Download scoped environmental impact study

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