeowner brochure). The intent is to restrict access to sensitive areas and inform local residents about the sensitivity of adjacent natural areas. • Monitoring. Potential impacts to wildlife / wildlife habitats will be assessed using the annual biological monitoring program discussed in Section 7.2.9 of this report. Residual impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat resulting from development on the subject property are anticipated to be negligible considering: • The proposed development is restricted to culturally modified communities that provide a small amount of habitat primarily for common, tolerant wildlife species. • There will be no loss of important habitat for SAR or locally significant / area sensitive species • There is no direct impact to significant or sensitive wildlife habitats associated with the NHS. • There will be improved buffering of retained natural areas (an enhancement over the current condition). • Additional measures are proposed to reduce potential for indirect impacts to offsite wildlife habitat (i.e. ESC control, SWM treatment of contaminants, maintenance of hydrological inputs to dependent features, buffering of sensitive areas). • Stewardship measures are proposed to raise awareness of the sensitivity of adjacent natural areas and reduce potential for occupancy-related) impacts. However, in any populated area there is potential for intrusion and damage to natural areas, and less tangible effects of occupancy on breeding birds. Population changes in breeding birds are inevitably related to the approved transformation of the broader landscape in the City. Changes can also be effected by factors outside the City (e.g. alteration/loss of wintering habitat, severe climatic conditions during migration activity, and changes in migratory stopover habitat). Hence, it must be recognized that shifts in wildlife composition may be inevitable over time, and in fact have probably already occurred with changes in the landscape. Wildlife • • • • • • The subject property provides habitat for a range of common, urban-adapted, semi-natural, generalist species as well as some more specialized species. Amphibian breeding habitat was confirmed in the wetland communities associated with the PSW The large natural area complex extends beyond the subject property and provides some more specialized habitat for wetland and woodland associated species. Two listed SAR were recorded on the subject property. Chimney Swift was observed flying overhead and is a possible migrant as it was not observed during the breeding birds surveys; any potential nesting habitat would be associated with the NHS woodland. Barn Swallow was recorded on adjacent lands and no nesting habitat is present in the development envelope). Two designated SAR species were observed on the subject property: Eastern Wood-peewee and Wood Thrush. Both of these species are associated with the woodland habitat on the subject property and adjacent lands (i.e. in the NHS). Three species considered Significant in the City of Guelph were observed: Eastern Wood-pewee, Wood Thrush and Northern Flicker. All are associated with the woodland NHS. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 35 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study 7.2.9.2 May 2013 Monitoring Program A monitoring program is proposed entailing three stages: Pre-Construction, During-Construction and Post-Construction. Pre-Construction monitoring identifies the baseline conditions against which subsequent monitoring can be compared. During-Construction monitoring will ensure that environmental protection and erosion controls implemented during construction are in good working order and are performing as expected. Post-Construction monitoring includes SWM monitoring; monitoring of landscape planting survivorship; and biological monitoring of retained natural areas. Duration of monitoring and additional monitoring program details are to be confirmed as a condition of Draft Plan approval. During Construction - Grading and Servicing Monitoring should consist of the following activities that are the responsibility of the developer: • Periodic inspection of the temporary sediment storage locations and other erosion control works; • Inspection of the temporary sediment storage locations after significant rainfall events or weekly, whichever is shorter; • Inspection of vegetation protection fencing and sediment control fencing to ensure that it is in good repair; • Removal of construction debris that may accumulate along, and damage, the above fencing; • Implementation of remedial measures, where required, as quickly as possible (e.g. erosion stabilization; repair/replacement of damaged/fallen fencing; pruning, fertilization or irrigation of retained trees). Regular monitoring reports will be prepared to document the performance of the erosion and sediment control measures, addressing: 1) integrity and effectiveness of controls; 2) condition of temporary sediment storage locations; and 3) any recommendation for action or additional monitoring. On completion of construction, the Engineering Consultant will submit a Letter of Certification to the City and the GRCA indicating that all drainage works have been constructed in accordance with Engineering Drawings. After Construction – SWM and Landscape Planting Monitoring The developer will monitor the operation of the constructed SWM facilities for a period of 2 years4 after initial acceptance of underground services by the City of Guelph. Thereafter, monitoring responsibility would be transferred to the City of Guelph, if longer term monitoring were to be implemented. 4 Or a program duration to be determined as a condition of draft plan approval Our File No.: 3313009 Page 36 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Monitoring of the SWM discharge toward the PSW is recommended to ensure that identified targets / objectives are being met. It is intended that details for SWM outlet monitoring are to be finalized as a condition of registration. The landscape plantings around the SWM pond and in enhancement areas are to be monitored and replaced as necessary, for a period of 2 years. Pre-, During- and Post-Construction – Biological Monitoring An annual biological monitoring program is proposed, with a focus on the PSW/NHS. The program includes a general overview of vegetation; fixed plot vegetation monitoring and edge community assessment; and a breeding bird survey. This monitoring is will continue for 2 years post-construction, or as stipulated in a condition of draft plan approval. The monitoring is the responsibility of the developer / proponent. • The general overview will include comments on: vegetation condition / vigour; presence of damaged, diseased, or hazard stems, and hazard trees requiring attention; proliferation of invasive species; areas of trampled or cut vegetation, rubbish disposal, and / or sediment deposition; and evidence of any erosion problems and/or informal trail development. Remedial work should be undertaken as required based on the monitoring review. • Vegetation Plot Monitoring. The approach includes fixed point photo-monitoring, a quantitative / qualitative species assessment within plots and general comments on vegetation within the vicinity of the plot. Ecoplans has implemented this type of monitoring at numerous sites across Waterloo Region over the past 15 years. • Breeding Bird Survey. An annual breeding bird survey of adjacent retained areas in the NHS will be included in the biological monitoring program and continued for 2 years postconstruction. It is intended that this outline of the biological monitoring program will be refined and finalized as a condition of Draft Plan approval. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 37 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study 8.0 May 2013 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on this review, we conclude that the OPA / Zoning Change for the 66 Eastview property, as proposed, can be undertaken while protecting key environmental features. This conclusion reflects the following considerations: • There is no intrusion into the PSW/NHS. There will be some minor encroachments into the 30 m buffer to accommodate some grading and construction of the SWM outlet. These features are retained in full and protected with setbacks, buffer enhancement, fencing, signage and stewardship measures. • There is no intrusion into the significant woodland. The feature and functions will be maintained with protected setbacks, buffer enhancement, fencing signage and stewardship measures. • The final SWM implementation strategy will generally maintain water balance, and existing hydrological / hydrogeological regimes, ensuring long-term protection of wetlands, watercourses and groundwater. • Environmental stewardship measures are identified for the long term protection of the woodland and PSW and other retained features adjacent to the property. • The recommended monitoring program will: assess the operation of the SWM and drainage measures; and assess the health of retained natural areas as development and occupancy proceeds. • It is concluded that the conceptual development design measures, as well as environmental management and setback / buffer implementation, conform to the environmental management and mitigation principles identified in the relevant planning studies and policies outlined in OPA 42. • Environmental stewardship and education continue to be key management measures for developments bordering natural areas. These initiatives, coupled with the other mitigation measures reviewed in this document, provide the first line of defense in reducing natural feature effects and condition changes. It is recognized that even with all of these measures in place, some impact on natural areas from the influx of new residents to the area is inevitable; the intent is to reduce that risk to the extent possible. To ensure that environmental protection and mitigation is properly managed during site development the following recommendations/actions are identified: • An ESC Plan will be prepared as a pre-condition to Registration of the Draft Plan. The plan will be submitted to the GRCA and the City of Guelph for review and approval prior to any grading and site alteration. • Vegetation and silt protection measures will be implemented as required (e.g. diversion berms, temporary sediment control basins, temporary paige wire fencing and silt fencing) and maintained prior to and throughout construction. • Permanent fencing is recommended along the interface between development and the NHS. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 38 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 • Transplanting and /or seed collection of Regionally Significant plant species (American Mountain-ash) located within the grading limits. • Proposed trail links are along existing informal trail locations (east-west link) and between NHS ‘fingers’ to the recommended SWM location (north-south link), avoiding sensitive areas and reducing vegetation removal to the extent possible. • The monitoring approach identified in Section 7.2.9.2 is recommended to ensure that various mitigation and design measures are maintained and operating during construction. • An Environmental brochure should be prepared and provided to new residents addressing environmental stewardship issues reviewed in this report. • An environmental inspector should conduct site checks prior to and periodically during construction to ensure that protection and mitigation measures are properly implemented and to identify if any remedial measures are required. Recommendations for future work: • Tree inventory and Tree compensation Plan is to be completed at subsequent stage, and included with future application submission. • The impact review and identified mitigation measures should be reviewed and revised as appropriate at the Site Plan stage. All of which is respectfully submitted by, ECOPLANS | a member of the MMM Group Ltd. Rebecca Hay, BES Botanist / Ecologist Jeff Gross, M.Sc. Senior Ecologist Our File No.: 3313009 Page 39 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 REFERENCES Bakowsky, W. (1996). Natural Heritage Resources of Southern Ontario: Vegetation Communities of Southern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Information Centre. Bird Studies Canada. 2003. The Marsh Monitoring Program – Training Kit and Instructions for Surveying Marsh Birds, Amphibians and Their Habitats 2003 Edition. Birds Studies Canada, Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Canadian Wildlife Service. 2007. Area Sensitive Forest Birds in Urban Areas. Environment Canada. Chapman, L. J., & Putnam, D. F. (1984). The Physiography of Southern Ontario, 3rd Edition. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. City of Guelph. 2001. The City of Guelph Official Plan, December 2012 Consolidation. City of Guelph. 2010. Envision Guelph: Official Plan Amendment 42: Natural Heritage System. Approved by MMAH February 22, 2011. COSEWIC. (2007). COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica in Canada. Ottawa: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. COSEWIC. (2011). COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica in Canada. Ottawa: Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Dougan and Associates. 2009. Guelph Natural Heritage Strategy. Phase 2 – Terrestrial Inventory and Natural Heritage System, Volume 1 and 2. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2006. Ontario Regulation 150/06 Grand River Conservation Authority: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetland and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). Available on-line at www.grandriver.ca 2013. Grand River Information Network (GRIN). Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA). 2013. Policies for the Administration of the Regulation of Development Interference with Wetland and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. Lee, H. T., Bakowsky, W. D., Riley, J. L., Bowles, J., Puddister, M., Uhlig, P., et al. (1998). Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Technical Manual ELC-005. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Region, Scinece Development and Transfer Branch. LVM Inc. 2013. Scoped Hydrogeology Study: Proposed Development 66 Eastview Road Guelph, Ontario. LVM Inc. 2013. Supplementary Geotechnical Investigation Report: Proposed Development 66 Eastview Road Guelph, Ontario. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 2005. Provincial Policy Statement. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 40 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Ministry of Natural Resources. 2013. Species at Risk in Ontario (SARO) List. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. (www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/Species/2ColumnSubPage/246809.html) MTE Consultants Inc. 2013. Functional Servicing and Storm Water Management Report 66 Eastview Road, Guelph Ontario. Newmaster, S., Harris, A. G., & Kershaw, L. J. (1998). Ontario Plant List: Forest Research Information Paper No. 123. Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario: Ontario Forest Research Institute. Oldham, M. J., & Brinker, S. R. (2009). Rare Vascular Plants of Ontario, Fourth Edition. Peterborough: Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Oldham, M. J., Bakowsky, W. D., & Sutherland, D. A. (1995). Floristic Quality Assessment System for Southern Ontario. Peterborough: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Information Centre. Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas. 2001. Guide for Participants. Bird Studies Canada. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual For Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 Second Edition. Our File No.: 3313009 Page 41 APPENDIX A Figures Our File No.: 3313009 2013\05\22 L"\projexts\2011\3311055Eastview\Maps\3311055Eastview_ELCUnits_July2012.mxd ELC_Code ELC_Name CUT1 Mineral Cultural Thicket CUM1-1 CUT1-4 Dry-Moist Old Field Meadow Gray Dogwood Cultural Thicket CUW1 Mineral Cultural Woodland FOC2-2 Dry-Fresh White Cedar Coniferous Forest FOD3-1 22 FOC2-2 Dry-Fresh Poplar Deciduous Forest HR Hedgerow RES Residential SWD 29 SWD Deciduous Swamp SWD3-3 Swamp Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp SWD4-1 Willow Mineral Deciduous Swamp SWT2-8 Silky Dogwood Mineral Thicket Swamp ! ( 16 CUT1 ! ( ! ( ! 20 ( 21 FOD3-1 SWD3-3 13 FOC2-2 15 SWT2-8 23 FOD3-1 19 FOD3-1 14 FOC2-2 24 CUT1-4 ! !( ( 28 CUM1-1 25 FOD3-1 1 CUW1 27 CUT1 Subject Property ELC Vegetation Units Guelph North-East Complex PSW te ar C riv D r e Ha s tin Bo ul ev ar d 26 CUW1 Significant Plants in Wellington County ! ( ! ( ! ( 6 3 CUM1-1 CUW1 12 CUT1 2 SWD4-1 gs 5 SWD4-3 11 CUW1 4 CUT1 8 HR 7 CUM1-1 ! ( ! ( Legend 18 HR 9 RES ! 30 ( CUT1 17 CUW1 Ea v st w ie d oa R 32 HR 10 CUM1-1 Au d Carex lupulina Solidago patula 31 HR Sorbus americana Ecological Land Classification and Provincially Significant Wetland 66 Eastview Road - Guelph 0 25 50 metres 1:2,200 75 ¯ en Ro a d Date: May 2013 Project No: 3311055 Figure No: 1 2013\05\22 L:\Projects\2011\3311055-EastviewGuelph\Maps\3311055_Eastview_AmphibianCallingStations_April 2013.mxd 2 AC3 ! 1 AC4 ! PC3 " 1 AC2 ! PC4 " AC1 ! PC2 1 Subject Property " ! Bo u " le va rd d PC1 oa gs Au d R ti n ie w Legend Ha s Ea st v C ar te r D riv e " en Ro ad Breeding Bird Survey Point Count Location Amphibian Calling Station Wildlife Habitat Units Wildlife Survey Locations and Habitat Units 66 Eastview Road - Guelph 0 25 50 metres 1:2,500 75 100 ¯ Date: May 2013 Project No: 3311055 Figure No: 2 2013\05\24 L"\projexts\2011\3311055Eastview\Maps\3311055Eastview_WetlandAndSetbacks_May2013.mxd Approved Trail Stub 3 0 .0 m W E TLA ND B UF F ER 10 EX I S T IN G WET (S U RV LAN D E YE D LI M IT D EC . 20 (A S 11) W ALK AGE N ED W C IE S IT H ON TH E O C T. 25, 2 0 1 1) 30 .0 m WE TL A ND B UF D R IP LI N E LI .0 M m D R IP L IN E B U F FE R IT F ER M IT D LI LAN WET 2 0 11) T IN G EC . EX I S D D E YE TH E (S U RV 1) W IT H 201 ED 25, W ALK C T. (A S N O S O N C IE AGE CARTER PARK 10 DR IP .0 LI m NE DR LI M IP L IN E B UF FE R 30 IT .0 m W E TL A ND B UF F ER D R IP LI N E IT m M .0 LI 10 D 3 0 .0 m R IP L W E TLA IN ND E B UF F ER B U F FE R AG Legend C r te ar D r iv e Ha st in gs Bo ul ev ar d EX I ST IN G (S U WE RV T LA E YE N D (A D EC D LI S M IT W EN . 2 C IE AL K E 01 S D 1) ON W IT H OC TH T. E 25 , 20 1 1) vi st a E 30 .0 m W E TL A ND B UF 3 0 .0 m W E TLA ND ew R d oa B UF F ER F ER Au de Subject Property Surveyed Dripline (MTE May 2013) 10m Dripline Buffer nR oa d 30m Wetland Buffer Surveyed Wetland Limit (MTE May 2013) Conceptual Trail Alignment Conceptual Site Plan 66 Eastview Road - Guelph 0 25 50 metres 1:2,500 75 ¯ Date: May 2013 Project No: 3313009 Figure No: 3 APPENDIX B Terms of Reference Our File No.: 3313009 Acorn Developments – Eastview Road Development, City of Guelph Proposed Terms of Reference – Scoped Environmental Impact Study ECOPLANS LIMITED - October 2011 Introduction Ecoplans Limited has been retained to complete a Scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for a proposed residential development at 66, 78 and 82 Eastview Road, Guelph (the “subject property”; see Figure 1). A large portion of the subject property supports municipally and provincially significant natural heritage features, as identified in the City of Guelph Official Plan Amendment Number 42 (OPA 42). That portion, and any other natural features that meet criteria for designation as natural heritage system (NHS) components, will be retained and protected with setbacks and other buffer management measures determined through this Scoped EIS. The site is located within the Eramosa River Watershed. The subject property is dominated by bottomlands, with tableland and predominantly gently rolling topography on the southern half of the site. There is an abrupt grade change along a wetland at the southwest corner of the site and much of the property (including the treed areas) has been altered through fill, grading and other anthropogenic uses. No defined and/or named watercourses are present on the subject property. There are two residential buildings fronting on Eastview Road at the southeast corner of the subject property; these include manicured lawns and landscape plantings. The north end of the property supports natural vegetation cover (swamp and forest communities), and this area contains designated natural heritage features including a portion of the Guelph Northeast Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) complex and various City of Guelph NHS components (‘Significant Woodlands’, ‘Locally Significant Wetland’, ‘Potential Habitat for Locally Significant Species’), together leading to designation as a ‘Significant Natural Area’. No ‘Significant Valleylands and Significant Landforms’ or ‘Surface Water and Fish Habitat’ is identified on the subject property (per OPA 42 NHS mapping). The south portion of the site (including the majority of the 82 Eastview Road parcel) includes early successional meadow, cultural thicket and pockets of cultural woodland / plantation / forest – lands outside of the mapped NHS. Surrounding land uses are predominantly urban residential (south and west), with future urban residential to the east on / adjacent to the former Eastview landfill site and some agricultural / natural areas further north and east. Study Team and Objectives The GSP group is coordinating all planning components of the work. MTE Consultants is addressing the hydrogeology, geotechnical, stormwater management, and servicing components of the work. Ecoplans Limited is undertaking the natural environment component of the study. ECOPLANS LIMITED Page 1 66, 78 and 82 Eastview Road – Scoped EIS Terms of Reference October 2011 The proposed development envelope will be restricted to the portion of the subject property that supports cultural vegetation community types or is under existing residential land use, based on preliminary discussions between Ecoplans Limited and the owners / study team. The portion of the site containing PSW and ‘Significant Natural Area’ (per OPA 42) will be retained in full and protected with setbacks and buffer management measures to be determined through this study. The intent of this Terms of Reference is to identify those tasks necessary to evaluate the sensitivity and significance of the PSW complex and other natural features and functions that could be influenced by the development. Scope of Work The study will include the following scope of work addressing the above objectives and based on the City’s ‘Environmental Study Requirements’ (OPA 42, Section 6.2) and the GRCA’s Environmental Impact Study Guidelines and Submission Standards for Wetlands (2005): 1. Background Review. Information will be compiled from available agency files, mapping, reports and NHIC databases and review of aerial photography. Relevant field based information collected through studies on adjacent lands will be reviewed and integrated where relevant. 2. Field surveys. To be conducted from late summer 2011 to summer 2012, with the following scope of work: a. Three season biological surveys and inventories i. Botanical inventory (September 2011-July 2012) ii. Breeding Bird Survey (May-July 2012) – OBBA protocol. iii. Spring amphibian surveys (April – June 2012) – Marsh Monitoring Protocol. iv. General wildlife surveys conducted during all field visits b. Delineation and classification of vegetation communities (ELC system) including dripline / wetland / tree surveys, as required. c. Tree Inventory and Tree Preservation Plan, with Vegetation Compensation Plan, as required. d. Field surveys were initiated in September 2011. A preliminary wetland limit was delineated by Ecoplans and will be confirmed in-field by City and Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) agency staff in October 2011. 3. Data evaluation and Environmental Constraint Review. Identification of protection areas, associated setbacks, and environmental enhancement opportunities for natural features. 4. City / Agency liaison will be an important component of the study. A pre-consultation meeting with the City occurred in September 2011. Additional interaction via site walk(s), correspondence and Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) interaction is anticipated. ECOPLANS LIMITED Page 2 66, 78 and 82 Eastview Road – Scoped EIS Terms of Reference October 2011 5. Proposed Development and Reporting. The proposed development will be fully serviced residential, with ultimate form / unit counts etc. to be determined. The Scoped EIS is proposed to include the following general outline and content: Scoped EIS – Proposed Table of Contents 1. 2. Executive Summary Background and Report Objectives. This will provide: site context / description and project overview; summary of planning and agency liaison; description of the proposed development; overview of the scope of work and reporting; and study objectives. 3. Study Approach This includes: commentary on the planning framework / relevant planning documents; summary of relevant information from other studies (e.g. hydrogeology, stormwater management [SWM]); overview of natural environment information; and summary of agency liaison. 4. Biophysical Features Description of: past and present land use; physiography and drainage; soils and hydrogeology; environmental designations; and field investigations (aquatics, vegetation / flora and wildlife) – methodology and results. 5. Ecological Attributes and Functions This includes summary of ecological attributes and functions on and adjacent to the subject property, including potential linkages, wildlife habitat and ecological / hydrogeological interactions. 6. Description of the Proposed Development This includes description of: the feature delineation process; environmental management / setback requirements; proposed development fabric; and general surface and groundwater management strategies. 7. Impact Review and Evaluation This includes: an overview of potential impacts to natural heritage features and functions; discussion of potential alternatives; proposed mitigation measures (e.g. setbacks, buffers, sediment/erosion control, surface and groundwater management - including demonstration of water balance, stewardship etc.). 8. Conclusions and Recommendations This includes: a summary of key findings; recommendations for mitigation and/or future work (including monitoring); and conclusions regarding potential impact to natural heritage features and functions. 9. References 10. Appendices Technical / detailed information including field survey chronology, inventory lists and relevant technical details from other reports, as relevant (e.g. SWM, hydrogeology). K:\Projects\2011\33 (ECO)\3311055 Eastview Rd Guelph EIS\Acorn Dev. Eastview Rd Scoped EIS Draft Terms of Reference Oct 13 2011.doc ECOPLANS LIMITED Page 3 APPENDIX C Field Chronology Our File No.: 3313009 Project Chronology – Eastview, Guelph Date Staff Task Description June 9, 2011 JG Field survey: Reconnaissance level review September 15, 2011 SD Field survey: Wetland delineation; vegetation inventory; preliminary ELC. September 19, 2011 SD Field survey: Wetland delineation; vegetation inventory; preliminary ELC. September 20, 2011 JG Pre-consultation meeting and the City of Guelph. October 7, 2011 JG Field Survey: Wetland delineation; woodland review; vegetation inventory; supplemental wildlife observations October 12, 2011 JG, SD Field Survey. Wetland delineation; woodland review; vegetation inventory; supplemental wildlife observations October 25, 2011 JG, SD Agency Field Walk (GRCA, City) to confirm wetland limits November 2/21, 2011 JG Correspondence with MNR. Provided surveyed wetland limit and discussed status of ‘new’ wetland (i.e. whether it would be considered PSW). December 14, 2011 JG EAC meeting. Presentation of Draft Terms of Reference; approved by EAC. March 19, 2012 KH / KL Field Survey: Amphibian calling survey #1 May 8, 2012 HM/LS Field Survey: Amphibian calling survey #2 May 16, 2012 SD Field Survey: Dripline flagging; vegetation inventory. May 22, 2012 SD Field Survey: Dripline flagging; vegetation inventory. May 31, 2012 HM Field Survey: Breeding Bird Survey #1 June 11, 2012 KL/CM Field Survey: Amphibian calling survey #3 June 13, 2012 HM Field Survey: Breeding Bird Survey #2 June 26, 2012 SD Field Survey: Vegetation inventory; finalize ELC. APPENDIX D Vascular Plant List Our File No.: 3313009 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Appendix D: Vascular Plant List for 66 Eastview Road, Guelph Scientific Name Common Name CC1 CW1 Grank2 Srank2 COSEWIC3 MNR4 SARA Status 5 Acer negundo Acer platanoides Acer x freemanii Achillea millefolium ssp millefolium Agrimonia gryposepala Ambrosia artemisiifolia Amelanchier sp Anemone virginiana var cylindroidea Arctium minus ssp minus Asclepias incarnata ssp incarnata Asclepias syriaca Aster lanceolatus ssp lanceolatus Aster lateriflorus var lateriflorus Aster novae-angliae Aster puniceus var puniceus Athyrium filix-femina var angustum Barbarea vulgaris Betula papyrifera Bidens frondosa Boehmeria cylindrica Bromus inermis ssp inermis Carex aurea Carex bebbii Carex blanda Carex hystericina Carex intumescens Carex lacustris Carex laxiflora Carex lupulina Carex rosea Carex sp Carex stipata Carex stricta Carpinus caroliniana ssp. virginiana Centaurea maculosa Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Manitoba Maple Norway Maple Freeman's Maple Common Yarrow Tall Hairy Agrimony Annual Ragweed Serviceberry Species Thimbleweed Lesser Burdock Swamp Milkweed Common Milkweed Panicled Aster Calico Aster New England Aster Purple-stemmed Aster Lady-fern Yellow Rocket Paper Birch Devil's Beggar's Ticks False Nettle Smooth Brome Golden-fruited Sedge Bebb's Sedge Woodland Sedge Porcupine Sedge Bladder Sedge Lake-bank Sedge Loose-flowered Sedge Hop Sedge Rosy Sedge Sedge Species Stalk-grain Sedge Tussock Sedge Blue Beech Spotted Knapweed Oxeye Daisy 0 * -2 5 3 2 3 G5 G? G? G5T? G5 G5 S5 SE5 S5 SE? S5 S5 * 2 0 * 6 0 3 3 2 6 4 * 2 3 4 * 4 3 3 5 6 5 5 6 5 0 5 -5 5 -3 -2 -3 -5 0 0 2 -3 -5 5 -4 -5 0 -5 -4 -5 0 -5 5 G5T G?T? G5T5 G5 G5T? G5T5 G5 G5T? G5T5 G? G5 G5 G5 G4G5T? G5 G5 G5? G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 SU SE5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 SE5 S5 S5 S5 SE5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 3 4 6 * * -5 -5 0 5 5 G5 G5 G5T G? G? S5 S5 S5 SE5 SE5 Schedule 6 Significant Plant List for Wellington County7 R-A Our File No.: 3313009 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Scientific Name Common Name CC1 CW1 Grank2 Srank2 COSEWIC3 MNR4 SARA Status 5 Cicuta bulbifera Cicuta maculata Circaea lutetiana ssp canadensis Cirsium arvense Cornus amomum ssp obliqua Cornus stolonifera Cypripedium calceolus var parviflorum Dactylis glomerata Daucus carota Dryopteris carthusiana Dryopteris cristata Echium vulgare Epipactis helleborine Equisetum arvense Erigeron philadelphicus ssp philadelphicus Erythronium americanum ssp americanum Eupatorium maculatum ssp maculatum Eupatorium perfoliatum Euphorbia esula Fragaria virginiana ssp virginiana Fraxinus americana Fraxinus pennsylvanica Galium palustre Geum aleppicum Glyceria striata Hesperis matronalis Hieracium caespitosum ssp caespitosum Hieracium pilosella Hieracium sp Hypericum perforatum Impatiens capensis Juglans nigra Juncus tenuis Leersia oryzoides Ligustrum vulgare Lonicera tatarica Bulb-bearing Waterhemlock Spotted Water-hemlock Enchanter's Nightshade Canada Thistle Silky Dogwood Red-osier Dogwood Small Yellow Lady's-slipper Orchard Grass Queen Anne's Lace Spinulose Wood Fern Crested Wood Fern Common Viper's-bugloss Eastern Helleborine Field Horsetail 5 6 3 * 5 2 7 * * 5 7 * * 0 -5 -5 3 3 -4 -3 -1 3 5 -2 -5 5 5 0 G5 G5 G5T5 G? G5T? G5 G5 G? G? G5 G5 G? G? G5 S5 S5 S5 SE5 S5 S5 S5 SE5 SE5 S5 S5 SE5 SE5 S5 Philadelphia Fleabane 1 -3 G5T? S5 Yellow Trout-lily Spotted Joe-pye Weed Common Boneset Leafy Spurge Virginia Strawberry White Ash Green Ash Marsh Bedstraw Yellow Avens Fowl Manna Grass Dame's Rocket Field Hawkweed Mouseear Hawkweed Species St. John's-wort Spotted Jewel-weed Black Walnut Slender Rush Rice Cutgrass European Privet Tartarian Honeysuckle 5 3 2 * 2 4 3 5 2 3 * * * 5 -5 -4 5 1 3 -3 -5 -1 -5 5 5 5 G5T5 G5T5 G5 G5 G5T? G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G4G5 G? G? S5 S5 S5 SE5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 SE5 SE5 SE5 * 4 5 0 3 * * 5 -3 3 0 -5 1 3 G? G5 G5 G5 G5 G? G? SE5 S5 S4 S5 S5 SE5 SE5 Schedule 6 Significant Plant List for Wellington County7 Our File No.: 3313009 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Scientific Name Common Name CC1 CW1 Grank2 Srank2 COSEWIC3 MNR4 SARA Status 5 Lotus corniculatus Lycopus americanus Lycopus uniflorus Maianthemum racemosum ssp racemosum Malus pumila Medicago lupulina Melilotus alba Mentha suaveolens Morus rubra Onoclea sensibilis Osmunda cinnamomea Oxalis acetosella ssp montana Parthenocissus inserta Pastinaca sativa Phalaris arundinacea Pinus resinosa Pinus sylvestris Plantago lanceolata Plantago major Poa compressa Poa palustris Poa pratensis ssp pratensis Populus balsamifera ssp balsamifera Populus deltoides ssp monilifera Populus tremuloides Prunella vulgaris ssp lanceolata Prunus serotina Prunus virginiana ssp virginiana Ranunculus abortivus Ranunculus acris Ranunculus sp Rhamnus cathartica Rhamnus frangula Rhus typhina Ribes triste Rubus idaeus ssp idaeus Rubus pubescens Bird's-foot Trefoil American Bugleweed Northern Bugleweed * 4 5 1 -5 -5 G? G5 G5 SE5 S5 S5 False Solomon's Seal Common Apple Black Medic White Sweet Clover Apple Mint White Mulberry Sensitive Fern Cinnamon Fern Common Wood Sorrel Thicket Creeper Wild Parsnip Reed Canary Grass Red Pine Scotch Pine English Plantain Nipple-seed Plantain Canada Bluegrass Fowl Bluegrass Kentucky Bluegrass Balsam Poplar Eastern Cottonwood Quaking Aspen Self-heal Wild Black Cherry Choke Cherry Kidney-leaved Buttercup Tall Buttercup Buttercup Species Buckthorn Glossy Buckthorn Staghorn Sumac Swamp Red Currant Red Raspberry Dwarf Raspberry 4 * * * * * 4 7 8 3 * 0 8 * * * 0 5 0 4 4 2 5 3 2 2 * 3 5 1 3 -3 0 -3 -3 3 3 5 -4 3 5 0 -1 2 -4 1 -3 -1 0 5 3 1 -2 -2 G5T G5 G? G5 G? G? G5 G5 G5 G5 G? G5 G5 G? G5 G5 G? G5 G5T G5T? G5T? G5 G5T? G5 G5T? G5 G5 S5 SE5 SE5 SE5 SE1 SE5 S5 S5 S5 S5 SE5 S5 S5 SE5 SE5 SE5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 SE5 * * 1 6 0 4 3 -1 5 -5 5 -4 G? G? G5 G5 G5T5 G5 SE5 SE5 S5 S5 SE1 S5 Schedule 6 Significant Plant List for Wellington County7 Our File No.: 3313009 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Scientific Name Common Name CC1 CW1 Grank2 Srank2 COSEWIC3 MNR4 SARA Status 5 Rudbeckia hirta Salix alba Salix amygdaloides Salix bebbiana Salix eriocephala Salix exigua Salix nigra Salix petiolaris Salix purpurea Saponaria officinalis Scirpus atrovirens Scirpus pendulus Silene latifolia Sisyrinchium angustifolium Sium suave Solanum dulcamara Solidago altissima var altissima Solidago canadensis Solidago nemoralis ssp nemoralis Solidago patula Sorbus americana Taraxacum officinale Thuja occidentalis Tilia americana Tussilago farfara Viburnum lentago Viburnum opulus Vicia cracca Viola canadensis Viola sp Vitis riparia Black-eyed Susan White Willow Peach-leaved Willow Bebb's Willow Heart-leaved Willow Sandbar Willow Black Willow Meadow Willow Basket Willow Bouncing-bet Woolgrass Bulrush Pendulous Bulrush Bladder Campion Pointed Blue-eyed-grass Hemlock Water-parsnip Climbing Nightshade Tall Goldenrod Canada Goldenrod Field Goldenrod Rough-leaved Goldenrod American Mountain-ash Common Dandelion Northern White Cedar American Basswood Colt's Foot Nannyberry Guelder-rose Viburnum Tufted Vetch Canada Violet Violet Species Riverbank Grape 0 * 6 4 4 3 6 3 * * 3 3 0 6 4 * 1 1 2 8 8 * 4 4 * 4 * * 6 3 -3 -3 -4 -3 -5 -5 -4 -3 3 -5 -5 5 -2 -5 0 3 3 5 -5 -1 3 -3 3 3 -1 0 5 5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G? G5? G5 G? G4? G5 G? G? G5 G5T? G5 G5 G5 G5 G5 G? G5 G5 G? G5 S5 SE4 S5 S5 S5 S5 S4? S5 SE4 SE5 S5 S5 SE5 S4 S5 SE5 S5 S5 S5 S5 S5 SE5 S5 S5 SE5 S5 SE4 SE5 S5 0 -2 G5 S5 Schedule 6 Significant Plant List for Wellington County7 R-A R-A Our File No.: 3313009 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 APPENDIX E Avifaunal Observations Our File No.: 3313009 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 2 X 2 S5B American Goldfinch Spinus tristis P PROB 11 N P 11 X 6 S5B American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla T PROB 8 N - - T 8 S5B American Robin Turdus migratorius A PROB 8 N S 5 A 8 S5B American Woodcock Scolopax minor T PROB 1 N - - T 1 S5B Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica - - - N - - - - S4B Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus CF CONF 9 N X 1 CF 9 S5 Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata H POSS 2 N X 2 H 2 S5 Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater S POSS 1 N S 1 - - S5B Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum S POSS 3 N S 3 - - S5B Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica - - - Y - - - - S4B, S4N Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina S POSS 1 N S 1 - - S5B Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula FY CONF 6 N S 2 FY 6 S5B Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas S POSS 2 N S 2 S 2 S5B Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens S POSS 1 N - - S 1 S5B European Starling Sturnus vulgaris CF CONF 1 N X 1 CF 1 SE Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis S POSS 2 N S 1 S 2 S5B Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias - - - N - - - - S5B, SZN Great-crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus S POSS 2 N - - S 2 S5 House Sparrow Passer domesticus H PROB 4 N H 4 - - SE COSEWIC 2 S-Rank City of Guelph Significant 7 Species X MNR Area 8 Sensitive N 6 2 Schedule OBS 5 High # X SARA Status High BE Corvus brachyrhynchos SARO Status High # American Crow 3 NHIC Tracked High BE 2012 Scientific Name 2012 Highest Abundance 2012 Common Name 2012 Highest Breeding 9 Status Unit 2 (Woodland/Wetland Habitat) 2012 Highest Breeding 9 Evidence Unit 1 (Open Habitat) 4 Appendix E: Eastview Breeding Bird Survey Results and Other Bird Observations – Ecoplans 2012 Comments Heard displaying May 8, 2012; flushed from ground in woodland/wetland habitat on 2 consecutive visits during BBS THR THR SC THR Recorded on adjacent lands, no nesting habitat on subject property THR ** Observed on May 8, 2012 flying overhead; possible migrant, not recorded during BBS, no nesting habitat on subject property X Recorded within woodland habitat ** Observed on May 31, 2012 flying overhead; not recorded during BBS, no nesting habitat on subject property THR 1 Our File No.: 3313009 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study - - - S5B Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura P PROB 3 N P 3 - - S5B Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis T PROB 7 N S 3 T 7 S5 Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus CF CONF 1 N - - CF 1 S5B Seiurus noveboracensis T PROB 1 N - - T 1 S5B Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus S POSS 4 N - - S 4 S5B Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus S POSS 3 N S 3 S 2 S5B Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris X OBS 1 N - - X 1 S5B Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia FY CONF 5 N FY 5 S 1 S5B Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura - - - N - - - - S5B White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis S POSS 1 N - - S 1 S5 Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina - - - N - - - - S4B Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia T PROB 4 N - - T 4 S5B 34 95 50 COSEWIC 2 S-Rank Northern Waterthrush City of Guelph Significant 7 Species - MNR Area 8 Sensitive N 6 - Schedule - 5 High # - SARA Status High BE Anas platyrhynchos SARO Status High # Mallard 3 NHIC Tracked High BE 2012 Scientific Name 2012 Highest Abundance 2012 Common Name 2012 Highest Breeding 9 Status Unit 2 (Woodland/Wetland Habitat) 2012 Highest Breeding 9 Evidence Unit 1 (Open Habitat) 4 May 2013 Comments 18 FY observed with 3 adults on storm pond on west side just outside limits of subject property X Male calling on territory on two consecutive BBS in same location; individual was located along un-named tributary to Hadati Creek at far northwest section of woodland/wetland habitat ** Observed on May 31, 2012; overhead only; no nesting habitat in development envelope X Heard 1 singing male in woodland/wetland habitat on May 8, 2012; possible migrant, not recorded during BBS X THR 73 Our File No.: 3313009 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 APPENDIX F Glossary of Species Ranks Our File No.: 3313009 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 GLOSSARY OF SPECIES RANKS 1 Coefficient of Conservatism and Coefficient of Wetness (Oldham et al., 1995). CC = Coefficient of Conservatism. Rank of 0 to 10 based on plants degree of fidelity to a range of synecological parameters: (0-3) Taxa found in a variety of plant communities; (4-6) Taxa typically associated with a specific plant community but tolerate moderate disturbance; (7-8) Taxa associated with a plant community in an advanced successional stage that has undergone minor disturbance; (9-10) Taxa with a high fidelity to a narrow range of synecological parameters. CW = Coefficient of Wetness. -Value between 5 and –5. A value of –5 is assigned to Obligate Wetland (OBL) and 5 to Obligate Upland (UPL), with intermediate values assigned to the remaining categories. 2 G-Rank (global) Global ranks are assigned by a consensus of the network of Conservation Data Centres (CDCs), scientific experts, and the Nature Conservancy to designate a rarity rank based on the range-wide status of a species, subspecies, or variety. (Global Status from MNR Biodiversity Explorer September 2012) G1 Extremely rare - usually 5 or fewer occurrences in the overall range or very few remaining individuals; or because of some factor(s) making it especially vulnerable to extinction. G2 Very rare - usually between 5 and 20 occurrences in the overall range or with many individuals in fewer occurrences; or because of some factor(s) making it vulnerable to extinction. G3 Rare to uncommon - usually between 20 and 100 occurrences; may have fewer occurrences, but with a large number of individuals in some populations; may be susceptible to large-scale disturbances. G4 Common - usually more than 100 occurrences; usually not susceptible to immediate threats. G5 Very common - demonstrably secure under present conditions. S-Ranks (provincial) Provincial (or Subnational) ranks are used by the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) to set protection priorities for rare species and natural communities. These ranks are not legal designations. Provincial ranks are assigned in a manner similar to that described for global ranks, but consider only those factors within the political boundaries of Ontario. (Provincial Status from MNR Biodiversity Explorer September 2012) S1 Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the nation or state/province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province. S2 Imperiled—Imperiled in the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province. Our File No.: 3313009 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 S3 Vulnerable—Vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 Secure—Common, widespread, and abundant in the nation or state/province. S#S# Range Rank —A numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., SU is used rather than S1S4). SX Presumed Extirpated - Species or community is believed to be extirpated from the nation or state/province. Not located despite intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood that it will be rediscovered. SH Possibly Extirpated (Historical) - Species or community occurred historically in the nation or state/province, and there is some possibility that it may be rediscovered. Its presence may not have been verified in the past 20-40 years. A species or community could become NH or SH without such a 20-40 year delay if the only known occurrences in a nation or state/province were destroyed or if it had been extensively and unsuccessfully looked for. The NH or SH rank is reserved for species or communities for which some effort has been made to relocate occurrences, rather than simply using this status for all elements not known from verified extant occurrences. 3 COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) (federal status from COSEWIC April 2013) EXT Extinct - A species that no longer exists. EXP Extirpated - A species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere. END Endangered - A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. THR Threatened - A species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. SC Special Concern (formerly vulnerable) - A species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. NAR Not At Risk - A species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances. DD Data Deficient (formerly Indeterminate) - Available information is insufficient to resolve a species' eligibility for assessment or to permit an assessment of the species' risk of extinction. 4 OMNR (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) (provincial status from MNR April 22, 2013) The provincial review process is implemented by the MNR's Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO). EXT Extinct—A species that no longer exists anywhere. EXP Extirpated—A species that no longer exists in the wild in Ontario but still occurs elsewhere. END Endangered - A species facing imminent extinction or extirpation in Ontario which is a candidate Our File No.: 3313009 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 for regulation under Ontario's Endangered Species Act (ESA). THR Threatened—A species that is at risk of becoming endangered in Ontario if limiting factors are not reversed. SC Special Concern (formerly Vulnerable) —A species with characteristics that make it sensitive to human activities or natural events. NAR Not at Risk—A species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk. DD Data Deficient (formerly Indeterminate) —A species for which there is insufficient information for a provincial status recommendation. 5, 6 SARA (Species at Risk Act) Status and Schedule The Act establishes Schedule 1, as the official list of species at risk. It classifies those species as being either Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, or a Special Concern. Once listed, the measures to protect and recover a listed species are implemented. EXT Extinct - A species that no longer exists. EXP Extirpated - A species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in the wild. END Endangered - A species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction. THR Threatened - A species that is likely to become endangered if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. SC Special Concern - A species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Schedule 1: is the official list of species that are classified as extirpated, endangered, threatened, and of special concern. Schedule 2: species listed in Schedule 2 are species that had been designated as endangered or threatened, and have yet to be re-assessed by COSEWIC using revised criteria. Once these species have been reassessed, they may be considered for inclusion in Schedule 1. Schedule 3: species listed in Schedule 3 are species that had been designated as special concern, and have yet to be re-assessed by COSEWIC using revised criteria. Once these species have been re-assessed, they may be considered for inclusion in Schedule 1. The Act establishes Schedule 1 as the official list of species at risk. However, please note that while Schedule 1 lists species that are extirpated, endangered, threatened and of special concern, the prohibitions do not apply to species of special concern. Species that were designated at risk by COSEWIC prior to October 1999 (Schedule 2 & 3) must be reassessed using revised criteria before they can be considered for addition to Schedule 1 of SARA. After they have been assessed, the Governor in Council may on the recommendation of the Minister, decide on whether or not they should be added to the List of Species at Risk. Government of Canada. Species at Risk Public Registry. Website: [http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm September 27, 2012] Glossary: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/about/glossary/default_e.cfm#e Species Index A-Z: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/index/default_e.cfm Our File No.: 3313009 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 Species Listing by Schedule: http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/sar/listing/default_e.cfm 7 City of Guelph (Dougan and Associates, City of Guelph natural Heritage Study, March 2009) For plants: R-A: Included based on “rare” status (i.e. occurrence at between 1 and 10 natural sites in the County) in the Flora of Wellington County (Anderson and Frank 2004, unpublished) and subsequent revisions by A. Anderson over 2005-2008). R-B: Added as a plant record from post-1990 environmental studies within Guelph with global and /or provincial significance. R-C: Added based on records provided by Mike Oldham (NHIC) for Wellington County in 2005, verification of records in OAC herbarium (Jan.-Feb. 2008) and supplementary review by Mike Oldham Dec. 2007 - Feb. 2008. R-D: New record for Wellington County (observed during field work conducted by Dougan & Associates 2005-2006). For birds: X = Significant in the City of Guelph ** = Significant in the City of Guelph ONLY IF there are habitats that support or have recently supported active nests 8 MNR Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide Area Sensitive Species Area Sensitivity is defined as species requiring large areas of suitable habitat in order to sustain population numbers From: Ministry of Natural Resources. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Wildlife Section. Science Development and Transfer Branch, Southcentral Science Section. 151pp. + appendices. 9 Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas - Breeding Evidence Codes OBSERVED X Species observed in its breeding season (no breeding evidence). POSSIBLE H Species observed in its breeding season in suitable nesting habitat. S Singing male(s) present, or breeding calls heard, in suitable nesting habitat in breeding season. PROBABLE P Pair observed in suitable nesting habitat in nesting season. T Permanent territory presumed through registration of territorial behaviour (song, etc.) on at least two days, a week or more apart, at the same place. Our File No.: 3313009 66 Eastview Rd., Guelph, Ontario Scoped Environmental Impact Study May 2013 D Courtship or display, including interaction between a male and a female or two males, including courtship feeding or copulation. V Visiting probable nest site A Agitated behaviour or anxiety calls of an adult. B Brood Patch on adult female or cloacal protuberance on adult male. N Nest-building or excavation of nest hole. CONFIRMED DD Distraction display or injury feigning. NU Used nest or egg shells found (occupied or laid within the period of the survey). FY Recently fledged young (nidicolous species) or downy young (nidifugous species), including incapable of sustained flight. AE Adult leaving or entering nest sites in circumstances indicating occupied nest. FS Adult carrying fecal sac. CF Adult carrying food for young. NE Nest containing eggs. NY Nest with young seen or heard. Our File No.: 3313009