Muncaster Environmental Planning

Transcription

1 Muncaster Environmental Planning May 16, 2009 Ms. Shelia Clarke Project Manager Civil Engineering Services Trow Associates Inc. 154 Colonnade Rd. South Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5 Dear Ms. Clarke: RE: Andrew Simpson Drive, Metcalfe Tree Conservation Report As outlined in Section of the City of Ottawa Official Plan, I have prepared a Tree Conservation Report for the above proposed 66 lot residential subdivision in the northwest portion of the Village of Metcalfe. This Tree Conservation Report has been prepared following the Revised Guidelines for City of Ottawa Tree Conservation Report, dated April 20 th, The site is located to the west of Eight Line Road and north and west of Andrew Simpson Drive (Figure 1). The site is part of Lot 19, Concession VII in the Geographic Township of Osgoode, City of Ottawa. The site is approximately 40ha in size, with the west 7.7ha of the site not part of the development. The central and east portions of the site proposed for development are primarily hay fields and former agricultural lands with some forest cover in the central portion (Figure 1). Access to the subdivision will be off a west extension of Andrew Simpson Drive. The minimum and typical proposed lot size is 0.20ha, with some larger pie shape lots at the west and east end of the draft Plan of Subdivision. The site will be serviced by private wells and septic systems. The field surveys and this report were completed by Bernie Muncaster, who has a Master s of Science in Biology and over twenty years experience in completing natural environment assessments. The purpose of this Plan is to establish which vegetation should be retained and protected on the site. The owner of the site is P. B. Holdings. As described above a village residential development is proposed for the site. It is proposed to remove woody vegetation not identified in this report for retention in the latter half of Buchanan Crescent, Ottawa, ON K1J 7V2 Tel (613) ; Fax (613)

2 Introduction The objectives of the preliminary tree study and conservation plan are: to produce a plan showing forested areas and smaller tree stands containing trees which warrant initial consideration for conservation measures as well as major groupings of other natural vegetation; to provide a general description of the wooded areas including species composition, age, vigour, soil drainage, topographic characteristics and degree of disturbance; to assess the existing health of the wooded areas, the existing and potential functions, if any, with respect to ecological features and aesthetics, and the sensitivity of such areas to changes in grades, drainage, sun and wind exposure and water table elevation; to provide a professional opinion on the priority for retention of any wooded areas; and, to review the concept plan to determine if appropriate opportunities for tree retention and planting exist and have been taken into consideration. Background Information The site is identified as Village on Schedule A of the 2003 City of Ottawa Official Plan. The central and west portions of the site are part of the southeast corner of the Metcalfe North Natural Area, identified as Natural Area 24 in the former Region of Ottawa-Carleton s Natural Environment System Strategy. This Natural Area was rated moderate overall, with one of the nine evaluation criteria, endangered, threatened and rare species, scored as high. Although much of the Natural is forested swamp wetland habitat, there are no evaluated Provincially significant wetlands, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest or environmental constraints, as identified on Schedule K of the Official Plan, in proximity to the site. The soils on the site are primarily well drained sandy loams. Rock was observed at the surface in many parts of the central-west cedar forest. The topography of the site is generally level. Colour aerial photography (2005) was used to assess the natural environment features in the general vicinity of the site. Field reviews of the site were conducted on May 8 th and 11 th, The Village of Metcalfe isolates the site from an environmental perspective to the south and east, with the west portion of the site continuous with natural areas to the west and north. Active agricultural lands are to the north of the central and east portion of the site proposed for development (Figure 1). The Cassidy Municipal Drain and associated riparian woody vegetation will be retained in the northeast corner of the site, on the west side of Eight Line Road. This channel represents the only aquatic habitat potential observed on the site, with sheet drainage to the adjacent lower lying areas occurring for the balance of the site. MUNCASTER ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INC. 2

3 Vegetation Communities Hay fields, shown as cultural meadows on Figure 1, cover most of the central and east portions of the site (Figure 1). Brome grass, reed canary grass, common dandelion, wild carrot, red clover, common milkweed, common burdock and red raspberry are common vegetation in the meadows. Several deciduous hedgerows separate the fields, with white ash the dominant tree species. The largest ash are mature stems up to 60cm diameter at breast height (dbh). Trembling aspen, sugar maple, Manitoba maple, basswood and white elm, up to 38cm dbh are among the ash, along with grey dogwood, red-osier dogwood, serviceberry, black currant, hawthorn, crabapple and common buckthorn shrubs. Most of the trees appear to be in generally good condition, with some of the white elms missing bark and many of the Manitoba maples showing poor form with angled trunks. A 40cm dbh black cherry west of Dow Street is in poor condition with a badly damaged trunk and broken limbs. An 80cm dbh white ash is in the middle of the field south of Andrew Simpson Drive. Manitoba maples, white cedars and Norway spruce are around an abandoned residence south of Andrew Simpson Drive and west of Eight Line Road. Hawthorn and glossy buckthorn are dominant in the cultural thicket habitat, with crabapple, common juniper and prickly ash well represented in areas. Slender willow is dominant in the northwest cultural thicket representation, with red-osier dogwood common. The habitat contains scattered small stems of trembling aspen, white pine and white elm up to 18cm dbh, along with smaller white cedars. Typical ground flora is poison ivy, common milkweed, heart-leaved aster and common strawberry. White cedars dominate the coniferous forest in the central-west portion of the site. The growth of cedars is very dense in many areas, minimizing the ground flora. The largest white cedars are in the range of 38cm dbh, with white spruce up to 40cm dbh also present. Deciduous stems include sugar maple and bur oak, with some mature sugar maples at the forest edges up to 46cm dbh. The maximum width of the forest is about 110 metres. Where present the ground flora has a relatively high richness including blue cohosh, red trillium, white trillium, wild ginger, wild lily-of-the-valley, white baneberry, false Solomon s-seal, trout lily, yellow violet and wooly blue violet. Black current, glossy buckthorn, common buckthorn and prickly gooseberry are common shrubs. The extent of buckthorn, an invasive, non-native shrub species, appears to be expanding. Ice storm and wind throw is extensive in portions of the coniferous forest, with logging and other damage to the trees high in the east-central portion of the forest. Fire pits and tree forts are present. The deciduous component is much greater in the southeast corner of the forest. Wildlife observed during the site surveys included northern leopard frog, woodchuck, American crow, American woodcock, downy woodpecker, black-capped chickadee, mourning dove, northern cardinal, American robin, American goldfinch, grey catbird, yellow warbler, European starling, red-winged blackbird, common grackle, song sparrow and white-throated sparrow. No butternut or other Species at Risk were observed on or adjacent to the site. The rare species identified in the site summary for the Metcalfe North Natural Area were not observed on the site, nor were the rare vegetation communities. MUNCASTER ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INC. 3

4 Recommendations As many trees as possible should be retained at the rear and sides of the village residential lots to provide wildlife and aesthetic value as well as a future source of seeds and regenerating stems. As the existing topography will be left in place as much as possible, it is estimated that less than forty percent of each lot will be disturbed for construction. Retention of the existing forest can also be enhanced by siting the homes as close to the roads as possible. This will provide contiguous areas of tree retention among several adjacent lots, adding to the aesthetic and wildlife value of the trees, as well as reducing the risk of potential impacts from sunscald and wind throw. As the lands adjacent to the portion of the site to be developed are not forested, the development will not create any new forest edge on adjacent lands. The east edge of the lands to be undisturbed in the west part of the site is thicket habitat rather than forested at the interface between the lots and the retained lands. In addition to the recommendations for tree protection identified above, the following specific trees, identified on Figure 1, are representative of larger trees in good condition and/or desired species that should be retained through siting of the building envelope and work areas on each lot. If these specific trees cannot be retained, similar alternatives are generally present. A. sugar maples up to 46cm dbh and white cedars in the range of 25cm dbh in the southwest portion of Lot 51; B. white cedar and balsam fir up to 33cm dbh in the southeast portion of Lot 52; C. sugar maple up to 40cm dbh and a 35cm dbh black cherry in the southwest corner of Lot 42; D. sugar maples up to 35cm dbh in the north-south hedgerow in the south portion of Lot 41; E. sugar maples up to 50cm dbh in the north-south hedgerow in the southeast portion of Lot 37; F. sugar maples up to 40cm dbh in the north-south hedgerow in the west portion of Lot 36; G. white cedars up to 30cm dbh in the south portion of Lot 35; H. white cedars up to 38cm dbh in the northwest portion of Lot 56; I. a 40cm dbh white spruce and smaller white cedars in the north-central portion of Lot 54; J. a 50cm dbh sugar maple in the southeast corner of Lot 60; and, K. sugar maples up to 32cm dbh in the north portion of the lot line between Lots 49 and 50. The above tree retention can be enhanced through: minimizing the extent of woody vegetation removal as much as possible; transplanting regenerating white cedar and white pine stems from the cultural thickets where they will be in conflict with future building envelopes; and, MUNCASTER ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INC. 4

5 pruning of branches on trees to be retained to improve their condition and anticipated longevity. The trees and belts of trees to be retained are to be protected by placing sturdy fencing along the dripline of the protected vegetation. The fencing is to be installed a minimum distance of ten times the diameter of the tree from the tree trunk or the dripline edge, whichever is greater. No grading or activities that may cause soil compaction such as heavy machinery traffic and stockpiling of material are permitted within the fencing. No machinery maintenance or refuelling, storage of construction materials or stockpiling of earth is to occur within five metres of the outer edge of the dripline of the trees to be retained and protected. The existing grade is not to be raised or lowered within the fencing and no digging is permitted within the fencing. The root system, trunk or branches of the trees to be retained must not be damaged. Exhaust fumes from all equipment during future construction will not be directed towards the canopy of the retained trees. If any roots of trees to be retained are exposed during site alterations, the roots shall be immediately reburied with soil or covered with filter cloth or woodchips and kept moist until the roots can be buried permanently. There are no specific sensitivities for plantings on the site. The Landscape Plan for the site should include native species where possible including a mix of coniferous and deciduous species such as sugar maple, tamarack, white spruce, red oak, bur oak, butternut and basswood. Schedule of Proposed Works It is proposed to remove the vegetation not identified for retention and protection above in the latter part of 2009, after the breeding bird season. Forestry Services of the City of Ottawa is to be contacted after the protective fencing is installed and at least 24 hours prior to any tree removal so that Staff can verify the fencing has been properly constructed. To protect breeding birds, no tree or shrub removal should occur between May 15 th and July 10 th, unless a nesting survey conducted within five days of the woody vegetation removal identifies no breeding activity. Conclusion The majority of the site is cultural meadow or cultural thicket habitat on former agricultural lands and hay fields. Deciduous hedgerows separate the fields and a coniferous forest is in the central portion of the site. The coniferous forest is impacted by logging, narrow width, ice storm damage, fire pits, tree forts and wind throw. No high quality specimen trees, valued woodlands, natural areas, rare communities, significant wetlands, steep slopes or valleys were observed on the site. The west portion of the site will not be disturbed, retaining the less disturbed portion of the site and the portions contiguous with the core portions of the Metcalfe North Natural Area. The balance of the site is isolated from a natural environment perspective by the adjacent developed Village of Metcalfe and agricultural activity. The only watercourse in the vicinity of the site and its riparian corridor will be protected. MUNCASTER ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INC. 5

6 Examples of trees to be considered for retention have been provided in this Plan. These trees represent a range of size classes of the more desirable species on the site. Minimizing the work areas and careful siting of the building envelopes will allow for significant tree retention on the site. Portions of the existing central forest and associated wildlife habitat can be retained at the rear and sides of the Village residential lots This Plan identifies many important mitigation measures for protection of the trees to be retained and protected. Please call if you have any questions on this Tree Conservation Report. Yours Sincerely, MUNCASTER ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INC. Bernie Muncaster, M.Sc. Principal \scmetcalfetree MUNCASTER ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INC. 6

7